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.

Without an inquiry, suspending someone isn’t democracy it’s arbitrary power. And acting on a complaint without even verifying the complainant’s authenticity only makes it worse. So a government officer gets suspended simply for questioning or seeking clarity from the CM? That reflects intolerance, not leadership more authoritarian than democratic.... show more

Rattan Dhillon

21,025 subscribers

11,369 Aufrufe • vor 3 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

In Ontario, doctors are being prosecuted. Not for breaking laws, but for disagreeing with public health policy. Here’s the shocking part: - The “rule” isn’t in legislation. - It’s not a government directive. - It’s just a statement on the College’s website, endorsed by the registrar. Yet doctors are facing investigations and discipline as if it were law. Normally, an investigation requires reasonable and probable grounds of actual misconduct. But here, the College is treating refusal to follow a guideline (a non-binding statement) as professional misconduct. Even more disturbing, they claim the right to prosecute without even referencing the guideline in the investigation order. This isn’t regulation. It’s arbitrary power dressed up as law.

In Ontario, doctors are being prosecuted. Not for breaking laws, but for disagreeing with public health policy. Here’s the shocking part: - The “rule” isn’t in legislation. - It’s not a government directive. - It’s just a statement on the College’s website, endorsed by the registrar. Yet doctors are facing investigations and discipline as if it were law. Normally, an investigation requires reasonable and probable grounds of actual misconduct. But here, the College is treating refusal to follow a guideline (a non-binding statement) as professional misconduct. Even more disturbing, they claim the right to prosecute without even referencing the guideline in the investigation order. This isn’t regulation. It’s arbitrary power dressed up as law.

National Citizens Inquiry (NCI | CeNC)

13,011 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

You Can’t Legislate Trust What unfolded in the Legislature yesterday was more than an exchange - it was a glimpse into how this Wildrose government operates. For them, it’s not about dialogue or cooperation - it’s about dominance and control. When faced with challenge or criticism, they reach for the heaviest hand possible. It’s all they know. They resist control from others but embrace control for themselves - power without restraint. These aren’t isolated moments; they reflect a pattern of governance unbecoming of any organization that claims to serve the public. Because the true measure of power isn’t how much of it you hold - it’s how you use it. #abpoli #ableg #abpc #albertapc

You Can’t Legislate Trust What unfolded in the Legislature yesterday was more than an exchange - it was a glimpse into how this Wildrose government operates. For them, it’s not about dialogue or cooperation - it’s about dominance and control. When faced with challenge or criticism, they reach for the heaviest hand possible. It’s all they know. They resist control from others but embrace control for themselves - power without restraint. These aren’t isolated moments; they reflect a pattern of governance unbecoming of any organization that claims to serve the public. Because the true measure of power isn’t how much of it you hold - it’s how you use it. #abpoli #ableg #abpc #albertapc

Peter Guthrie

32,658 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

For once Sky has it spot on: ‘A thumping majority without a thumping share of the vote’ Starmer has less votes than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 because he only offers more of the same It’s not just a bad day for democracy. It’s a dangerous day for democracy.

For once Sky has it spot on: ‘A thumping majority without a thumping share of the vote’ Starmer has less votes than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 because he only offers more of the same It’s not just a bad day for democracy. It’s a dangerous day for democracy.

Howard Beckett

518,334 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨WATCH: Starmer wants to rejoin the single market He tells Jessica from the Guardian that he will collaborate more closely with the EU on an “economic” basis. He is UNDOING a democratic vote without a mandate. As with Digital IDs, rejoining the single market was not in Labour’s manifesto. We are witnessing an authoritarian government in action!

🚨WATCH: Starmer wants to rejoin the single market He tells Jessica from the Guardian that he will collaborate more closely with the EU on an “economic” basis. He is UNDOING a democratic vote without a mandate. As with Digital IDs, rejoining the single market was not in Labour’s manifesto. We are witnessing an authoritarian government in action!

