TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"Ms. Stokes wasn't elected." "She was nominated by the clerk." "In Mecklenburg County, the sitting clerk is Alyssa Chin Gary." "On her LinkedIn page, she calls herself a clerk, a DEI consultant, and a racial equity organizer." "And her life mission? Reparations." "Ms. Stokes was nominated by Judge Carla Archie." "Judge Archie is friends with Eric Holder, Obama's wingman." "And Judge Archie isn't just any judge." "In 2019, she was the DEI Champion of the Year." "Did a woman die because of DEI?" "Just a couple months ago, a guy shot five people on New Year's, and Judge Archie sentenced him to a year and a half for shooting five people." "This is a DEI court, and they have blood on their hands." "These courts need to be systematically dismantled, and that needs to happen immediately."

We had limited time in the house for debate, so online harms bill didn't make it to committee. The minister needs time to establish a regulator for hate speech. We want to move C-63 to the senate, but it was tabled in June. Despite being productive, delays were blamed on the conservatives and us.

Regarding the new sentencing guidelines, why is the Justice Secretary creating a double standard? The guidelines make custodial sentences less likely for ethnic, cultural, and faith minority communities. This is an inversion of the rule of law. We believe in equality under the law. Why doesn't she?

In the past 3 years, there has been a significant increase in illegal border crossings and a backlog of asylum cases. The speaker questions why the secretary deserves to keep his job, considering these issues. The secretary responds by acknowledging the problems and emphasizing the need for legislation to address the broken immigration system.

The British people demand answers regarding the grooming gang scandal. Will the government commit to deporting all guilty foreign nationals and their complicit family members? Will dual nationals implicated in these crimes have their citizenship revoked? There should be a pause on Pakistani visas and foreign aid until the Pakistani government agrees to accept deported criminals. A full investigation into officials who failed to act is necessary, along with a task force to address these issues. How many girls have been raped, and how many are still involved with these gangs? Regular updates on prosecutions and a breakdown of the nationality and immigration status of offenders should be published. The government must ensure transparency, protect whistleblowers, and consider lifelong sentences for those involved in the cover-up. The victims deserve justice, and the public deserves to know the truth.

It's crucial to address racial diversity. The Rhode Island federal court, with its all-white judicial officers and mostly white staff, exemplifies a lack of diversity. This is partly due to low turnover, making change difficult. However, our probation department, previously all-white, has transformed. We intentionally hired people of color to better reflect the community it serves. Imagine being a young African American defendant, entering a majestic courtroom, led by a white U.S. Marshal, surrounded by white faces. You might wonder, "Do they understand me? Can they relate to my life?" When your life is in their hands, representation matters.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government responds by stating that public consultations are a way to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of the population does not participate in these consultations, so it may not be reflective of public opinion. They also mention that submissions are often organized by campaign groups. The speaker then asks why hold the consultation if the results will be disregarded. The government explains that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

Speaker 0: What the do I have to do in this council in order to get respect as a black woman? I'm not afraid of anybody here. When I make a mistake, I will be clear. I don't hate you as a white woman. I don't hate you as a white man. I am sick and tired of this body so stupidly racially divided, so afraid, so depraved. People with no faith because they are afraid of their losing their advancement. They're afraid of bargaining. They're afraid of leveraging. These people have, oh my god. I can't even call you cowards because desperation deserves mercy. Cancer to redistricting. Fine. We give it to a white woman. Can we all get along? Can we get together? Can we love each other now? Can we make sure that black and brown babies don't die? Can we make sure that cops don't kill before people are proven innocent? Can we do that? No. No. No. No. Because this body crucifies you first because of allegations. This is not a court. You don't get to crucify people before they're proven guilty. They're innocent until proven guilty. Amen. Now after this, I will look forward to working with you because I have stamina. I believe, as Baldwin said, what you do not what you say. Your votes here sometimes are racist. You move sometimes in a way that hurts my people. Speaker 1: Yes. Say that. Speaker 0: And then when I get up to stand up and talk, oh, all she talks about is black stuff. Speaker 1: Yes. You should. Good. Speaker 0: I am here to represent every single black woman and man that suffers in the community. God has my back. Speaker 1: You got your Speaker 0: am not afraid to not have political asylum or any type of affiliations or connections. I came here, I fear none, no man, but my Lord. Amen. I came here to serve people. I came here to love. I came here to grow. But people talk about this racial equity thing. It's all fake. Speaker 1: Thank you. And Speaker 0: you do politics and you hurt each other. And yet, here I am, five foot tall African woman from the projects. And I am here to tell you, if the voters don't vote me back Speaker 1: We are get votes back.

There are alarming reports indicating that over 250,000 young white girls have been victims of rape this century, predominantly by Muslim men. These girls often endure repeated abuse over many years. The chief constable of Northumbria has stated that grooming gangs are likely operating in every major city. What actions is the government taking to address this issue? Specifically, what measures are in place to prosecute those in authority who ignored these crimes due to fears of being labeled Islamophobic? Additionally, what support is being provided to help the victims recover mentally?

