Wednesday, May 30, 2018

USA news on Youtube May 30 2018

Mueller Tries Second Delay, Legal Games Indicate No Evidence

SIGN UP FOR CONSERVATIVE DAILY POST NEWS ALERTS

Email address Sign Up

Robert Mueller's special investigation recently entered its second year, and has still failed

to produce a single charge related to allegations of collusion with Russian and its government.

However, early in the investigation, he and his legal team did score 16 indictments; 13

against Russian individuals, and three against Russian businesses.

When the first of those indictments were challenged in court, however, it fell apart.

Now, the special investigator has filed motions to delay the trials indefinitely, which is

strange considering how confident he appeared in the indictments before.

This second request for a delay, along with the legal games the special prosecutors are

playing in federal court, suggests that they have no confidence in their evidence, if they

have any at all.

It appears these sixteen charges were nothing more than a publicity stunt in front of the

media, and the investigation never intended to substantiate their claims at all.

On Tuesday, Mueller again asked a federal judge to reject a law that has been in place

for more than 40 years in the case he brought against 16 Russian entities.

He asked, yet again, that a federal court ignore the 'Speedy Trial Act.'

The Speedy Trial Act is a federal law that states a federal criminal case must begin

within 70 days of the date of indictment.

Last time the special investigator demanded the law be ignored, it was rejected without

comment by federal Judge Dabney Friedrich.

In his court filing on Tuesday, Mueller said that the federal government needed additional

time due to the 'complexity' of the case.

To paraphrase his filing, he stated that district courts are able to, upon request from an involved

party, grant an "excludable continuance" if doing so is in the best interest of the

public.

He continued on to say that there was a "voluminous" discovery issue at stake, and that the court

needed to resolve a number of procedural issues that were 'unique' to this case.

According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, however, it was too late for him

to claim that the 'complexity' of the case required a delay.

He pointed out that the law says the right to a speedy trial belongs to the defendant,

not the prosecution.

If the defendant wants a trial within 70 days, the government has no right or cause to complain.

The government actor (in this case, the special investigation), had every chance in the world

to take their time in seeking indictments.

They controlled the tempo of the investigation and the indictment process.

They chose to rush 16 indictments through, likely as part of a public relations maneuver

to show that the investigation was producing some sort of evidence of 'Russian collusion.'

When they issued these charges, that signaled to the courts (and the accused) that the government

was ready to proceed with a court case against the indicted.

It's likely that when Mueller's team filed the indictments against the Russian individuals

and organizations on February 16, he believed that none of them would ever go to trial.

After all, there is nothing that the United States can do to force them to show up for

these criminal trials.

At worst, they could simply have the individuals arrested if they ever go to a country with

an extradition agreement, and bar the businesses from operating in America.

McCarthy himself pointed out that the charges were nothing but political theater.

In a shocking twist, though, Concord Management and Consulting LLC hired lawyers from American

law firm Reed Smith to represent them.

Just over two weeks ago, Eric Dubelier, a partner at the firm, entered a not guilty

plea in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

He also filed motions for discovery, and asserted his client's interest in a speedy trial.

He also demanded the jury instructions given to the grand jury that produced the indictment.

Dubelier noted that there was no mention in the charging documents of appropriate mens

rea behind the crime, which is necessary for the claims made against the Russian company.

He even pointed out that there was no specificity to the document, which simply said that Concord

Management committed a crime.

The document made no mention of who, or what group of people within the company, committed

any sort of illegal activity.

The motion for discovery by the defense would require Mueller to turn over intelligence

information about alleged Russian activities.

Last week, the special prosecutor responded to the motion, and said he was prepared to

offer two terabytes of information from Russian social media into the court's record.

It doesn't seem like Mueller was complying with the perfectly legal and reasonable request

for discovery; instead, he seemed to be intent on flooding the docket with a huge amount

of evidence, almost all of which was written in Russian.

McCarthy pointed out that this move was an attempt to "manufacture complexity" where

none necessarily existed, and that it was simply a delaying tactic, hoping to chew into

the defendant's resources.

He added that such dishonest tactics are "apt to make the presiding judge very angry."

It seems like all the negative things people said about Mueller's indictments turned

out to be true.

According to his own court filings, it appears that even the special prosecutor himself is

admitting that he rushed to file charges without having completed his investigation.

Hopefully, this results in these 16 farcical indictments being thrown out.

If the special investigator, who was the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

cannot understand how to properly indict people, it's time to shut this special investigation

down.

Just because Mueller did a bad job in completing his own task, that does not mean that the

law should bend to accommodate him.

Laws exist for a reason, and that reason is not to make life easier for the federal government.