Sedd

209,022 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Due process isn’t just “a court exists” or “they know they broke the law.” It’s the constitutional guarantee that before the government takes away someone’s liberty, it must follow fair procedures. That includes: •Clear notice of charges •Officers identifying themselves •A neutral judge •Access to legal counsel •The right to present evidence & challenge the government’s evidence •A written decision, with the chance to appeal The Constitution says “no person” shall be deprived of liberty without due process, not just citizens, not just when it’s convenient. Without due process and proper safeguards, it’s not justice, it’s an abuse of government power, and it’s antithetical to the Constitution. Full Story Here:

Due process isn’t just “a court exists” or “they know they broke the law.” It’s the constitutional guarantee that before the government takes away someone’s liberty, it must follow fair procedures. That includes: •Clear notice of charges •Officers identifying themselves •A neutral judge •Access to legal counsel •The right to present evidence & challenge the government’s evidence •A written decision, with the chance to appeal The Constitution says “no person” shall be deprived of liberty without due process, not just citizens, not just when it’s convenient. Without due process and proper safeguards, it’s not justice, it’s an abuse of government power, and it’s antithetical to the Constitution. Full Story Here:

Joe Walsh

21,630 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The health of a republic depends not only on elections being held, but on citizens trusting that institutions act fairly, transparently, and without discrimination. When people believe that voter registration, identity verification, or access to essential rights can be affected by administrative errors or arbitrary decisions, confidence in democracy inevitably weakens. A democracy must ensure that every eligible citizen has a genuine opportunity to vote and that any disputes are resolved quickly, transparently, and with due process. If bureaucratic procedures become so burdensome that they interfere with fundamental rights or essential public services, the state risks appearing more punitive than protective. Institutions derive their legitimacy from public trust, and that trust depends on fairness, accountability, and equal treatment under the law—not on selective or inconsistent application of rules. The strength of a constitutional republic is measured not by how efficiently it exercises power, but by how carefully it safeguards the rights and dignity of every individual, especially when mistakes occur. Protecting civil liberties, ensuring prompt remedies, and maintaining institutional neutrality are indispensable for preserving democratic legitimacy and the rule of law.

The health of a republic depends not only on elections being held, but on citizens trusting that institutions act fairly, transparently, and without discrimination. When people believe that voter registration, identity verification, or access to essential rights can be affected by administrative errors or arbitrary decisions, confidence in democracy inevitably weakens. A democracy must ensure that every eligible citizen has a genuine opportunity to vote and that any disputes are resolved quickly, transparently, and with due process. If bureaucratic procedures become so burdensome that they interfere with fundamental rights or essential public services, the state risks appearing more punitive than protective. Institutions derive their legitimacy from public trust, and that trust depends on fairness, accountability, and equal treatment under the law—not on selective or inconsistent application of rules. The strength of a constitutional republic is measured not by how efficiently it exercises power, but by how carefully it safeguards the rights and dignity of every individual, especially when mistakes occur. Protecting civil liberties, ensuring prompt remedies, and maintaining institutional neutrality are indispensable for preserving democratic legitimacy and the rule of law.

Ashok Dadhwal

13,045 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Here's a question for Senator Chris Van Hollen from Patty Morin: "Why are we not protecting the American citizens, it’s just common sense. Why are we not protecting our children?" "To have a senator from Maryland who didn’t even acknowledge, or barely acknowledged, my daughter and the brutal death that she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother so that he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to bring back and someone that’s not even an American citizen." "Why does that person have more right than I do, or my daughter or my grandchildren?"

Here's a question for Senator Chris Van Hollen from Patty Morin: "Why are we not protecting the American citizens, it’s just common sense. Why are we not protecting our children?" "To have a senator from Maryland who didn’t even acknowledge, or barely acknowledged, my daughter and the brutal death that she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother so that he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to bring back and someone that’s not even an American citizen." "Why does that person have more right than I do, or my daughter or my grandchildren?"

