Connect with us


Jan. 6 Live Updates: Latest News and Video From Hearing



WASHINGTON — For the past year and a half, the Justice Department has approached former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results with a follow-the-evidence strategy that to critics appeared to border on paralysis — and that limited discussions of his role, even inside the department.

Then came Cassidy Hutchinson.

The electrifying public testimony delivered last month to the House Jan. 6 panel by Ms. Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was witness to many key moments, jolted top Justice Department officials into discussing the topic of Mr. Trump more directly, at times in the presence of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.

In conversations at the department the day after Ms. Hutchinson’s appearance, some of which included Ms. Monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s potential criminal culpability and whether he intended to break the law.

Ms. Hutchinson’s disclosures seemed to have opened a path to broaching the most sensitive topic of all: Mr. Trump’s own actions ahead of the attack.

Department officials have said Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony did not alter their investigative strategy to methodically work their way from lower-level actors up to higher rungs of power. “The only pressure I feel, and the only pressure that our line prosecutors feel, is to do the right thing,” Mr. Garland said this spring.

But some of her explosive assertions — that Mr. Trump knew some of his supporters at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, were armed, that he desperately wanted to join them as they marched to the Capitol and that the White House’s top lawyer feared Mr. Trump’s conduct could lead to criminal charges — were largely new to them and grabbed their attention.

Overt discussion of Mr. Trump and his behavior had been rare, except as a motive for the actions of others, a subtle but significant change that was underway even before Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony.

Credit…Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

A small team of prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington has ramped up its investigation into a scheme to install fake state electors, spearheaded by lawyers who were in frequent contact with Mr. Trump. And the Justice Department’s watchdog is investigating efforts undertaken by Jeffrey Clark, a former department official who discussed the plan with Mr. Trump, to undo the results of the election.

A flurry of recent subpoenas related to the electors inquiry and raids related to the inspector general’s investigation into Mr. Clark — which were done with the knowledge of the department’s senior leaders — suggest that those investigations are accelerating. At the very least, those moves indicate that prosecutors are inching closer to the former president.

The Justice Department does not publicly discuss details about continuing investigations or where they may lead, so as not to prejudice criminal proceedings or to imply that people are guilty before they are charged with any crime.

The policy, longstanding but more vigorously enforced recently, has infuriated critics, including President Biden, who accuse Mr. Garland of being too slow and cautious. The congressional committee looking into the attack, which resumes its public hearings this week, has used testimony, especially Ms. Hutchinson’s, to prod the department to move more aggressively.

Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the committee’s vice chairwoman, has pressed her colleagues to make a criminal referral to the department in hopes of forcing Mr. Garland’s hand.

On Monday, Andrew Weissmann, a senior prosecutor in the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, sharply criticized Mr. Garland’s “bottom up” investigative approach in a guest essay in The New York Times, saying the department should instead work from Mr. Trump’s speech to supporters on the Ellipse outward.

But Mr. Garland’s message has always been clear: The Justice Department investigates crimes, not people.

Earlier this year, in a speech marking the first anniversary of the riot, Mr. Garland acknowledged, and dismissed, the criticisms. “We understand that there are questions about how long the investigation will take, and about what exactly we are doing,” he said.

His answer: “As long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done — consistent with the facts and the law.”

Mr. Garland’s stoicism belies the fact that Mr. Trump, still a dominant force in Republican politics, casts a long shadow over the department’s investigation a year and half after his supporters rampaged the Capitol.

Investigators initially focused on the rioters who had attacked police officers, stormed the building and menaced the news media. But as evidence that members of far-right extremist groups had engaged in a seditious conspiracy mounted, a tense internal debate erupted over how to widen the sphere of possible defendants.

Some prosecutors wanted to compile lists of their fellow members and see what they might know, according to two people familiar with the plan. Top F.B.I. and Justice Department officials shot it down. It is unconstitutional to investigate a person solely based on their association with a group, and doing so runs afoul of department policy, which says a person’s actions can be examined only if evidence links them to a crime, they argued.