For more infomation >> Mueller Tries Second Delay, Legal Games Indicate No Evidence - Duration: 13:32.

-------------------------------------------

B*D News For Wanda Sykes Who Quit 'Roseanne' Right Before Cancellation – She Knew! - Duration: 6:03.

BAD News For Racist Wanda Sykes Who Quit 'Roseanne' Right Before Cancellation – She Knew!

Wanda Sykes is getting really bad news after she quit working on the Roseanne show.

There are a few things she's said that finally come back to haunt her as the general public

use what she previously said against her.

There's a wicked double standard running rampant in the entertainment industry ,and

we all need to put our foot down on it before it gets out of hand.

There are a few things that Sykes said that many people consider racist ,and much worse

than what Roseanne Tweeted about Valerie Jarret – a name many people didn't really know

until Roseanne just made her famous with a single Tweet.

Sykes is known for using racially charged content in her attempts at jokes, often failing

to gather a gasping belly laugh from her audience who gives a chuckle, but doesn't seem to

really be into her using the Hollywood double standard to push her fledgling comedy act.

She may have gotten lucky with a few of her standup jokes, but a lot of people seem to

be turned off by her using racism in her act.

Mostly, her jokes are subjectively not that funny, but to each their own.

The bad news is that Wanda's basic schoolyard jokes are now causing her to feel the wrath

of the public.

She knew what she said in the past ,and for her to quit the Roseanne show over a misinterpreted

Tweet that people called racist after remembering what she said herself about white people is

just oblivious.

Sykes comments about white people were rather offensive, although most people didn't care

what she said.

Intelligent people don't get offended when a comedian says something offensive.

Lots of comedians have entire acts where almost everything is offensive and that's what

makes them funny.

Offensive jokes and content are well liked by most people and anyone who claims to not

like it, while saying things like what Sykes said, is clearly hiding something about themselves.

Sykes probably should have remembered that she too made racially charged comments before

quitting the Roseanne show ,and acting like she was making a moral statement.

People who like Wanda Sykes laughed at her jokes.

People who like Roseanne laugh at hers.

There shouldn't be anyone getting offended or reporting things.

If people don't like something, then they can simply skip over it and find something

they like.

At one point Sykes said something about white people not stealing wallets, but stealing

entire countries.

Some might suggest that the Europeans "conquered upon discovery" – not stole.

Sykes also commented during one of her live stand-up shows that Americans voted for an

orangutan as ,she talked about Donald Trump and the fact that he looks like a weird shade

of orange from his tanning products.

Sure, it's obvious that the Trump uses a spray tan or tanning booth and everyone knows

he looks a little orange, and that's fine.

Sykes went for a joke by comparing the color of an orangutan and the color of President

Trump.

Some laughed, most didn't care because the joke was rather lame.

Here is a video of Wanda Sykes trashing Trump and essentially getting booed.

She would also give the crowd the middle finger.

It seems like her jokes failed, but that's mostly because people are tired of their entertainment

being ruined by politics and failure comedians going after them with racism ,and other nonsensical

verbal abuse.

Sykes allegedly made this comment on Twitter as well, which was called out immediately

for being inappropriate.

Roseanne did basically the same thing as Wanda Sykes, yet Roseanne just got fired from her

show over it (her show is canceled).

Meanwhile, Wanda just faces a little bit of social media outrage.

Roseanne compared white-looking Valerie Jarrett to someone from the Planet of the Apes movies

and this was probably because of her facial structure and haircut.

To be fair, just like Trump looks a little orange, it's a fair assumption to suggest

that Jarrett does slightly resemble Helena Bonham Carter's character.

Carter, by the way, is a stunningly beautiful woman (great in The Fight Club), but she had

a similar short hairdo (or don't) with bangs in the movie and that's probably the basis

of Roseanne's joke.

They both had very lame jokes, but should either of them be fired for their poor taste

in humor?

If a comedian tells a bad joke and people complain, then shouldn't it be "oh well"

for the people who don't like their sense of humor?

Humor is subjective, so some people might like Wanda, some might like Roseanne, some

may like both, and others may not like them at all.

Shouldn't that be how it is?

Right now it seems like if someone doesn't like a joke or finds something subjectively

offensive, then their first reaction is to boycott or get someone fired.

Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous for everyone?

Maybe everyone should calm down, focus on what makes them happy, and stop worrying about

what the others are doing.

People who are mad at Roseanne weren't watching her show anyway, so there's no point to

cancel it.

People who don't like what Wanda said don't watch her act either.

Everything works out fine when people focus on the things they enjoy instead of being

mad about someone they don't watch in the first place.