Gunther Eagleman™

1,328,093 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#BREAKING: Velshi: "We all know by now, that the Republican Party is no longer a functioning political party in America. It is a fully captured vessel of authoritarianism, which makes it even more vital that the Democratic Party rise to this moment in defense of our democracy. But whether national Democratic leadership is unwilling, or simply unable to do so, they are largely NOT rising to this moment."😳

#BREAKING: Velshi: "We all know by now, that the Republican Party is no longer a functioning political party in America. It is a fully captured vessel of authoritarianism, which makes it even more vital that the Democratic Party rise to this moment in defense of our democracy. But whether national Democratic leadership is unwilling, or simply unable to do so, they are largely NOT rising to this moment."😳

Emoluments Clause

89,174 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Can the police stop you on the road and tell you that you need their permission to enter or leave a city? As a citizen of India, you have a fundamental right to move freely throughout the country under Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution. A police officer cannot ordinarily restrict your movement merely on verbal instructions. Such a restriction must be backed by a valid law, government notification, executive order, or court direction. If an officer unlawfully stops you and prevents you from entering or leaving a city without legal authority, you can: 1. Ask for the legal provision or written order. 2. Record and preserve evidence. 3. File a complaint before senior police authorities. 4. Seek a departmental inquiry. 5. Approach the High Court for violation of fundamental - Legal Consequences for the Officer If the action is found to be arbitrary, unlawful, or an abuse of official authority, the officer may face: 1. Departmental inquiry. 2. Disciplinary proceedings. 3. Adverse service record entries. 4. Suspension in serious cases. 5. Judicial scrutiny by constitutional courts. 6. Directions or observations against the officer by competent authorities or courts. Remember, police powers come from law, not personal discretion.

Can the police stop you on the road and tell you that you need their permission to enter or leave a city? As a citizen of India, you have a fundamental right to move freely throughout the country under Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution. A police officer cannot ordinarily restrict your movement merely on verbal instructions. Such a restriction must be backed by a valid law, government notification, executive order, or court direction. If an officer unlawfully stops you and prevents you from entering or leaving a city without legal authority, you can: 1. Ask for the legal provision or written order. 2. Record and preserve evidence. 3. File a complaint before senior police authorities. 4. Seek a departmental inquiry. 5. Approach the High Court for violation of fundamental - Legal Consequences for the Officer If the action is found to be arbitrary, unlawful, or an abuse of official authority, the officer may face: 1. Departmental inquiry. 2. Disciplinary proceedings. 3. Adverse service record entries. 4. Suspension in serious cases. 5. Judicial scrutiny by constitutional courts. 6. Directions or observations against the officer by competent authorities or courts. Remember, police powers come from law, not personal discretion.

copwatch.in

16,796 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨An Arrogant Prick🚨 When Hakeem Jeffries says he “doesn’t give a damn about your criticism” and doubles down on heated rhetoric toward Donald Trump, that’s not leadership, that’s escalation. You can oppose someone strongly without pouring gasoline on the fire. Leaders are supposed to lower the temperature, not spike it for headlines and applause. If you’re in a position of power and you openly dismiss accountability while leaning into aggressive rhetoric, don’t act surprised when people start questioning your judgment. Disagree all you want. Debate hard. But acting like criticism doesn’t matter while cranking up the intensity isn’t strength, it’s recklessness.

🚨An Arrogant Prick🚨 When Hakeem Jeffries says he “doesn’t give a damn about your criticism” and doubles down on heated rhetoric toward Donald Trump, that’s not leadership, that’s escalation. You can oppose someone strongly without pouring gasoline on the fire. Leaders are supposed to lower the temperature, not spike it for headlines and applause. If you’re in a position of power and you openly dismiss accountability while leaning into aggressive rhetoric, don’t act surprised when people start questioning your judgment. Disagree all you want. Debate hard. But acting like criticism doesn’t matter while cranking up the intensity isn’t strength, it’s recklessness.