On the day he took office, March 11, 2021, Mr. Garland sat through a detailed briefing on the status of the investigation delivered by Michael R. Sherwin, the head of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington who was overseeing the inquiry. Mr. Sherwin presented Mr. Garland with a strategy that included four teams of prosecutors, labeled A through D: “Team B,” already staffed by 15 lawyers, had begun looking into “public influencers and officials” linked to the attack, according to a copy of a memo shared with The New York Times.

Mr. Garland listened intently and thanked Mr. Sherwin for his hard work under difficult circumstances, according to people familiar with the exchange.

Mr. Sherwin, who had been appointed by Mr. Trump, then appeared on “60 Minutes” and suggested the inquiry should target the highest levels of government — naming names. “Maybe the president is culpable for those actions,” he said, infuriating the department’s new leadership.

Within six weeks, he had returned home to Miami, and Mr. Garland’s team took over.

Mr. Garland’s appointees have struggled with many of the same thorny questions about the scope of the investigation as their predecessors did. They were uncertain they could show that the nonviolent activity to thwart the peaceful transfer of power violated criminal law, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Those concerns seem to have faded, with prosecutors pursuing the investigation into the alternative elector plan, and Mr. Clark’s actions.

While there has never been a prohibition, formal or otherwise, against discussing Mr. Trump, top department officials then and now made clear that prosecutors should be focused on the evidentiary road in front of them, not to a road map leading to Mr. Trump.

Until recently, that entailed tightly steering discussion to the details of specific cases being developed — rioters, midlevel ringleaders or Trump associates involved in the state electors scheme, according to current and former officials — not to speculative ones.

If career prosecutors uncover evidence linking Mr. Trump to the crimes that they are investigating, new procedural hurdles make it more complicated for them to look into his actions. In 2016, rank-and-file F.B.I. agents did not need approval to investigate actions by Hillary Clinton and Mr. Trump. But Attorney General William P. Barr issued a memo that requires the attorney general, via the deputy attorney general, to approve such a move, which could place additional pressure on Ms. Monaco.

Even without that clearance, Ms. Monaco runs the department’s day-to-day operations and oversees all prosecutions, including the Jan. 6 inquiry. The team that reports to her has repeatedly pressed the House committee for transcripts of hundreds of interviews it has conducted, arguing that the panel’s reluctance to do so before the hearings conclude was hampering the department’s work.

Credit…Tom Brenner for The New York Times

Ms. Monaco, whose work as a prosecutor in the government’s Enron case in the early 2000s earned her rising-star status, sips her coffee from a mug that reads “Boring Is My Brand.” She has often expressed admiration for her first boss in government — Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s attorney general — who resisted pressure from the White House and members of her own party by assigning a special counsel to investigate the Whitewater scandal.

She keeps close tabs on the investigation, mostly through her staff aides, who communicate with investigators. Major developments — like the Hutchinson revelations — are discussed at higher-level meetings, according to people with knowledge of the process.

Ms. Monaco does not micromanage staffing decisions, but she is consulted on significant moves, including the hiring last fall of a little-known federal prosecutor from Maryland, Thomas P. Windom, to pull together some of the disparate strands of the elector scheme.

If Ms. Monaco has been steadfast in not discussing even seemingly basic details of the investigation — such as Mr. Windom’s hiring — she has been more candid about the challenges of conducting an investigation that is “among the most wide-ranging and most complex that this department has ever undertaken.”

That problem has grown more acute as the inquiry has advanced from low-level prosecutions of rioters to the more complicated task of unraveling the plot by Mr. Trump’s associates to undermine an election. The department has asked to double its Jan. 6 legal work force.