It's all fake outrage and double standards.

Is the big problem the huge double standard?

Why can one person crack jokes about someone's appearance and another person cannot?

Do you think everyone needs to stop complaining about offensive jokes?

Would classic comedians like George Carlin and Richard Pryor be disappointed with society

today?

Should Roseanne get her show back?

Should Wanda Sykes face the same backlash from her comments (which were much worse)?

What is your opinion on this "everyone is offended by everything" disaster and obvious

mainstream media industry double standard?

what do you think about this?

Please Share this news and Scroll down to comment below and don't forget to subscribe

top stories today.

For more infomation >> B*D News For Wanda Sykes Who Quit 'Roseanne' Right Before Cancellation – She Knew! - Duration: 6:03.

-------------------------------------------

Jhacari VS Chris 🔥 DANCE BATTLE ~ Best Trends Challenge - Duration: 5:04.

Jhacari VS Chris 🔥 DANCE BATTLE ~ Best Trends Challenge

For more infomation >> Jhacari VS Chris 🔥 DANCE BATTLE ~ Best Trends Challenge - Duration: 5:04.

-------------------------------------------

Should national service be mandatory in the US? - Duration: 3:37.

Military conscription is mandatory

enlistment in the armed forces.

It's perhaps more popularly known as the draft.

A National service commitment isn't a unique idea.

Conscription dates back to antiquity and today

many European and Asian nations

currently employ such policies.

Israel and Switzerland are two of the most notable examples.

Even Denmark requires four months of service from adult men.

All three countries demanding by law that youth

of a certain age are required to register with the

military or with a civil service body

for a certain amount of time.

Many US veterans have gone on the record to discuss

the merits of a year of service.

But let's remember that the Pentagon recently

reported that only 29% of young people

are even eligible for the military.

In Switzerland, anyone unfit for service

whether physically or mentally is exempt.

But they much pay an additional income tax

until the age of 30 unless they're affected by a disability.

I don't think it'd go over well if the US told 71%

of it's 20 somethings they owed a hike in their taxes

unless they joined the military.

But conscription remains an idle debate

in the United States nonetheless.

Former Joint Special Operations Command Chief

Stanley McCrystal has stated that

all young Americans should serve for a year.

And there are many people who agree.

The retired General said on multiple occasions

the time is right for our country to institute

a mandatory year of paid National Service

for young Americans ages 18 to 28 years old.

He argued that a year long commitment would not only

instill the values of accountability, responsibility

towards citizenship but would also develop

character and leadership traits.

Now he's not saying that every American

needs to serve in the military per se.

He argued for an open choice between different service

organizations, allowing young Americans

to work within their communities.

He referenced the infrastructure of Americorp,

Youth Build and the Peace Corp to suggest that

our young country men and women help perform

a variety of tasks such as tutoring and mentoring students,

supporting the elderly, helping communities respond

to disasters and assisting veterans

reintegrate to civilian life.

By the way, McCrystal isn't alone

in mulling over this concept.

Vietnam war vet and music legend Chris Christopherson once

suggested all politicians serve in the military for a year.

Make sure you check out our video of the time he stole

a helicopter and landed it on Johnny Cash's lawn.

Now countering that idea, Conor Friedersdorf

wrote an Op Ed for the Atlantic in 2013 where

he suggested that while citizens do have an obligation

to give back, a one size fits all program

could never be implemented justly.

Pro conscription support is controversial

because conscientious objectors might not want to serve

in the military or participate

in a particular conflict for ideological reasons.

The argument could also be made that it violates

the rights of the individual.

We're a nation based on the merits of freedom after all.

There's also a lingering fear of the draft.

The US military has been sustained by volunteers since

the post Vietnam era but conscription laws

do still exist in the event that we do not have

enough service members to meet the needs

of the Department of Defense.

Currently by law all male persons must register

with the selective service system

within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

This opens up a completely different argument

which is whether the draft should include women

especially after a 2016 vote in the Senate

approved a military policy bill that

would require women to register.

The bill was later restructured to remove this policy

but it became a heated topic for a while.

Currently the National year of service topic

has yet to be brought up by the White House or Congress

though it still remains a talking point for many.

Until then, leadership like McCrystal continues

to sponsor efforts to afford both military veterans

and civilian volunteers more opportunities

to voluntarily serve our country in various organizations.

So what do you guys think?

Should the year of service, military or otherwise

be required for Americans, leave a comment.

Let me know. (marching band music)

For more infomation >> Should national service be mandatory in the US? - Duration: 3:37.