Jack Danger

21,884 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

“May I now be excused, Chairperson…?” This part! 🤦🏿‍♀️ After staying away, she is forced back into the inquiry, only to immediately insist on being excused again. What makes it worse is that while the Chair is still considering her request, she keeps pushing, without making any formal application or following any process. She simply decides, on her own terms, that the proceedings should end there. Until 2026. #Nkabindeenquiry #NkabindeInquiry

“May I now be excused, Chairperson…?” This part! 🤦🏿‍♀️ After staying away, she is forced back into the inquiry, only to immediately insist on being excused again. What makes it worse is that while the Chair is still considering her request, she keeps pushing, without making any formal application or following any process. She simply decides, on her own terms, that the proceedings should end there. Until 2026. #Nkabindeenquiry #NkabindeInquiry

Zintoh Mhlanga

20,287 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Today Labor and the Greens voted against holding a Royal Commission into the government handling of Covid-19. This is despite Albanese saying he would hold a Royal Commission and Senator Gallagher saying an inquiry should be held. When the Coalition was in power there was an ongoing Senate inquiry into Covid that Labor pushed for, yet now they are in power they don’t want to analyse the government overreach. This just proves that Labor were more than happy to weaponise Covid to gain power and didn’t actually care about the people. #auspol

Today Labor and the Greens voted against holding a Royal Commission into the government handling of Covid-19. This is despite Albanese saying he would hold a Royal Commission and Senator Gallagher saying an inquiry should be held. When the Coalition was in power there was an ongoing Senate inquiry into Covid that Labor pushed for, yet now they are in power they don’t want to analyse the government overreach. This just proves that Labor were more than happy to weaponise Covid to gain power and didn’t actually care about the people. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

224,092 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

VIDEO | Kolkata, West Bengal: TMC MP Mahua Moitra says, "Every single day since this TMC government fell, not a day has gone by without a TMC minister or leader being arrested. Whenever someone is arrested, the police cannot simply parade them around on the streets without a trial. This is beyond the limits of the law, and the government is answerable for this." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

VIDEO | Kolkata, West Bengal: TMC MP Mahua Moitra says, "Every single day since this TMC government fell, not a day has gone by without a TMC minister or leader being arrested. Whenever someone is arrested, the police cannot simply parade them around on the streets without a trial. This is beyond the limits of the law, and the government is answerable for this." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

30,359 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Opinion: For a Government, it’s easy to make 10,000 or even more people groove & dance at a time. But, the toughest part is getting the support of the public. CM Himanta Biswa Sarma got that. Unreal scenes at Sarusajai. What hype! What celebration! Critics complain about Adani, but this time, it isn’t anyone of them. But young Assamese earning from the Assam Government for something that the community will embrace for years! Kudos!!

Opinion: For a Government, it’s easy to make 10,000 or even more people groove & dance at a time. But, the toughest part is getting the support of the public. CM Himanta Biswa Sarma got that. Unreal scenes at Sarusajai. What hype! What celebration! Critics complain about Adani, but this time, it isn’t anyone of them. But young Assamese earning from the Assam Government for something that the community will embrace for years! Kudos!!

aboyob bhuyan

55,486 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

BREAKING: British MP Andrew Bridgen Confronts Parliament, Calls for an End to the Boosters and a Full Public Inquiry into How Every Agency Failed to Protect the Public "The longer it takes our government to accept the truth — the more people will be harmed and die. ... The government narrative of 'safe and effective' is in tatters, as evidenced by their own data. ... We have surely now sacrificed enough of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed to satisfy anyone. I, therefore, call on the government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster program and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine harms but how every agency and institution set up to protect the public interest have failed so abysmally in their duties."

BREAKING: British MP Andrew Bridgen Confronts Parliament, Calls for an End to the Boosters and a Full Public Inquiry into How Every Agency Failed to Protect the Public "The longer it takes our government to accept the truth — the more people will be harmed and die. ... The government narrative of 'safe and effective' is in tatters, as evidenced by their own data. ... We have surely now sacrificed enough of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed to satisfy anyone. I, therefore, call on the government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster program and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine harms but how every agency and institution set up to protect the public interest have failed so abysmally in their duties."