After Mr. Garland was confirmed in March 2021, he embraced a staffing plan initiated by the department’s caretaker leadership, assigning about 120 prosecutors to the case. They were split between lawyers from the department’s headquarters, including members of the criminal and national security divisions, and investigators working out of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

In the succeeding months, about 20 more lawyers, in addition to support workers, were added to keep pace with the task of prosecuting about 800 people who were directly involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Turnover and attrition have been a challenge. Many of the lawyers assigned to those prosecutions were department veterans temporarily detailed to the District of Columbia attorney’s office from other cities. Some supervisors back home, dealing with a sharp postpandemic surge in violent crime, have aggressively pushed for their return.

In March, the department requested $34.1 million to bring on an additional 131 lawyers for the investigation. It was ignored — infuriating senior department officials, who have privately noted the contradiction between congressional calls to speed the inquiry and the denial of resources the department needs to hire more prosecutors.

Ms. Monaco has personally pushed for the funding herself, while emphasizing her intention to make do with whatever is at hand.

“Regardless of whatever resources we see or get, let’s be very, very clear — we are going to hold those perpetrators accountable, no matter where the facts lead us,” Ms. Monaco said in March.

“No matter what level,” she added.

Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Is There a Single Best Way to Manage a City?




Galveston’s ruined city hall after the 1900 hurricane.

A stereograph of the ruins of Galveston, Texas’ “Splendid City Hall” after the 1990 hurricane. The nation’s first city-commission-style local government was created in Galveston after the disastrous storm exposed political mismanagement. (Library of Congress)

You may never have heard of city commission government, and that’s probably just as well. For the past several decades, only one major American city has used this most cumbersome of urban management systems, and now that city — Portland, Ore. — has decided to scrap it. Last month, some 57 percent of Portland voters opted to do away with their city commission after more than a century and replace it with a more conventional structure featuring a stronger mayor and city manager.

From this vantage point, it’s a little hard to see why anybody thought city commissions were a good idea. They give elected council members the authority to function as administrators of key city departments. You could win a place on the council and soon find yourself running the police department, even if (as was often the case) you didn’t know much about law enforcement.

The intentions were to invest politicians with executive authority so that they would take government more seriously and to encourage voters to elect more capable candidates in the first place. The system was usually put in place after a political scandal or other crisis discredited the old one: The first city commission was created in Galveston, Texas, after a disastrous hurricane in 1900 exposed political mismanagement. A couple of decades later there were quite a few of them, many in Texas but some in big cities around the country as well.

But the system was full of flaws. Not only did it place people whose talent was campaigning into administrative jobs for which they were unqualified, but it tended to foster squabbling and unseemly horse-trading among the commissioners, who had no one supervising them. The mayor in this system was a commissioner, but was almost always a figurehead.

The system left one egregious legacy, in Birmingham, Ala., where the demagogic racist Eugene “Bull” Connor, who never finished high school, served repeated terms on the city council and remained in the job of public safety commissioner for 22 years. Birmingham abolished its commission government shortly after Connor embarrassed the city by turning fire hoses and police dogs on civil rights demonstrators in 1963.

Portland voted to create a commission to run its affairs in 1913 following a scandal in which dozens of city hotels were hosting illegal sexual activity. Progressive activists and most of the business community went for it, and it passed narrowly despite opposition from the previously dominant Republican machine.

In later years, Portland modified its commission system so that it functioned reasonably well, with the mayor assuming more powers, and several attempts to do away with the system were beaten badly at the polls. A move to revamp city government was defeated in 2007 by a huge 76-24 majority. But the past decade or so has been a rough one for Portland’s local government, with a mayor plagued by sexual scandal, disturbing racial unrest and an increasing level of discontent over crime and homelessness. There’s no reason to assume that voters were reacting last month against the commission system per se, but they were looking for change, and it didn’t take much to persuade them to mandate it.

AT THIS POINT, CITY COMMISSIONS might be best thought of as a footnote to urban history. But they can also serve as a useful introduction to the question of what’s the best way to manage a city. Or whether there is a best way.

