TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The Supreme Court has paused the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal aliens. According to Speaker 1, the Supreme Court, district court judges, and appellate court judges have admitted that the president's exercise of the Alien Enemies Act is under the political branch purview and not subject to judicial review. The president has determined that illegal Venezuelans tied to Trembe Aragua, which has been designated a foreign terror organization, should be deported. The ACLU is filing lawsuits all over the country on behalf of anonymous illegal Venezuelans, seeking to turn them into class-wide temporary restraining orders. The initial lawsuit was filed under anonymous illegal Venezuelan. The judge in Texas denied the temporary restraining order and the request to turn a couple of these unnamed illegals into a class action lawsuit. The Supreme Court has put a temporary hold on deporting these Alien Enemies Act subjects out of Northern Texas until they decide what to do from here.

If the court rules that someone who incited an insurrection to stay in office can remain on the ballot, what consequences will our country face? What if they decide he can stage a coup and then run again? The consequences will be that the voice of the people will be heard, and they get to choose their president. Also, on election night, when he wins, people will get to watch certain individuals cry on air. Thank you for your time.

The speaker asserts that judges are acting as partisan activists and attempting to dictate policy to the President, thereby slowing the administration's agenda. There is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop and pick judges who will derail the President's agenda. The administration will comply with court orders and continue to fight these battles in court. These judges are usurping the will of the President and undermining the will of the millions of Americans who elected him to implement his policies.

We are going to the Supreme Court next Friday at 3 PM EST. Watch on FrankSpeech.com. Visit lindaleplan.com for more info. After 3 years, we have explosive evidence to share. Join us live at the Supreme Court steps. Thank you. Translation: We are going to the Supreme Court next Friday at 3 PM EST. Watch on FrankSpeech.com. Visit lindaleplan.com for more info. After 3 years, we have explosive evidence to share. Join us live at the Supreme Court steps. Thank you.

The speaker states that President Trump stands by his call to impeach Judge Bozeman, despite Chief Justice Roberts' comments. The administration believes a single district court judge cannot assume the powers of the commander in chief, as it requires agreement from five Supreme Court justices to change federal policy. The speaker claims that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The speaker asserts that President Trump respects Justice Roberts but believes the Supreme Court must stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges who are usurping presidential powers and destroying the constitutional system.

The speaker states the president stands by his comments, as does the entire administration. They claim a democracy cannot exist if a single district court judge can assume the powers of the commander in chief. They contrast this with the Supreme Court, where it takes five justices to change federal policy. The speaker asserts that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The president has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes the Supreme Court should crack down and stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges. These judges are allegedly usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to the constitutional system.

US district judges James Boesburg and Deborah Boardman declined to testify at a Senate hearing titled “Impeachment, Holding Rogue Judges Accountable,” prompting discussion on where things go from here. Boesburg’s rulings, including restricting the White House’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, and questions about his alleged involvement in Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation tracking private communications of Republican lawmakers, have stirred controversy. Boardman is noted for ruling against the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship. Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, says that neither judge is unfamiliar with controversy and their reluctance to testify before the Senate is not surprising. He suggests the hearing will proceed, possibly with other witnesses or a discussion of the rulings’ substance, rather than direct testimony from the judges. The discussion includes a clip of Sen. Ron Johnson criticizing Boesburg for nondisclosure orders, with Johnson questioning whether Boesburg knew about certain laws and stating he hopes Boesburg responds by December 4. The Arctic Frost matter is described as damning by some. Dupree notes that the Senate may hear from other witnesses or source materials, such as conversations with Jack Smith or others involved, rather than compelling federal judges to testify about their rulings. He explains that judges typically do not testify about the substance of their decisions, and that the Senate is likely to pursue other evidence to understand what happened. The conversation turns to impeachment standards for federal judges, which Dupree outlines as the same standards used for presidents and other federal officials: bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Historically, a handful have been impeached and removed, often for bribery or unrelated acts, while challenging rulings through appellate courts has been the usual remedy. Boesburg was reversed by higher courts in the same case, illustrating the appellate process in action. Boardman is described as having issued multiple controversial rulings against the Trump administration, including on birthright citizenship, access to private data from agencies, and restoring America Core-funded programs. The discussion touches on the debate between claims of judicial tyranny versus the idea that judges are entitled to their interpretations, suggesting that the administration has had notable success in reversing similar rulings in the Court of Appeals, which Dupree argues demonstrates the system functioning properly. The segment closes with appreciation for Dupree’s analysis. The closing includes a promotional note for Outnumbered, which is not part of the core discussion.

A judge who halted President Trump's spending freeze received over $100 million in government funding to his NGO, with money going to private jets and huge salaries. This is blatant corruption, as he failed to disclose this information, potentially facing decades in prison. House Republicans have announced impeachment articles against Democrat judges for obstructing Trump's duties and criminal conflicts. Judge McConnell received $128 million for his NGO, the Crossroads Rhode Island Foundation, allegedly for social programs, but almost none of the money went to that. The judge bought his position to protect these NGOs and funnel money. Senators Cotton and Graham are under fire for allegedly misusing funds from the Republican International Institute, an NGO that received hundreds of millions.

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.

The "Defund the Taliban" bill passed unanimously in the House. The speaker thanks supporters for their help during the year-long journey. The bill will now go to the Senate, where Senators Hagerty, Blackburn, Sheehy, and Tuberville are expected to support it. The speaker encourages people to address their concerns to the Senate to get the bill passed. The bill aims to stop the estimated $40,000,000 a week, or over $5,000,000,000 total, of U.S. tax dollars that have allegedly gone to the Taliban.

Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary. On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed. This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm. Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere. The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.

World leaders and the European Union are facing a crucial moment, testing their dedication to human rights, peace, and democracy. The lack of international law protection for the lives lost in Gaza, including innocent children and grieving mothers, is concerning. Israel should not be allowed to escape accountability for its actions. The Irish government should lead by example, referring Israel to the International Criminal Court and expelling the Israeli ambassador.

Justice Gorsuch at the Supreme Court addressed President Biden's proposed court reforms. He emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary for all Americans, regardless of popularity. He urged caution in considering changes that could impact fair hearings and constitutional rights.

Some Democratic members of Congress are preparing for the possibility of litigation. They're considering if they have the best teams possible to carry out their work. Some Republicans may say that Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department, citing Trump's trial as an example. But in the United States, we are judged by a jury of our peers. Trump was found guilty in court on 34 felony charges. It's hard to make a partisan argument against that.

According to Speaker 0, Article Two of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, meaning the President defines the executive branch. Speaker 0 believes the proposed amendment violates the separation of powers and Article Two because it implies a federal court could define or limit the duties of individuals within the President's executive office. Speaker 1 asks if the bill codifies Article Two to remind the court of its limitations, and if the amendment would undo that. Speaker 0 confirms this interpretation. Speaker 1 suggests that without such a bill, a president would have to answer claims in multiple places across 50 states, potentially using nonofficial funds. Speaker 0 agrees, citing the use of courts for "nefarious purposes" since 2017 and the weaponization of "lawfare" against President Trump, arguing the president alone defines the duties of personnel within the executive office.

This case has quickly reached the Supreme Court, which is unusual as it usually takes years. The Supreme Court selects only a few hundred cases out of thousands submitted each year. The question is why they chose this case, knowing it would receive national attention. One of the brothers involved in the case was even contacted by a Supreme Court clerk who requested additional information. What's interesting is that this case is being treated as an emergency, giving the Supreme Court significant power to render a verdict and potentially impact the jobs of elected officials. The exact outcome is uncertain, but the fact that the case is before the Supreme Court sends a message.

If Biden pardons Milley unlawfully, it should be challenged with a court martial. There are valid reasons for this action. Judicial Watch has initiated a lawsuit to investigate Milley's involvement in a collusive attack on our freedoms, which included a meeting with Merrick Garland.

Hunter Biden is seeking a subpoena for President Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and others. The court filing mentions that the relevance of these witnesses will be discussed in pretrial motions. It is unclear what this means, but there are legal experts who can provide clarification. We will wait for the judge's decision.

I'm here instead of campaigning due to a court case. The prosecution has no evidence of a crime, and experts believe the case should be dismissed. The trial is seen as an attack on Biden and a political move. The justice system is being questioned, and the judge is criticized for bias. Many feel it's a miscarriage of justice and a disgrace to the court system. The trial is viewed as corrupt and unfair. Thank you. Translation: The speaker is not campaigning due to a court case where the prosecution lacks evidence of a crime. Experts suggest dismissing the case. The trial is seen as a political attack on Biden, questioning the justice system and criticizing the biased judge. Many view it as unjust and a disgrace to the court system. The trial is perceived as corrupt and unfair. Thank you.

A judge ruled that $2 billion in foreign aid payments to USAID contractors and nonprofits cannot be blocked, despite Trump's executive order to slash $60 billion in foreign aid spending. This decision has sparked controversy, with accusations that the judge, a recent Biden appointee, overstepped his authority and is setting foreign policy. It's argued that the president has the constitutional power to freeze funds for foreign policy, national security, or to avoid waste. Some believe this ruling is judicial activism and will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court, but by then the money will be spent and unrecoverable. A recent Supreme Court vote disappointed many.

Speaker 0 states that there are people who believe we are in an assault on the constitutional order and asks whether we are currently experiencing a constitutional crisis. Yes, he answers, our democracy is at risk because Donald Trump shows that he wishes to violate the laws in many, many different ways. He notes the positive counterpoint: the good news is that 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, were put on the bench last year, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time. Speaker 0 then adds that they hope the appellate courts, when the cases rise to that level and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, will uphold those rulings. He mentions concrete actions tied to this judiciary effort: they restored the money to NIH, and they required that 8,000 employ federal employees have to come back. He emphasizes the scope of legal challenges by stating, “We’re in over a 100 lawsuits against them, and we are having a good deal of success.” He concludes by clarifying the current stage of these legal battles: “It’s only at the lower court level right now.”

The judge set to bring Donald Trump to court on January 10th has ties to the Democratic Party, having donated personally and having a daughter who campaigned with Kamala Harris, earning significant money from it. Additionally, his wife worked as a special assistant to Letitia James, the New York attorney pursuing Trump. New York is the only state that hasn't dropped charges against Trump. The connections raise serious concerns about corruption in this case. This situation demands investigation.

If Biden pardons Milley unlawfully, it should be challenged with a court martial. There are valid grounds for this action. Judicial Watch has initiated a lawsuit to investigate Milley’s involvement in a collusive attack on our freedoms during a meeting with Merrick Garland.

The International Court of Justice, established in 1948, will hold a hearing on South Africa's accusations against Israel for genocide in Gaza. The outcome of this case will determine if international institutions can deliver a fair verdict. People are urged to email the ICJ judges to express their opinions on this crucial decision. Together, we can ensure justice and uphold the commitment of "never again" by the ICJ.