“His Position Lacks Sound Basis in the Constitution” – HUGE! — US Government Responds to Brief by Former Judge John Gleeson in Flynn Case


Shadow prosecutor John Gleeson

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s “shadow prosecutor” John Gleeson filed his brief last Wednesday.

This was after the Justice Department dropped its case against General Mike Flynn in May after bombshell documents were released that proved Flynn was framed by Comey’s FBI.

But the Clinton-appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan made a dirty, political move to delay justice for Flynn.

The far left DC Judge Emmet Sullivan decided not to drop the case and proceed as judge and prosecutor in the case against General Flynn.

Sullivan solicited amicus briefs and appointed retired Clinton appointed judge John Gleeson to argue against the government’s motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn!

Gleeson called the DOJ’s dismissal of General Flynn “pretextual” and “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

John Gleeson recommended General Michael Flynn be punished for taking back a plea.

On Wednesday the US Government responded to the brief by Amicus John Gleeson.

According to the US government: John  Gleeson “contradicts” the law governing dismissal; his position “lacks a sound basis in the Constitution.”

Via TechnoFog:

Here is the full report via TechnoFog:

Response to Gleeson Amicus … by Techno Fog on Scribd

The post “His Position Lacks Sound Basis in the Constitution” – HUGE! — US Government Responds to Brief by Former Judge John Gleeson in Flynn Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Sidney Powell Files Scathing Response to Shadow Prosecutor John Gleeson’s Amicus Brief, It’s a ‘Wrap-Up Smear’

General Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell on Wednesday filed a scathing response to shadow prosecutor John Gleeson’s amicus brief.

Recall, Judge Emmet Sullivan’s “shadow prosecutor” John Gleeson filed his brief last week.

Gleeson called the DOJ’s dismissal of General Flynn “pretextual” and “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

Sara Carter reported:

Sidney Powell, the defense attorney for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, filed a scathing response in the court Wednesday against federal Judge John Gleeson’s amicus brief, which asked the court to reject the Justice Departments request to drop all charges against Flynn. Powell’s motion is powerful and contains a lengthy time-line revealing the stunning evidence discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, as well as, the litany of new evidence uncovered by U.S. Attorney Jeffery Jensen, who was appointed by the Justice Department to conduct an independent review of Flynn’s case.

Powell argues in her brief that the “irony and sheer duplicity” of Gleeson’s accusations “against the Justice Department now—which is finally exposing the truth—is stunning.”

Powell also pointed out in her filing Wednesday that Gleeson’s filing on behalf of Sullivan is a “wrap-up smear” against Flynn.

“It demonstrates the difference between a Department of Prosecutions and a Department of Justice,” Powell argues in her conclusion regarding Gleeson’s amicus. “It shows how the Department of Justice, as the government’s representative in every federal criminal case, has the power to walk into courtrooms and ask judges to remedy injustices. For these reasons and those stated in our other briefs, the only lawful action this court can take is to dismiss the case with prejudice on the Government’s motion and vacate the plea.”

The Justice Department dropped its case against General Mike Flynn last month after bombshell documents were released that proved Flynn was framed by Comey’s FBI.

But the Clinton-appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan made a dirty, political move to delay justice for Flynn.

US Attorney General Bill Barr recently blasted rogue Judge Emmet Sullivan for targeting Flynn with a shadow prosecutor during a sit-down interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier.

Barr blasted Sullivan and said it’s up to the executive branch to prosecute, calling judge Gleeson an “alternative prosecutor.”

“The argument is that it’s always been understood that decisions whether to pursue an individual through the prosecution process or to hold them criminally accountable is vested in the executive branch and not the courts — and he is, in our view, essentially trying to set himself up as an alternative prosecutor,” said Barr.

The US Government also responded to Gleeson’s amicus brief on Wednesday and said “his position lacks sound basis in the Constitution.”

The post Sidney Powell Files Scathing Response to Shadow Prosecutor John Gleeson’s Amicus Brief, It’s a ‘Wrap-Up Smear’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Horowitz: Federal court puts ICE in lockdown, keeps illegal alien sex offenders free

Who needs the “abolish ICE” movement when the courts are accomplishing the same outcome without any political reprisal?