Perhaps the most important impact of city-commission government was that it served as a kind of precursor to the city-manager system, which came into existence around the same time and went on to supplant it. Though the two forms are sometimes remembered together, they are in many ways diametrical opposites. Commissions were supposed to turn politicians into managers; city-manager government was meant to take politicians out of local administration almost entirely.

But if you look a little more closely, city commissions and city-manager systems actually have something important in common: They were both a product of Progressive Era resentment against the corrupt ward politics plaguing scores of American cities at the time. They emerged at a moment when social scientists were arguing that managerial science could design effective city administration and put the ward heelers out of business for good.

By the 1920s, there were city-manager systems in place in hundreds of American communities, most of them in cities of less than 500,000 people and most of them west of the Mississippi. A majority of small cities in America still use it. A number of larger ones have produced some outstandingly successful managers, such as L.P. Cookingham in Kansas City and Marvin Andrews and Frank Fairbanks in Phoenix. I could name quite a few more.

But the central dogma of the city-manager system — that it can take politics out of government — turned out to be way off base. Most of the early city managers were engineers with few political instincts; they made up for that deficiency by essentially letting the local chamber of commerce and influential corporate executives tell them what to do, sometimes over breakfast on weekday mornings at a café near city hall. It wasn’t ward heeler politics, but it was politics just the same. And in general, it enshrined the conservative values of the local business community. I have made this point quite a few times over the years, and I always get nasty responses from city-manager enthusiasts. But it is true nonetheless.

In recent decades, the system has softened. Most city managers now come out of graduate programs in public administration rather than engineering schools. And many of the larger city-manager cities have gradually invested more power in the mayor’s office, creating something of a hybrid scheme for doing the city’s business.

BUT CITY-MANAGER GOVERNMENT STILL HAS SOME SERIOUS FLAWS, some of which have proved corrosive in a number of places. One is that the common practice of electing council members on an at-large, citywide basis tends to underrepresent the interests of less-affluent communities, particularly minority communities. Another is that, especially in its purer varieties, city-manager government leaves no one in a position to serve as a public spokesperson and chief decision-maker. The manager isn’t supposed to do that; a mayor with circumscribed powers can’t do it very effectively either, although some try.

The bottom line is that many of the larger city-manager cities have decided in recent years that they need an authoritative leader that manager government doesn’t give them. To put it another way, voters in these places feel they need a voice. The city-manager system doesn’t provide for much of a voice. Those cities have chosen to abandon city-manager government and move to a system with an elected mayor possessing a full package of powers.

The list of big cities that have gone to or expanded strong-mayor government in the last two decades is a long one. It includes Cincinnati; Hartford, Conn.; Minneapolis; Richmond, Va.; St. Petersburg, Fla.; San Diego; and Spokane, Wash., among quite a few others.

There is a great deal to say about strong-mayor government, more than I can get across in a few hundred words. But perhaps the first thing to say is that when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong, in ways that a city-manager system rarely does; but when it works it is splendid. In the 1970s it gave us Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia, who boasted that “I’m going to make Attila the Hun look like a faggot” and proclaimed that Black Panthers “should be strung up.” But it also gave us Fiorello LaGuardia, who ruled New York City so capably for a dozen years that he is widely regarded as the greatest mayor in America in the last century.

Most often, though, strong mayors are neither heroes nor villains, but imperfect public officials who do the best they can with the tools they are given, and sometimes look for ways to acquire more. In this context, I can’t help but point to the Daleys of Chicago, who were neither crooks nor reformers but accepted a certain amount of controlled corruption and used the powers it gave them to accomplish things for the city. It is sometimes said in Chicago that a little corruption gets things built; a heavy dose of reform rarely does. That is probably true of a number of other cities besides.

What’s the best scheme of government for a city? In the end, there isn’t one. Nothing is foolproof. A dedicated and shrewd public servant can make any system work — even a city commission — while a scoundrel or an incompetent can make any system fail. We are ultimately dependent on the skills and values of ordinary human beings. In that respect, city governance is like every other form of management that has ever existed, in the public realm and in the private world as well.