Will you advise the president against issuing blanket pardons? I haven't reviewed those files yet, but if confirmed, I will examine them. Will you be able to review hundreds of cases on day one? I will look at every file I'm asked to review. Can you advise the president? I will have sufficient staff to assist me. I won't mislead this body or you. Let me ask you another question. These moments are why Congress exists.

Speaker 1 asserts that there is a two-tier justice system weaponized to persecute people based on political beliefs, and that Director Wray has personally helped weaponize the FBI against conservatives. He references the Twitter files, Missouri v. Biden disclosures, the Durham investigation and report, and the exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax. He asks Director Wray what he is prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement to earn back the trust of the American people, noting that he asked Mister Durham about this, and Durham said he did not think things can go too much further given that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. Speaker 0 responds by disagreeing with the other speaker’s characterization, saying the description of his bias against conservatives seems insane given his personal background. He explains that the approach to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution starts with emphasizing to his staff to do the right thing in the right way, which means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. He outlines several actions: enhanced procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks and triple checks, record-keeping requirements, accountability policies, and funding for new functions like an Office of Internal Audit that didn’t exist before. He notes the installation of an entirely new leadership team from his predecessor and asserts that where he can take action, he will to hold people accountable by removing them from the chain of command. The exchange ends with an invitation to speak further, though the remark is truncated: “Gentlemen, ladies, time to speak to the….”

The speaker criticizes the government's handling of rape gang inquiries, stating that local inquiries are now minister-led instead of independent. Funds for inquiries are now opt-in, and some local leaders deny the need for them. The speaker claims that victims are predominantly white, and perpetrators are predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani heritage, suggesting racial and religious aggravation in some cases. They cite instances of institutional failure, including a social worker attending a wedding between a 14-year-old victim and her abuser, and a welfare rights officer being the ringleader of a rape gang. The speaker questions why no one has been convicted for covering up these rapes and calls for a dedicated unit in the National Crime Agency to investigate collusion and corruption, including within the police. They highlight a case where a father was arrested for trying to rescue his daughter from abuse. The speaker advocates for a national inquiry, quarterly ethnicity data publication, termination of parental rights for convicted sex offenders, and harsher sentences for grooming gang members. They share a graphic account of a 13-year-old gang rape victim. They question why the government won't investigate the full extent of the issue.

I'm frustrated with Merrick Garland using the Department of Justice for political purposes instead of impartially enforcing the law. It's time to stop complaining and take action. I'm announcing that I will hold all Department of Justice nominees accountable, because Garland will use them to harass political opponents. We need to halt this department until Garland promises to do his job and stop targeting political adversaries. Donald Trump is just one example. We've seen Catholic fathers harassed for pro-life activism, while violent criminals walk free after the 2020 riots. Harassing Christian parents while letting criminals go is pure politics, not justice. Let's slow down this department until Garland changes course and does his job correctly.

"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer." "These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers." "They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar." "They just got appointed to be judges." "No training required." "They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges." "They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar." "How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?" "But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar." "How is this a fucking thing?"

General, do we have too many white officers in the Air Force? Your memo from August indicates a desire to reduce white officers by about 9%. How did you determine that 67.5% of officers should be white, 13% Black, 10% Asian, 1.5% American Indian/Native Alaskan, 1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 15% Hispanic/Latino? These numbers seem to suggest an obsession with race-based politics in the military. Are these percentages based on the demographics of the nation? Did you contemplate overall force percentages? We looked at providing opportunities for anybody who wants to serve. If that were the aim of the memo, I wouldn't be asking these questions. But the memo suggests there are too many white officers.

The speakers discuss the reluctance of police to reveal the ethnicity of rape suspects, fearing angry protests. This is contrasted with the quick release of the white ethnicity of a driver who drove into a crowd after a Liverpool Football Club parade. One speaker accuses senior police of hiding behind the College of Policing's guidance, which he calls a "discredited, woke, dangerously leftist, pathetic think tank." Despite government consultations with such groups, change is possible. Andy Marsh, head of the police inspectorate, advocates for quickly naming suspects' ethnicities. One speaker suggests a simple decree from the Prime Minister could mandate revealing the ethnicity of all suspects charged with crimes. While Starmer and Cooper seem to agree, the cabinet is waiting for independent advice, leading to suspicions of deliberate delays to avoid public knowledge, possibly until winter to deter protests.

Speaker 0 notes that grooming gangs have obviously been found in many cities and towns around the country, but there haven’t been many prosecutions in London. They say, “this is happening anywhere and the only reason why it’s not being found is that people aren’t looking.” They ask, “Are you looking in London for grooming gangs in London in order to prosecute people? Because if it’s going on in cities like Oxford and Bristol and Peterborough and Aylesbury, smaller places, it’s surely going on in London as well on a large scale.” Speaker 1 seeks clarification, asking, “Can I just be clear chair, is the inference that because of my faith or my ethnic origin I’m not seeking to follow these crimes?” Speaker 0 responds, “No. I’m asking you because you’re the Police and Crime Commissioner.” Speaker 2 interrupts, addressing Assembly member Curtin, saying, “I think you you’re pretty much drifting now on to drifting off the subject itself so can I just ask you to stick to the topic and ask a relevant question please?” Speaker 0 counters, explaining, “Well Chair I mean I was originally asking about Black Lives Matter and then the mayor started talking about slavery and the questioning is developed.” Speaker 2 reiterates, “But you’re still going off the tangent now so can you please be cautious about that and not ask Chair.” Speaker 0 responds, “If you want to disallow my question that’s your prerogative.” Speaker 2 then states, “Well I will use that then. Thank you very much. I’m going to move on now to the questions to the mayor on the priority order. The first question is number 1754.”