-------------------------------------------

Henry Armstrong vs Baby Arizmedni IV - Duration: 13:00.

For more infomation >> Henry Armstrong vs Baby Arizmedni IV - Duration: 13:00.

-------------------------------------------

Not Going Quietly, Roseanne Takes Aim At Enemies, Including Co Star Sara Gilbert - Duration: 4:20.

Not Going Quietly, Roseanne Takes Aim At Enemies, Including Co Star Sara Gilbert.

If you thought that Roseanne Barr was going to remain silent after being fired, then you

don't know Roseanne.

A day after being unceremoniously given the boot from her hit ABC show, the 65-year-old

comedian came out firing with both barrels, taking on her enemies with expert precision.

Barr took responsibility for her tweet to Valerie Jarrett, who served as an aide to

former President Barack Obama, that likened her to a mix between the Muslim Brotherhood,

and someone from the movie "Planet of the Apes."

But she did blame her use of the sleep aid Ambien for her tweet.

"Guys I did something unforgivable so do not defend me," she wrote in a since-deleted

tweet on Wednesday.

"It was 2 in the morning and I was ambien tweeting it was memorial day too, i went 2

far & do not want it defended it was egregious Indefensible.

I made a mistake I wish I hadn't but don't defend it please."

"I think Joe Rogan is right about Ambien," she said.

"Not giving excuses for what I did (tweeted) but I've done weird stuff while on Ambien:

cracked eggs on the wall at 2 am etc." Barr is set to appear on Rogan's podcast, "The

Joe Rogan Experience" on Friday.

Barr also took on her "Roseanne" costars as they threw her under the bus in the blink

of an eye.

"Roseanne's recent comments about Valerie Jarrett, and so much more, are abhorrent and

do not reflect the beliefs of our cast, and crew or anyone associated with our show.

I am disappointed in her actions to say the least," Sara Gilbert, who played Darlene

Conner on the show, wrote.

"This is incredibly sad and difficult for all of us, as we've created a show that

we believe in, are proud of, and that audiences love one that is separate and apart from the

opinions and words of one cast member."

"Wow!

Unreal," Barr responded as she watched a woman whose career she made take her apart.

She was equally stunned by a statement from Michael Fishman, who played DJ Conner, who

wrote "Today is one of the hardest days of my life.

I feel devastated, not for the end of the Roseanne show, but for all those who poured

their hearts and souls into our jobs, and the audience that welcomed us into their home,"

he wrote.

"My character was designed to represent the inclusive nature of my views.

To represent potions of society often marginalized In this moment it is important to be clear.

We must stand up against bias, hatred, bigotry, and ignorance to make society a better place

for all."

Barr was unimpressed with the words of the actor who, like Gilbert, was catapulted to

superstardom by the show she created.

"I created the platform for that inclusivity and you know it.

ME.

And you throw me under the bus.

Nice!" she wrote.

The actress and comedian was also incensed by the fact that there are two sets of rules

in Hollywood.

One for conservatives and those who support President Trump and another for those who

toe the liberal line.

"I'm sorry 4 my tweet, AND I will also defend myself as well as talk to my followers.

so, go away if u don't like it.

I will handle my sadness the way I want to.

I'm tired of being attacked & belittled more than other comedians who have said worse,"

she wrote in one, since deleted, tweet.

"hey guys, don't defend me, it's sweet of you 2 try, but losing my show is 0 compared

2 being labelled a racist over one tweet-that I regret even more," she wrote in another.

The comedian also shared the tweets of others who highlighted things other famous people

have said.

People whose careers have not been destroyed for what they did.

It is understandable that many people found Barr's tweet offensive.

Whether she meant it as a race quip or not, only she knows, but one thing is certain.

The amount of forgiveness Hollywood gives someone for saying something offensive depends,

on how far on the progressive scale their politics are.

What do you think about this?

Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe

top stories today.

For more infomation >> Not Going Quietly, Roseanne Takes Aim At Enemies, Including Co Star Sara Gilbert - Duration: 4:20.

-------------------------------------------

Hilarious New Nickname For Obama Library Instantly Goes Viral – Michelle's Furious - Duration: 12:47.

For more infomation >> Hilarious New Nickname For Obama Library Instantly Goes Viral – Michelle's Furious - Duration: 12:47.

-------------------------------------------

Trump silent on 'Roseanne' cancellation, but has plenty to say on other current events - Duration: 4:16.

Trump silent on 'Roseanne' cancellation, but has plenty to say on other current events

NASHVILLE — President Trump touched on a host of current events during his Tuesday night rally at Nashvilles Municipal Auditorium.