Source link

Continue Reading


Corruption: Excuse or misunderstanding? – Jamaica Observer




Jason McKay

Corruption as an allegation is a staple in Third World political campaigns. Whether it exists or not it doesn’t really matter. Just throw the dirt around and it will stick.

It’s also no different for law enforcement. Every organisation that has failed to curb the violence cites corruption as a factor. That is whether it is of the Government, the Opposition, or society as a whole.

Well, let’s address something; corruption exists in every major organisation in the world — from the much-vaunted New York City Police Department (NYPD) to the British Government. That’s the reality.

However, is corruption a primary factor in Jamaica’s inability to win the war against the gangs? I don’t believe it is.

I believe capacity is the fundamental reason.

Also, there are some other issues like laws, societal divisions, and the fact that as a country we don’t accept that we are at war.

However, before I venture down that rabbit hole, let’s discuss this corruption factor that everyone likes to shout about.

The librarian at my parish library is a great lady. She can cook well, too. If I want to know where to find a good VS Reid novel, she can direct me to the aisle and shelf.

Despite her acumen, she can’t direct me to where one AK-47 rifle is buried. To find that I need to talk to someone who moves in that crowd, it is possible that person may even be a criminal.

So if I, or any other police officer, talk with a criminal with an aim to furthering justice and peace, it doesn’t mean I am corrupt. It’s just part of the process to do the job professionally.

We often encourage gang members, and the rest of society, to use the justice system to achieve justice rather than seek revenge themselves.

If they listen and become a complainant then we have to, like with any other complainant, ensure safe attendance to court and their safety generally.

Therefore, you are likely to see them being visited by the police and transported to court, etc. This doesn’t mean they and the police are friends or that the police are sharing information with them.

So you are a good citizen. You are the victim of a crime and you give a statement to the police. The culprit is arrested and jailed. A trial is the end result of a criminal charge and at some point the accused is going to know your identity and your allegations.

This is not because the police are corrupt, but because the law says you must serve the defence a copy of all statements. It’s the law! It’s not the police officer ‘selling you out’.

A gunman commits a crime in front of one person. If that person becomes a witness and the gunman knows who talked, it’s likely because he knows he committed the crime in front of only one person. He’s a mongrel, not a fool.

Okay, back to using corruption as an excuse. We have lost the battle largely because of persons making decisions without really understanding the peculiar matrix of gang control.

The lawmakers, the advisors, and the technocrats are the ones who, based on our democracy, make the decisions. They are well-intentioned and often seem practical, but gang land is a complex geography.

The real experts are powerless and underutilised when decisions are to be made. This is the reality and the fundamental reason we fail. It begins with this and all else simply follows.

Can this change? It will be difficult. Let me explain. I have been to many schools and have lived in Jamaica for most of my life, but I was an adult before I realised that yam grows under the earth.

It’s not because I don’t eat yam, I rather like it.

It’s just that I was not exposed to agriculture.

Crime fighting is like that.

Each jurisdiction has its own dynamic. Macro decisions can be problematic when micro implementation is required.

The decision that you should charge a man within 24 hours of his arrest seems reasonable in a court of law and Gordon House, but not so much when you see what the wrong man with the right rifle did to a family one sad night in an informal settlement called ‘Africa’ in Spanish Town, St Catherine.

I guarantee that if any lawmaker or defender of the constitution spent a year in the shoes of a frontline cop, they would think differently about laws and that constitution under which the laws fall.

What’s the solution? Trust! Realise as leaders that you don’t know enough about fighting gangs and trust the police when they say they need declarations of states of public emergency or longer remand periods or roadblocks on every corner.

As a society, accept that the disparity in living conditions between groups in our country is a primary contributor to the continued failure to defeat the gangs and commit to drastic change. This is even, perhaps, the most important factor.