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

2,002,341 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Where did the idea that the electorate can’t be trusted come from? It came from the experience of Germany under the Nazis. Those who rebuilt the country after the war concluded that because the Nazis had originally been installed in government in an election, so constraints needed to be placed on the ability of the people to actually affect the course of government, and institutional power would instead be invested in enlightened people like experts and lawyers. There’s an even a term for it; no longer ‘democracy’, but ‘liberal democracy’, perish the thought that voters might prefer a conservative democracy. And so in Germany you have the spectacle of the champions of this liberal democracy mulling a ban on the biggest opposition political party in the country. Is that democratic? #DavidStarkey #DemocracyDebate #LiberalDemocracy #GermanPolitics #PoliticalHistory #FreeSpeech #EuropeanPolitics

Where did the idea that the electorate can’t be trusted come from? It came from the experience of Germany under the Nazis. Those who rebuilt the country after the war concluded that because the Nazis had originally been installed in government in an election, so constraints needed to be placed on the ability of the people to actually affect the course of government, and institutional power would instead be invested in enlightened people like experts and lawyers. There’s an even a term for it; no longer ‘democracy’, but ‘liberal democracy’, perish the thought that voters might prefer a conservative democracy. And so in Germany you have the spectacle of the champions of this liberal democracy mulling a ban on the biggest opposition political party in the country. Is that democratic? #DavidStarkey #DemocracyDebate #LiberalDemocracy #GermanPolitics #PoliticalHistory #FreeSpeech #EuropeanPolitics

David Starkey

14,545 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

They still don’t get it. The major political parties are more concerned with clinging to power than acting on the issues that matter to Australians. For them, our communities are a means to an end; not an end in itself. Independence IS the act of doing politics differently, doing it better, getting results. On the issues that matter, Independence is the difference. #auspol

They still don’t get it. The major political parties are more concerned with clinging to power than acting on the issues that matter to Australians. For them, our communities are a means to an end; not an end in itself. Independence IS the act of doing politics differently, doing it better, getting results. On the issues that matter, Independence is the difference. #auspol

Zoe Daniel (she/her)

35,150 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

One of the issues the judge focused on in this case was that the officer took the accused’s cell phone after placing him under arrest. The judge viewed that as part of an unlawful detention - even though the phone wasn’t searched, accessed, or used as evidence. It was simply held by the officer, as is routine in police custody. But let’s break that down in real-world terms: when someone is arrested and placed in the back of a police cruiser, their personal belongings (phones, wallets, keys, etc.) are always temporarily taken away. This isn’t unusual. It’s done for safety and control. Officers need to prevent the person in custody from using their phone to coordinate interference, delete evidence, or try to flee. They also need to ensure nothing in their possession could be used to hurt themselves or someone else. This is standard procedure during an arrest, especially when someone is handcuffed and in the back of a locked cruiser. Yet despite this, the judge treated the removal of the phone as a sign the officer violated the accused’s Charter rights. The court argued that since there was no lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act to take the phone, it contributed to the detention being considered arbitrary and unreasonable, even though the phone was never actually searched. What makes this even more confusing is that Justice Renu Mandhane herself spoke publicly in 2016 about this exact issue - about the difference between seizing a phone during arrest and searching it without a warrant. She acknowledged back then that seizing a phone is one thing, but it’s the searching of it that raises serious privacy concerns under the Charter. That distinction was clear in her public comments, but now, from the bench, she ruled that even the simple act of seizing the phone, without any search, was problematic. This case shows the growing disconnect between what’s legally expected in court and what officers are trained to do in the field. Even when they follow routine, safety-based procedures, they’re being second-guessed by the courts based not on what they did wrong, but how it might be perceived. If you want to read the full court ruling for yourself, it’s available on CanLII here:

One of the issues the judge focused on in this case was that the officer took the accused’s cell phone after placing him under arrest. The judge viewed that as part of an unlawful detention - even though the phone wasn’t searched, accessed, or used as evidence. It was simply held by the officer, as is routine in police custody. But let’s break that down in real-world terms: when someone is arrested and placed in the back of a police cruiser, their personal belongings (phones, wallets, keys, etc.) are always temporarily taken away. This isn’t unusual. It’s done for safety and control. Officers need to prevent the person in custody from using their phone to coordinate interference, delete evidence, or try to flee. They also need to ensure nothing in their possession could be used to hurt themselves or someone else. This is standard procedure during an arrest, especially when someone is handcuffed and in the back of a locked cruiser. Yet despite this, the judge treated the removal of the phone as a sign the officer violated the accused’s Charter rights. The court argued that since there was no lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act to take the phone, it contributed to the detention being considered arbitrary and unreasonable, even though the phone was never actually searched. What makes this even more confusing is that Justice Renu Mandhane herself spoke publicly in 2016 about this exact issue - about the difference between seizing a phone during arrest and searching it without a warrant. She acknowledged back then that seizing a phone is one thing, but it’s the searching of it that raises serious privacy concerns under the Charter. That distinction was clear in her public comments, but now, from the bench, she ruled that even the simple act of seizing the phone, without any search, was problematic. This case shows the growing disconnect between what’s legally expected in court and what officers are trained to do in the field. Even when they follow routine, safety-based procedures, they’re being second-guessed by the courts based not on what they did wrong, but how it might be perceived. If you want to read the full court ruling for yourself, it’s available on CanLII here:

Ron Chhinzer

27,356 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

UCP - Changing the Rules of Democracy When a government rewrites the rules, every Albertan should pay attention. Bill 14 isn’t housekeeping. It’s a sweeping omnibus bill that reshapes core democratic safeguards and centralizes political power. Among its most significant changes: •Bans certain political terms including “conservative” - blocking long-standing political identities from being used and limiting competition under the guise of preventing “voter confusion.” •Grants the Justice Minister immunity from Law Society discipline for actions taken in office - an extraordinary exemption for the province’s top legal authority. •Moves control of citizen-initiated referendums and petitions away from the independent Chief Electoral Officer and into the hands of cabinet, reducing oversight and even allowing government to discontinue active court challenges. •Expands ministerial powers over legal and electoral processes in ways that weaken institutional checks and balances. These aren’t small adjustments - they are structural shifts that affect fairness, accountability, and how Albertans participate in democracy. Election laws should build trust, protect voters, and ensure a level playing field - not consolidate power. Albertans deserve rules that put people first and a government that respects democratic norms, not rewrites them when convenient. #ableg #abpoli #alberta #abpc #albertaparty

UCP - Changing the Rules of Democracy When a government rewrites the rules, every Albertan should pay attention. Bill 14 isn’t housekeeping. It’s a sweeping omnibus bill that reshapes core democratic safeguards and centralizes political power. Among its most significant changes: •Bans certain political terms including “conservative” - blocking long-standing political identities from being used and limiting competition under the guise of preventing “voter confusion.” •Grants the Justice Minister immunity from Law Society discipline for actions taken in office - an extraordinary exemption for the province’s top legal authority. •Moves control of citizen-initiated referendums and petitions away from the independent Chief Electoral Officer and into the hands of cabinet, reducing oversight and even allowing government to discontinue active court challenges. •Expands ministerial powers over legal and electoral processes in ways that weaken institutional checks and balances. These aren’t small adjustments - they are structural shifts that affect fairness, accountability, and how Albertans participate in democracy. Election laws should build trust, protect voters, and ensure a level playing field - not consolidate power. Albertans deserve rules that put people first and a government that respects democratic norms, not rewrites them when convenient. #ableg #abpoli #alberta #abpc #albertaparty

Peter Guthrie

15,936 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

BROWN: Yes or no -- should individuals convicted of violence against the enforcement that protects you on a daily basis be eligible for compensation from the government? REP. BYRON DONALDS: Well, it's more detailed than that BROWN: So you're not ruling it out

BROWN: Yes or no -- should individuals convicted of violence against the enforcement that protects you on a daily basis be eligible for compensation from the government? REP. BYRON DONALDS: Well, it's more detailed than that BROWN: So you're not ruling it out

Aaron Rupar

44,401 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten