reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The gendarmerie intervened against farmers who came to prevent the slaughter of 200 cows. Facing the gendarmes and armored vehicles, the farmers blocked roads and burned straw to slow the security forces' advance. In response, he received tear gas and GM2L grenades.

"Can you clarify what kind of protest, president Trump does support or find acceptable?" "President absolutely supports peaceful protest." "He supports the first amendment." "He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard." "He does not support violence of any kind." "He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job." "It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not." "Unfortunately, for Democrats, that line has not been made clear, and they've allowed this unrest and this violence to continue, and the president has had to step in." "What question?" "So if there were peaceful protests on Saturday for the militant parade, president Trump would allow that?" "Of course, the president supports peaceful protests." "What a stupid question. Raquel."

Nous n'avons jamais perturbé les réunions de nos adversaires, ni les violé, ni empêché leurs conférences de presse. Nous n'avons jamais manifesté contre les résultats des élections. L'extrême gauche, en revanche, manifeste, brûle, casse, et intimide ses adversaires. Cela doit cesser car cela menace la démocratie. Translation: We have never disrupted our opponents' meetings, violated them, or prevented their press conferences. We have never protested against election results. The far left, on the other hand, protests, burns, breaks, and intimidates its opponents. This must stop as it undermines democracy.

The Trump administration is adopting a spirit and rhetoric of defiance, but hasn't explicitly stated an intention to defy court orders. They may fear that openly defying court orders would trigger a strong reaction from the American people. Trump exemplified this spirit of defiance on TV, but stated that they will not defy a court order. A government filing is due at noon, which will indicate whether they will escalate or de-escalate the conflict. This case is not about gang members.

Gardons notre calme et attendons de voir ce qui se passe. Il est crucial d'appliquer nos lois en Europe, surtout lorsque celles-ci risquent d'être contournées. Si nous ne les faisons pas respecter, cela pourrait mener à des interférences. Nous avons déjà agi en Roumanie, et il sera nécessaire de le faire en Allemagne si la situation l'exige. --- Let’s stay calm and wait to see what happens. It is crucial to enforce our laws in Europe, especially when they are at risk of being circumvented. If we do not uphold them, it could lead to interference. We have already acted in Romania, and it will be necessary to do so in Germany if the situation requires it.

Les agriculteurs tentent de forcer les barrages pour approcher Emmanuel Macron au salon de l'agriculture. Des affrontements se produisent, avec des forces de l'ordre qui ont du mal à contenir la foule déterminée. Des gaz lacrymogènes sont utilisés. Certains agriculteurs parviennent à passer malgré la présence des gendarmes mobiles. Les agriculteurs expriment leur désir d'entendre des réponses concrètes du président. Ils resteront présents tout le week-end. Les tensions persistent avec des huées constantes.

There may be situations where one side attempts to secure power by suppressing votes, politicizing the military, or using the judiciary and criminal justice system against opponents. In such cases, we cannot remain passive or uncertain. When a line has been crossed, it is essential to take a firm stand.

President Harris stated that Trump would turn the US military against the American public to promote his agenda. However, the Biden-Harris administration allegedly enacted a directive two weeks prior that changed the law to make it legal for the U.S. military to use lethal force against American citizens on American soil. The speaker claims that under this directive, the U.S. military can legally shoot and kill Americans who engage in political protest because they disagree with White House policies. The speaker emphasizes that this initiative came from the Democratic party, not during the Trump administration, and is the reason they left the party.

The United States military, including Secretary of Defense Miller and General Milley, discussed locking down Washington DC due to concerns of violence at the Capitol on January 6th. They considered revoking permits for demonstrations on Capitol Hill. However, I, the one who issues these permits, was not informed. Instead, on January 4th, Miller restricted the National Guard from carrying any weapons or civil disobedience equipment that could be used during the anticipated demonstrations or violence. This decision seems contradictory, as the military expressed concern about potential violence while limiting the National Guard's ability to respond aggressively.

The Biden administration has introduced a concerning directive, DOD 5240.01, which reportedly grants the Pentagon unprecedented authority to use lethal force against Americans protesting government policies on U.S. soil. This marks a significant shift in military power and raises alarming questions about its implications. The directive has sparked widespread discussion and fear, as it allows the military to potentially engage in deadly force against citizens for the first time in history.

There were extreme right-wing militias that needed to be condemned, and the police were firm in apprehending them. In Romans-sur-Isère, two units of mobile forces were mobilized and managed to arrest these militants, who were subsequently given significant sentences. This was crucial in preventing a scenario similar to what happened in Ireland. The firmness of France's response helped avoid a small civil war. Yesterday, at my request, nine extreme right-wing militants were arrested in Lyon by the prefect. I will not allow any militia, whether extreme right-wing or any other radical group, to take the place of prosecutors and police in enforcing the law.

There are two types of forces: domestic soil and the National Guard. The president deploys the National Guard in DC, but governors deploy them in other states unless the president invokes the Insurrectionary Act. The speaker suggests a campaign urging Democratic governors to commit to deploying the National Guard only to protect people from white supremacists and rogue police, not against the people. The speaker, who has been anti-military, believes this is preferable to civilians facing armed conflict. Drawing on a past success in the 80s where a governor refused to send the National Guard to Central America, the speaker suggests engaging with National Guard members, who are often working-class, and believes they may be less entrenched than the police. The goal is to consider how the National Guard might be deployed on behalf of the people instead of against them.

The discussion centers on a legal review underway at the Department of the Navy regarding Senator Kelly’s conduct and the related public commentary by press secretary Kingsley Wilson, which labeled the senator’s actions traitorous and seditious. The speakers emphasize that any assessment must go beyond the video itself and consider the totality of the circumstances and the legal framework. Speaker 1 argues that the video misstates the law. Under the UCMJ, orders are presumed lawful, and service members have an obligation to disobey only manifestly unlawful orders. The phrase “we’re just saying what the UCMJ says” is problematic because it does not define what constitutes a manifestly unlawful order. The speaker notes that the video’s rhetoric includes claims that National Guard deployments and Venezuela strikes are unlawful, which creates a debate about legality but does not automatically render such orders unlawful. Using the National Guard example, if a soldier is ordered to deploy to Chicago, some politicians may deem it unlawful while others do not. The order is presumed lawful under the ACMJ (likely a reference to a military acronym), and the soldier is obligated to follow it. If the soldier refuses, they face court martial. However, if the soldier is out on patrol and the platoon commander orders, for example, to shoot a protester in the head, that would be a manifestly unlawful order, universally recognized as unlawful. The concern is that the video lowers the standard for disobeying orders by leaving interpretation open and then supplying a normative frame via additional rhetoric. Speaker 1 says the review will consider the totality of the circumstances and the feasibility of options, including the implications of recalling a sitting senator to active duty. There are significant separation-of-powers issues: under the Constitution, one cannot hold office in two branches simultaneously, so if a sitting senator were recalled to active duty, they would have to resign from Congress or from the military. In that scenario, military precedence would prevail, forcing a resignation from Congress or the Senate. The Navy’s leadership, including General Bly (the Judge Advocate General of the Navy), is anticipated to be deeply involved in evaluating these factors. Speaker 0 notes a potential immunity angle, suggesting that if the same conduct occurred to someone without protection but under recall and military justice, the analysis might differ. Speaker 1 adds that pursuing this route in district court could yield an order declaring members of Congress immune from certain prosecutions or actions. Overall, the discussion highlights the legal tests for unlawful orders, the potential implications of recalling a senator, separation-of-powers considerations, and possible immunity issues that could arise in litigation.

General Mark Milley's portrait was recently removed from the Pentagon, a rare move for a 40-year military veteran. This action followed tensions with Donald Trump, who Milley served closely as his military adviser. Milley expressed concerns about his safety and the implications of his role during politically charged events, emphasizing that military loyalty should be to the Constitution, not the president. His removal was publicly supported by Trump’s advisor's wife, who criticized Milley. This situation raises questions about the message sent to military personnel regarding loyalty and adherence to the code of conduct, as character and judgment are essential virtues in the military. The discussion highlights the importance of upholding military ethics and the challenges faced when political loyalty is prioritized over constitutional duty.

Protesters in black, armed with hammers and bricks, clashed with police officers in riot gear using flashbang grenades and pepper spray near the inauguration route. Chaos ensued as officers sprayed pepper spray, affecting the audio technician. The scene was just outside the security perimeter. The speaker has anti-establishment views but does not condone the violence. Translation (if needed): Protesters clashed with police near the inauguration route, resulting in chaos and clashes with law enforcement. The speaker, who has anti-establishment views, does not support the violence.