Source link

Continue Reading


Remembering Tony Auth




When the 29-year-old Tony Auth arrived at The Inquirer from Los Angeles in 1971, readers didn’t know what was about to hit them.

The early ‘70s were an era when the Vietnam War was raging, Richard Nixon was raging, and Frank Rizzo was raging. Women and civil rights activists were stepping up their fight for equal treatment under the law. And the nation — newly skeptical in many ways amid the tumult of Watergate — began to demand a greater degree of accountability from elected officials and those in power. Tony drew about it all — and so much more.

Tony looked past personalities and repeatedly highlighted issues — the blight of poverty, the perils of racism and bias, public corruption and gun violence in cartoons that still grab us by our consciences. So many of Tony’s illustrations resonate as strongly today as the day he drew them.

While Tony’s images were sharp and opinionated, he was affable in person and would sometimes engage readers who called him to complain about his work.

David Leopold, the curator responsible for staging a marvelous retrospective of Tony’s work at the Michener Museum in 2012, said of Tony’s cartoons: “Readers might not read every editorial, but they always looked at Tony’s drawing. Like many of the great cartoonists, while his work seemed topical, he was most interested in human nature. Tony might not show us or our leaders at our best, but he always hoped that things would get better.”

Tony’s clean style with a minimum of cross-hatching or shading attracted many younger cartoonists, including me, whom he kindly welcomed and mentored.

None were more extravagantly helped than the Lexington Herald Leader’s longtime cartoonist, Joel Pett. In 1979, as a young sprout hoping to meet his idols, Joel hitchhiked from Indiana to New York City to attend the opening of an exhibit of the late David Levine’s exquisite caricatures. There he met prominent cartoonists of the day, including Tony, who — when he found out Joel was penniless — invited him to a cartoonists’ post-show dinner, gave him train fare to Washington, and brokered an introduction to the Washington Post’s iconic, now departed, editorial cartoonist Herbert Block, who famously signed his work “Herblock.”

Joel is still grateful — and he’s hardly alone in having been a beneficiary of Tony’s grace and generosity. Before he became a CNN news anchor, for example, aspiring cartoonist Jake Tapper took his work to Tony, who suggested books to read and other cartoonists’ work to follow. Tapper said: “Tony would take me out to lunch, he would call me on the phone. … He was a friend and mentor and mensch.”

Tony died of cancer in 2014 at age 72, leaving behind his wife, Eliza Auth, and two beloved daughters. Eliza recounted how Tony would get up in the morning, read the newspapers, and start sketching ideas before heading into his office on the sixth floor of the former Inquirer building at 400 N. Broad St., which now serves as the headquarters for the Philadelphia Police Department. (When asked who now occupies Tony’s office, a police public affairs officer helpfully revealed — wait for it — “police.”)

Eliza said: “Tony loved his work. He came home at the end of the day and began to draw.”

This year marks a decade since Tony left The Inquirer through a buyout after 41 years in the newsroom. His departure was yet another in a wave of retirements, voluntary separations, and dismissals over the last quarter century that have decimated the ranks of newspaper cartoonists. In the 1980s there were somewhere around 150 cartooning jobs in U.S. newsrooms. Today there are about 30 and not all of them are full time. Similarly, comic strips have withered as the newspapers that spawned these distinctive visual art forms have largely shrunk to shells of their former selves — their demise accelerated by the onslaught of online media where no one has to pay for news they don’t agree with.

As a result, once-robust papers like The Inquirer no longer have their own in-house editorial cartoonist, so they are rarely able to feature on their pages homegrown visual commentary on City Hall or the state legislature — the exact people who most need a pen pointed in their directions.

Instead of finding homes on newspaper editorial or comics pages, today’s cartoonists are intrepidly creating their own digital outlets. You can find your preferred comic humor online without having to look at work you disagree with. It’s great! With the work correctly curated, you never have to have your viewpoints challenged in the virtual world.