At a time when Americans have been rebuffed by the court system to restore basic civil rights, including the right to worship, in light of the illogical lockdown (except if you’re rioting), the courts continue to grant standing to the worst criminal aliens to remain in the country and hamstring law enforcement. The latest right? Illegal aliens get to avoid being arrested at jailhouses and courthouses so that they can abscond from federal immigration officials.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ignored federal law and ruled that ICE cannot arrest any illegal alien at a New York state courthouse where the individual is a defendant or witness in a pending case. “Courthouse civil arrests are not lawful, because they contravene the common-law privilege … that protects courts and litigants against these intimidating and disrupting intrusions,” wrote the Clinton-appointed judge to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It now appears that the people who riot in the streets against law enforcement have allies in the court system who will rule based on personal animus against laws they don’t like rather than following them. Can you imagine a federal judge saying that local officials have the right to hide a federal gun felon from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and that the federal agents could not arrest the gun felon at a courthouse when he is appearing in another criminal case?

If anything, ICE’s prerogative to arrest at any time and place is even stronger, because the arrest subjects are foreign nationals who have no inherent right to remain in the country under any circumstances. ICE is prudent enough to try to arrest them in controlled environments like police stations, rather than arresting them in communities. But with sanctuaries like New York that release them onto the streets, the last line of defense to ensure that illegal aliens being arrested for other crimes are not sent back into the communities is to apprehend them at the courthouses.

Yet, as we saw at the Supreme Court on Monday, the courts continue to smile upon neo-Confederate sanctuary cities. This is the equivalent of a federal judge not only siding with the Confederacy, but ruling that the U.S. government had no right to enforce federal law against foreign nationals in Confederate states. The courts are now part of the insurrection against our national sovereignty and laws duly passed by Congress.

This is the latest example of victims being turned into criminals and criminals being celebrated as heroes by our political and legal system. Not only are these people here illegally, but by definition, they are going to court for being involved in other crimes as well. It is now the desire of local governments and of federal judges to protect illegal aliens being charged with sex crimes. As the New York Times reported, one of the cases that prompted this lawsuit by New York’s attorney general was “a Uruguayan defendant” who was taken into custody by ICE “just minutes before a hearing on a proposed guilty plea that would have required him to serve more than three years in prison in a sexual and domestic violence case.”

In many blue states, not only are they against federal immigration agents, but now we see they are against local law enforcement and seek little or no prison time for all offenders. Thus, the courthouse is the last line of defense for ICE to ensure that at least other countries’ criminals don’t get a slap on the wrist and then get released into our communities.

Last July, for example, ICE was forced to arrest Fabian Alberto Zamora-Rodriguez, an illegal alien charged with multiple child sex offenses, at a courthouse in Astoria, Oregon, because local officials would not cooperate.

In Washington state, another sanctuary, an illegal alien who had at least 10 prior arrests in the Seattle area was picked up on murder charges. Julio Cruz-Velazquez, a citizen of Mexico who is in the United States illegally and is now charged with murdering a father of five as he lay asleep in his own home, had a rap sheet that included recent arrests for rape, domestic abuse, assault, burglary, drunk driving, and robbery. Each time, he was let back on the streets. The courthouses are the only place to nab these people before they post bail, especially in this era of criminal justice “reform.”

Remember when all these sanctuary cities claimed that ICE had no right to require them to cooperate with federal issues and use their police stations to enforce federal laws (only the ones they disagree with, of course)? Well, now, when the feds are forced to go it alone, the sanctuaries get a judge to say that the feds can’t enforce the law themselves either. They have essentially abolished ICE, which is why interior enforcement is way down, even compared to Obama’s second term.

This clown of a judge wants to discuss chilling effects of ICE arresting criminal aliens at courthouses? Perhaps he should look at the chilling effects of the sanctuaries he is illegally protecting.

We all remember the shocking case of Maria Fuertes, a 92-year-old well-known woman in Queens, New York, found lying dead in the street on January 6, murdered and raped. On January 10, NYPD announced the arrest of Reeaz Khan and charged him with sexually assaulting and then murdering Fuertes.

Who is Reeaz Khan? ICE issued a statement a few days later revealing that Khan is an illegal alien from Guyana who was arrested for assault and criminal possession of a weapon – just six weeks before the murder. ICE issued a detainer request, but the NYPD, in compliance with New York’s illegal policies of restricting communication with ICE, released him without bail after the arraignment. Had ICE been able to show up to that arraignment, this terrible murder could have been prevented.

It’s truly hard to overstate the public safety threat of New York’s policy of harboring foreign criminals and also of abolishing bail and barring ICE from courthouses. It essentially means that even the worst repeat violent offenders of other countries, who should never have been in this country to begin with, will be released with almost no recourse for ICE to apprehend them. According to ICE, in fiscal year 2019, denied ICE detainers included illegal aliens with a cumulative total of 200 homicide charges, over 500 robberies, over 1,000 sexual offenses, over 1,000 weapons offenses, over 3,500 assaults, and over 1,500 DUIs. New York has been averaging about 300 murders a year in total. Can you imagine how many of them could have been prevented?