Des militaires russes capturés par des soldats ukrainiens ont été maltraités et interrogés dans un hangar. Chaque soldat qui descendait d'une fourgonnette et ne répondait pas aux questions se faisait tirer dans le genou. Ceux qui prétendaient être officiers étaient abattus. Des vidéos attestent de ces actes violents. Translation: Russian soldiers captured by Ukrainian soldiers were mistreated and interrogated in a hangar. Each soldier who got out of a van and did not answer the questions was shot in the knee. Those who claimed to be officers were shot. Videos confirm these violent acts.

Donald Trump, without consulting California law enforcement, commandeered 2,000 of the state's national partners to deploy them illegally and for no reason. This abuse of power by the president inflamed the situation, putting people, officers, and the national guard in danger. That's when the downward spiral began.

President Harris stated that Trump would turn the US military against the American public to promote his agenda. However, the Biden-Harris administration allegedly enacted a directive two weeks ago that changes the law, making it legal for the U.S. military to use lethal force against American citizens on American soil. Under this directive, the U.S. military can legally shoot and kill Americans who engage in political protest because they disagree with White House policies. This initiative came from the Democratic party, not during the Trump administration.

**French Summary:** La France souhaite l'arrêt des exportations d'armes utilisées sur les théâtres de guerre. D'autres dirigeants partagent ce souhait. C'est considéré comme le seul moyen d'action possible actuellement. **English Translation:** France is calling for a halt to arms exports used in war zones. Other leaders share this desire. This is considered the only possible lever for action at present.

I requested the National Guard urgently to come to Capitol Hill. I spoke with Pentagon officials to get approval. During the call, I emphasized the urgency of the situation, but was told they didn't like the optics of having the National Guard present.

Once there was a law proposed by Darmanin, I'm not sure where it stands now, that would punish scientifically or medically stating something contrary to the government with a fine of 15,000 euros or imprisonment. It's quite something. It's as if they were considering silencing those who disagreed with the government at any given moment. I don't think we've ever had constraints or obligations to only communicate the official version of science in our country's history. It's reached an unimaginable level of dictatorship. This existed in Gaullist countries under Stalin. Translation: Once there was a law proposed by Darmanin, I'm not sure where it stands now, that would punish scientifically or medically stating something contrary to the government with a fine of 15,000 euros or imprisonment. It's quite something. It's as if they were considering silencing those who disagreed with the government at any given moment. I don't think we've ever had constraints or obligations to only communicate the official version of science in our country's history. It's reached an unimaginable level of dictatorship. This existed in Gaullist countries under Stalin.

Trudeau announced that the Canadian Armed Forces can now be deployed against civilians, a move criticized by some. This action would not be accepted in the United States. Spread the word about this concerning decision.

L'article 176, qui permet d'interrompre une célébration religieuse, est passé de deux agents à un seul. N'importe quel policier peut donc empêcher une célébration religieuse. **Translation:** Article 176, which allows for the interruption of a religious celebration, has been changed from requiring two officers to only one. Therefore, any police officer can now prevent a religious celebration.

The National Guard and Marines are being stationed at federal buildings across the country where riots are taking place, not deployed against US citizens. They remain on federal property to provide security for those buildings. If people do not storm the federal building or attack the National Guard, they will not be attacked. As an investigative journalist who covers protests, the speaker says they stood two inches from the National Guard, who did nothing. The National Guard is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity because the cities will not allow it.

Le président de la République tente de recentrer les débats sur la guerre en Europe pour les élections, ce qui divise et semble irresponsable. Les accords avec l'Ukraine pour l'OTAN sont critiqués comme une diversion des problèmes nationaux. Macron est accusé d'immaturité, narcissisme et cynisme. Son attitude est jugée dangereuse pour des vies humaines. Son armée est remise en question quant à sa capacité de tenir une semaine en guerre. Translation: The President is criticized for trying to shift focus to war in Europe before elections, which is seen as divisive and irresponsible. Agreements with Ukraine for NATO are viewed as a distraction from national issues. Macron is accused of immaturity, narcissism, and cynicism. His behavior is deemed dangerous for human lives. His army's ability to withstand a week of war is questioned.