We will update our laws in the next few weeks to allow the Garde to use evidence and identify those involved in these actions. It is clear that our incitement and hatred legislation is outdated for the social media age. We need this legislation within weeks because it's not just the platforms that have responsibility, but also individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We must be able to use laws to hold them accountable.

The Justice Department is vital to democracy, ensuring investigations are fair and free from political influence. Protecting sensitive investigations is crucial. Despite attacks, we remain committed to following the law. The pace of justice system trials is out of our control. Thank you, everyone.

Footlow. Thank you, madam deputy speaker. I've been seeking data from the Ministry of Justice regarding foreign rapists, including deportations, prison status, and re-offending rates. Unfortunately, this information is not centrally identified in their systems. This situation calls for a full national inquiry; it’s a serious issue that cannot be ignored any longer. The public demands transparency about the delays in addressing this matter. In response, we acknowledge the need for better data collection on child sexual abuse, including ethnicity of both perpetrators and victims. The previous system was inadequate. We are committed to increasing the deportation of foreign national offenders who commit serious sexual offenses, having raised returns by over 20% since the election.

A speaker claims that in Britain, over a quarter of a million people have been issued non-crime hate incidents, and people are imprisoned for reposting memes and social media posts. They ask if the Trump administration would consider political asylum for British citizens in this situation. Speaker 1 responds that they have not heard this proposal or discussed it with the president, but they will speak to the national security team to see if the administration would entertain it.

Are you assuring us that none of this money will be used to defend criminal illegal immigrants facing deportation? As a budget staffer, I can only tell you what the grant is for; I can't guarantee that. What activities do you anticipate these nonprofit groups will undertake with the grants? Will tax dollars be used to defend illegal immigrants from deportation? I’m not certain about that; I would have to defer. If the deportation hearing is under criminal jurisdiction, the equal access fund is for civil matters. So, you're assuring us this money won't be used for deportation defense? These funds are for civil legal proceedings only. Is deportation not a civil proceeding? This is tone deaf, especially when residents are still without homes. We should focus on wildfire recovery and prevention. Please take this back to the governor.

The judiciary you crafted over the past four years does not reflect America, lacking diversity, particularly with no black judges and over 90% identifying as Christians. You previously wrote that judges should not be ethically constrained from participating in protests supporting equal justice. Have you ever attended a protest as a sitting judge? I do not believe I have. You mentioned Girls Inc., but you claim not to know their policies, despite being on their board until recently. Your reports suggest significant financial contributions to them. Despite your political beliefs, can you assure us they won't influence your judicial opinions? The best evidence of my judicial approach is my past performance, prioritizing the law over personal beliefs. Do you believe in Bigfoot? Your time is expired, Senator.

Could you define the far right? It's a political ideology, but a clear definition is elusive. You mentioned that only fringe commentators oppose your government's hate speech laws, yet 73% of public consultation replies were negative, and 65% oppose these laws according to the last poll. Isn't it your government that holds the fringe position? Public consultations over the past four years show a minority group in the country is targeted and victimized by hate speech and hate crimes. In Ireland, about 17,000 undocumented migrants, including 3,000 children, now have a pathway to regularization announced by Justice Minister Helen MacEntee. This means these individuals, who contribute to society and the economy, can now work towards citizenship.

Speaker 0 raises a pointed challenge to the government’s policy approach to the judiciary. He frames the issue as a confrontation over two key proposals: first, that the government wants to do away with jury trials, and second, that it intends to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years without any right to appeal, conviction, or sentence. He explicitly asks for confirmation of these two elements of the government's plan and how they would function in practice. He then presents a data point to question the reliability of the magistrates’ system under the current framework. He asks whether the government can confirm that last year there were 5,000 cases appealed from magistrates’ courts, and that more than 40% of those appeals were upheld. This is used to challenge the effectiveness and fairness of the existing system, implying that a high rate of appeals being upheld may reflect underlying issues with magistrates’ decisions or processes. Building on that, Speaker 0 poses a second, direct policy question: is it the government's policy to simply live with this number of miscarriages of justice? By framing the statistics as potential miscarriages of justice, he challenges the plausibility or desirability of a policy direction that would normalize or accept such outcomes. Throughout, the speaker communicates a sense of urgency and skepticism about removing jury involvement and expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers, tying the proposed changes to concerns about appeals outcomes and the broader integrity of the justice system. The questions are aimed at forcing clarification or reversal by the government, by tying policy changes to concrete, measurable results from the current system and labeling those results as miscarriages of justice if the policy were adopted.