Just remember, while the courts refuse to recognize the right of Americans to move freely, pray in church, and open their businesses, not only can criminals riot without facing prosecution, but illegal alien murderers and sex offenders can get the courts to abolish ICE.

Unless the Trump administration begins asserting separation of powers against these rogue judges, the anarchist goal of abolishing the police might be in plain sight once the courts do to the police what they have done to ICE.

The post Horowitz: Federal court puts ICE in lockdown, keeps illegal alien sex offenders free appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Woman Becomes First Observant Sikh to Graduate from West Point: ‘A Humbling Experience’

A young woman made history Saturday as the first observant Sikh to graduate from the United States Military Academy West Point in New York.

Twenty-three-year-old Anmol Narang was just one of 1,107 other graduates who came together for the academy’s annual commencement ceremony, according to the Tribune.

“It’s an incredible feeling. It’s a humbling experience, I have never worked harder for anything in my life,” she told reporters.

Saturday, the Sikh Coalition tweeted a photo of Second Lieutenant Narang:

“Being a Sikh woman is a very important part of my identity and if my experience can play a small role in being an inspiration for others, regardless of career field, that will be wonderful,” she stated.

Born and raised in Roswell, Georgia, Narang always had an appreciation for military service because of her maternal grandfather’s career in the Indian Army.

During high school, she visited the Pearl Harbor National Memorial in Honolulu, Hawaii, which only furthered her interest in the military.

“Seeing the sacrifice those people made and the results of that sacrifice was really impactful. I stayed until it closed, then worked on my application when I got back to my hotel room,” she recalled.

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson signed legislation that established the United States Military Academy, according to its website.

“He took this action after ensuring that those attending the Academy would be representative of a democratic society,” the site read.

Although other Sikhs have graduated from the academy, Narang was the first observant Sikh woman to do so.

“The confidence and support of my community back home in Georgia has been deeply meaningful to me, and I am humbled that in reaching this goal, I am showing other Sikh Americans that any career path is possible for anyone willing to rise to the challenge,” she commented.

Narang graduated with a degree in nuclear engineering and plans to pursue a career in air defense systems.

She will finish her Basic Officer Leadership Course at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, then go to her first post in Okinawa, Japan, in January.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

GOP Senators Introduce Bill Empowering Americans To Sue Big Tech Companies Censoring Political Speech

GOP Senators Introduce Bill Empowering Americans To Sue Big Tech Companies Censoring Political Speech

Tyler Durden

Wed, 06/17/2020 – 10:49

Update (1015ET): Just hours after media reports shined a light on a new DoJ legislative recommendation to hold tech giants accountable for censoring political speech and discriminating against conservatives.

The "Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act," will force tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet to bind themselves to "good faith" standards of impartiality outlined as follows:

  • Users could sue the major Big Tech companies for breaching their contractual duty of good faith
  • The duty of good faith would contractually prohibit Big Tech from: Discriminating when enforcing the terms of service they write (just like police and prosecutors are not supposed to discriminate when enforcing the law)
  • Failing to honor their promises
  • Big Tech companies who breach their duty of good faith would have to pay $5,000 plus attorney’s fees to each user who prevails.

Notably, Hawley is joined by Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton and Mike Braun. If passed, the bill would allow the Federalist and Zero Hedge to sue Google for unequal treatment.

Other conservatives weighed in, including Meghan McCain.

* * *

The DoJ just escalated its burgeoning feud with Silicon Valley by introducing a new legislative plan meant to make certain changes proposed in a Trump executive order signed late last month permanent – including a measure to strip tech giants of "liability shields" for activity and speech that happens on their platforms.

In effect, the DoJ proposal would rollback protections centered in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, something that’s gaining bipartisan support (albeit for vastly different reasons).

The proposal calls for the rolling back of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than 20 years to try and make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content, CNET reports. The proposed reforms, to be announced later on Wednesday, are designed to require social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook or YouTube (owned by Google parent Alphabet) to be more active in policing sites for illicit or harmful content, while also requiring them to be more consistent in decisions to remove content they find objectionable.

If adopted by Congress and passed, the bill would effectively make some of the changes outlined in an executive order signed by Trump late last month the law of the land: It would rollback protections for these digital ‘platforms’ that engage in active political censorship of users on said platforms.Because of this, it represents a serious escalation of the Trump Administration’s fight against Big Tech, which President Trump has long criticized for discriminating against conservatives and their ideas.