Traditional editorial cartooning may be fading, but Tony Auth — mentor and mensch — was recognized as one of its masters for four decades.

Tony wore his many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, lightly. In 2005, he received cartooning’s highest honor, the prestigious Herblock Prize, named for the Post icon whom Tony helped Joel Pett meet all those years ago. Accepting the award, Tony said: “Our job is not to amuse our readers. Our mission is to stir them, inform and inflame them. Our task is to continually hold up our government and our leaders to clear-eyed analysis, unaffected by professional spin-meisters and agenda-pushers”

And so he did.

A winner of the Pulitzer Prize, Signe Wilkinson spent 35 years as an editorial cartoonist at The Inquirer and the Daily News.

Source link

Continue Reading
New York28 mins ago

Reports Say 2 Of Cabo6 Are Talking 2Authorities In Shanquella Case|End Of Cabo6?|Here’s What We Know

Civil Rights Violations32 mins ago

The Scandalous Life of Pastor Ted Haggard… And His Dark Return | Documentary

Military Corruption34 mins ago

Army Chief General Asim Munir Ka Ghar Kesa? 7 Years Ki Age Me Quran Hifz Kia – Patang Bazi Bhi Karte

North America35 mins ago

Florida police cameras show August arrests for alleged voter fraud

Police Bribery38 mins ago

Family Guy Season 21 Episode 7 Full Episode – Family Guy 2022 NoCuts 1080p

World44 mins ago

Iran abolishes morality police | Daily Express Online

Police Brutality45 mins ago


New York1 hour ago

Hip Hop Homicides Season 1 Episode 5 Soulja Slim (Dec 1, 2022) Full Episode HD

Civil Rights Violations2 hours ago

Bret and Heather 152nd DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Free Speech: The Kanye Case

Military Corruption2 hours ago

BREAKING! Elon Musk reveals Twitter Corruption in Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Police Bribery2 hours ago

Democrats Screw Over Rail Workers HARD

World2 hours ago

Pune PMC News | PMC’s inaction over corruption of millions of…

Police Brutality2 hours ago

LIVE: Protest at Stanford University Against China's COVID Lockdowns; Urumqi Fire Victims Mourned

New York3 hours ago

Girl Was Born With Demonic Twin Inside Her | Plot Twist Recaps

Civil Rights Violations3 hours ago

Pastors’ Point of View (PPOV) no. 235. Prophecy Update. Drs. Andy Woods & Jim McGowan. 12-2-22.

New York5 months ago

Sendomeng Remèt Lapolis Towo a- Bandi Izo 2 Gwo Zam Sou Lestomak – Yo pa Touyel – Demwazèl la Febli

Civil Rights Violations5 months ago

See No Evil (2022) ❤️Snatched on Camera❤️❤️ See No Evil July 02, 2022 FULL EPISODE

Blogs3 months ago

Boost Your Rankings and Attract More Customers with AiLOQ Digital Marketing Platform!

Police Brutality5 months ago

#michael They Don't Care About Us😍❤

Military Corruption5 months ago


Civil Rights Violations5 months ago


Civil Rights Violations5 months ago

DON'T WATCH THIS 🙈 If You Believe the Market is Crashing! | GREY MARKET

Military Corruption5 months ago

নারকেল ফাটানো কেলেঙ্কারি | Hasir Video | Bangla Cartoon | Pass Entertainment

Military Corruption5 months ago


Police Bribery5 months ago


CopWatch4 months ago

Bronx man and police watchdog says cops roughed him up for filming them, plans to sue NYPD – New York Daily News

New York5 months ago

🔴 Koudyè | EN DIRECT | 5 JUILLET 2022 – 3H

Civil Rights Violations5 months ago

RAW CHASE VIDEO: Camaro vs Police After Game Stop Robbery in Houston

New York5 months ago

At US/Mexico Border With Texas Sheriff (exclusive access) 🇺🇸 🇲🇽

Military Corruption5 months ago