The new framework might gain more traction on capital hill, particularly after the events of yesterday, when a journalist-activist employed by NBC News published a story claiming that the "far-right" websites Zero Hedge and the Federalist (two sites that have both been described as about as conservative as the Drudge Report) were recently demonetized by Google. Shortly after, Google clarified that it was working with the two publishers to rein in hate speech in comment sections.

Furthermore, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at GW who often writes on free speech issues, criticized an NBC News report on the "de-monetization" (later denied by Google) of Zero Hedge and the Federalist) and argued that Google’s actions support the DOJ legislative proposal and the Trump Administration’s incipient anti-trust effort.

As we discussed earlier in regards to Twitter, Google seems to be making the case for not only pushing forward with anti-trust inquiries but stripping it and other companies of immunity protections. Indeed, the Justice Department just announced that it is moving forward with proposals to strip away protections.  Google and other companies were given protections under Section 320 because it has claimed to being a neutral supplier of virtual space for people to speak with one another.  It is now effectively shutting down sites because they allow others to comment freely on their sites.  This biased targeting of sites has led to congressional objections and renewed threats to amend the federal law.  Indeed, Google is undermining the support with some of us who viewed protections are fostering free speech values.  It is now using its role to stifle and regulate speech, the very antithesis of not just free speech but the federal protections.

The White House has made it abundantly clear that it won’t tolerate social media platforms continuing to censor and de-monetize conservative speech while ignoring similar behavior by radical leftists. If these platforms want to continue to ‘curate’ the information and speech found therein, then they should be treated more like a publisher than a platform.

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Man Accused of Brutal Attack on 92-Year-Old Woman Has Been Arrested Over 100 Times: Report

The man arrested after a 92-year-old woman was attacked on a Manhattan street last week had at least 100 previous arrests, according to news reports. On Tuesday, police announced the arrest of Rashid Brimmage, 31, who was charged with assault in connection with the case, according to the New York Post. Thanks to the outstanding…

The post Man Accused of Brutal Attack on 92-Year-Old Woman Has Been Arrested Over 100 Times: Report appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

REPORT: DOJ to Propose Rolling Back Big Tech’s Legal Immunity

The Department of Justice is preparing proposals to roll back the legal immunities enjoyed by Big Tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), in measures that will be announced as early as Wednesday, sources told the Wall Street Journal.

Via the WSJ:

The Justice Department is set to propose a rollback of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than two decades, in an effort to make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content, according to a Trump administration official.

Section 230 gives Big Tech companies immunity from lawsuits arising from user-generated content. If a person is defamed on Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or other big tech platforms like Reddit, those platforms are not legally liable for the content like a traditional publisher might be. This allows social media platforms to host billions of posts from users without a potentially crippling legal risk.

As Big Tech platforms have grown increasingly interested in censoring content posted by their users, however, many lawmakers have argued that they are behaving like traditional publishers, censoring and editing and approving their users’ posts. As such, a growing number of lawmakers have argued that the legal immunities of Section 230 should be contingent on platforms maintaining a hands-off approach to the speech of their users.

Another problematic element of Section 230 is subsection c-2, which grants tech companies immunity from lawsuits arising from their censorship of “objectionable” content. This immunity gives them broad leeway to censor users, leaving no legal recourse for those who are censored — even if their social media accounts are critical to their livelihood or career.

However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department’s proposals go beyond merely addressing the question of censorship:

The department’s proposal, for instance, would remove legal protections when platforms facilitate or solicit third-party content or activity that violates federal criminal law, such as online scams and trafficking in illicit drugs.  The department also wouldn’t confer immunity to platforms in instances involving online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or cyberstalking.  Those carve-outs are needed to curtail immunity for internet companies to allow victims to seek redress, the official said.

The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil-enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons.

According to the report, it also appears that the Justice Department won’t try to strip tech companies of their immunity for censoring “objectionable” content, instead aim to spur Big Tech to be “fairer and more consistent in their decisions to take down content they find objectionable.”

Are you an insider at Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Quaker Foods to Rename ‘Aunt Jemima,’ Scrub Logo ‘to Make Progress Toward Racial Equality’

Quaker Foods, the company behind the “Aunt Jemima” brand of syrup and other breakfast foods, says it will rename this line of products and discontinue its label’s image of a black woman “to make progress toward racial equality.”

Aunt Jemima has been featured on these products for 130 years.

NBC reported on the development:

The picture has changed over time, and in recent years Quaker removed the “mammy” kerchief from the character to blunt growing criticism that the brand perpetuated a racist stereotype that dated to the days of slavery. But Quaker, a subsidiary of PepsiCo, said removing the image and name is part of an effort by the company “to make progress toward racial equality.”

“We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype,” Kristin Kroepfl, vice president and chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America, said in a press release. “As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers’ expectations.”

Kroepfl said the company has worked to “update” the brand to be “appropriate and respectful” but it realized the changes were insufficient.

As an example of “consumers’ expectations,” NBC quoted Riché Richardson, an associate professor at Cornell University, who said Aunt Jemima is “a retrograde image of black womanhood on store shelves.”

“It’s an image that harkens back to the antebellum plantation … Aunt Jemima is that kind of stereotype is premised on this idea of Black inferiority and otherness,” Richardson said.

“It is urgent to expunge our public spaces of a lot of these symbols that for some people are triggering and represent terror and abuse,” he declared.

“Quaker said the new packaging will begin to appear in the fall of 2020, and a new name for the foods will be announced at a later date,” NBC reported. “The company also announced it will donate at least $5 million over the next five years ‘to create meaningful, ongoing support and engagement in the Black community.’”

The purge of Aunt Jemima comes as a wave of municipalities across the United States are removing historical monuments for similar complaints of racial insensitivity. Crowds of protesters have defaced or even destroyed statues of notable figures from the Civil War-era Confederate States of America, Founding Fathers, and even abolitionists. The current unrest was sparked by a string of racially-charged killings: Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia, Breonna Taylor Kentucky, and George Floyd in Minnesota. As the Black Lives Matter movement organized protests across the nation, some of which descended into violent riots and looting, tensions flared again after Atlanta police shot and killed another unarmed man, Rayshard Brooks.

Mere weeks before this unrest, another food brand removed a longstanding label icon over perceived racial insensitivity. Land O’Lakes announced in April it would remove the likeness of a Native American woman from its butter products after 92 years.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

NYC Blocks Coronavirus Contact Tracers From Asking About Protests

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s team of contact tracers monitoring the spread of the coronavirus around the city will not ask Covid-19-positive subjects whether they attended a protest.

“No person will be asked proactively if they attended a protest,” de Blasio spokeswoman Avery Cohen told THE CITY. “If a person wants to proactively offer that information, there is an opportunity for them to do so.”

De Blasio announced in late April that the city would hire 1,000 contact tracers to help track and fight the coronavirus. At a press conference, the mayor said he planned to build “a contact tracing network in this city like never been seen before, on a vast scale, so every time someone tests positive, immediately we can swing into action,” according to The Hill.

Contact tracers are responsible for interviewing people who test positive for the coronavirus and finding out how many others may have been exposed to disease, then follow up with the potentially exposed so they can self-isolate.

The New York City contact tracing team asks coronavirus-positive people about “close contacts,” defined as standing within six feet of someone, and if they live alone or with others. The tracers have been ordered not ask whether the person has recently attended a protest, however.

The directive comes as thousands of people have demonstrated through the city’s streets for George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody on Memorial Day. Other protests have been against de Blasio’s defenses of the New York City Police Department.

Columbia University health professor Dr. S. Patrick Kachur explained that asking people who have tested positive for the coronavirus whether they had attended a protest may put the person off from answering more questions during the interview. He also questioned the usefulness of knowing whether a person attended a protest or not.

“I think the logic has to do with the fact that contact tracing requires a strong level of trust between the interviewer and the person they’re talking to,” Kachur, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official, told THE CITY. “It’s really important to have a good rapport and treat people with ease. It’s important to not ask questions that will impede your ability to do the best job you can.”

“There’s definitely a concern that state and city officials have that the protests could be a place where transmission occurs, but that risk is lower than household and other community contacts,” he added. “And it would be really challenging to trace those contacts who you’ve been protesting with.”

Despite the ongoing threat from the pandemic, de Blasio has been accepting of the protests and praised his daughter after she was arrested during one. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also ignored the protest’s potential impacts on public health and has instead focused on New York residents violating social distancing rules at restaurants and bars.

The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Pastor Darrell Scott: Defunding Police ‘Makes Absolutely No Sense at All’

“Defund the police.” It’s a phrase that, up until the sickening eight-plus minute video of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody, wouldn’t have even come close to entering the vernacular. Most of us tacitly understood that, while there might be bad actors or rogue elements within police departments, those were what should be targeted…

The post Pastor Darrell Scott: Defunding Police ‘Makes Absolutely No Sense at All’ appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com