MS-13, health care, the U.S.

embassy in Jerusalem and Chicagos crime rate were all touched on throughout the hour-long event.

But there was one headline he didnt talk about: He did not address ABCs cancellation of Roseanne.

ABC canceled the show on Tuesday in response to Barrs racist tweets about former White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, who worked in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017.

Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby, Barr tweeted about Jarrett.

The tweet has since been deleted.

Barr has been a vocal supporter of Trump, and hes also been positive about her work.

As recently as March, Trump told a rally in Ohio that Barrs blue-collar comedy reflected his supporters. .

Even look at Roseanne. I called her yesterday. Look at her ratings, Trump said in Richfield, Ohio.

They were unbelievable. Over 18 million people. And it was about us.  They havent figured it out; the fake news hasnt quite figured it out yet..

Hours before the rally, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had not paid attention to Barrs controversies because he is extremely focused on issues like North Korea, the economy and the military.

Thats what hes spending his time on, Sanders told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, adding that there are bigger things going on in the country right now.

Roseannes Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show, Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment, said in a statement.

Barr apologized for the tweet hours later.

I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans.

I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks, she said.

I should have known better.

Forgive me — my joke was in bad taste..

The damage had been done, however.

Several writers, actors and media personalities denounced the tweets.

Wanda Sykes pulled out of her role on the show, and co-star Sara Gilbert tweeted that Barrs words do not reflect the beliefs of our cast and crew or anyone associated with our show.

For more infomation >> Trump silent on 'Roseanne' cancellation, but has plenty to say on other current events - Duration: 4:16.

-------------------------------------------

Philippines Will 'Go to War' With China if it Crosses 'Red Lines' - Duration: 1:02.

For more infomation >> Philippines Will 'Go to War' With China if it Crosses 'Red Lines' - Duration: 1:02.

-------------------------------------------

Supreme Court extends privacy protection to cars in a driveway - Duration: 5:16.

Supreme Court extends privacy protection to cars in a driveway

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the Constitutions privacy protection to include vehicles that are parked on a homes driveway or carport, ruling that police need a search warrant before they may inspect them.

In general, police may look closely at cars that are parked along public roads, without the need for a search warrant.

But in Tuesdays 8-1 ruling, the justices said a vehicle parked in a carport or on private property adjacent to a home deserves the privacy protection of the 4th Amendment.

When a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on private property and walks up to a house to look for evidence, a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment has occurred, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Collins vs.

Virginia.

Such conduct thus is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant..

Tuesdays ruling closely tracks a decision in 2013 when the court ruled that police may not bring a drug-sniffing dog to the front porch of a home without a search warrant.

In both instances, the justices said the 4th Amendment gives its greatest protection for homes and the private property surrounding them.

The court ruled in favor of Ryan Collins, a Virginia man who was convicted of stealing a motorcycle.

Two officers in Albemarle County were in search of a distinctive orange-and-black-colored cycle they had seen speeding.

After doing some research on Facebook, they saw Collins had posted a photograph of the cycle.

One officer stopped at the house where Collins was living and saw from the street what looked to be a motorcycle under a tarp.

It was next to the house.

The officer walked up the driveway, lifted the tarp and took several photos of the cycle.

Collins was arrested and convicted.

The Virginia courts rejected his claim that the search was unconstitutional, citing the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment.

In defending the conviction, the states lawyers agreed an officer may not enter a closed garage, but they argued there was no such bar on checking a vehicle in plain sight on the property.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both the states courts, and the states fallback legal position about plain sight.

We conclude that the automobile exception does not permit an officer without a warrant to enter a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein, Sotomayor said.

Matthew A.

Fitzgerald, a Richmond lawyer who appealed the case to the Supreme Court, said the ruling makes an important clarification in the law.

It is now clear that a person who parks his vehicle on a private driveway near his home has placed it within the 4th Amendment protection of the home, he said.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

dissented, saying the search was reasonable because the vehicle was parked in plain view in a driveway just a few feet from the street..

In a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas took the most far-reaching view.

He concurred with the outcome based on precedent, but said the court should overturn the exclusionary rule, which since 1961 has blocked the use of illegally obtained evidence in state courts.

I have serious doubts about this courts authority to impose that rule on the states, he said.

For more infomation >> Supreme Court extends privacy protection to cars in a driveway - Duration: 5:16.

-------------------------------------------

2018 Humanitarian Award Ceremony Highlights - Duration: 7:02.

♪♪♪

Good evening, I'm

Mayor Eric Garcetti.

It's my pleasure to welcome you

to The Foundation for Global

Sports Development's

2018 Humanitarian Awards.

If this is your first time here,

welcome to the city of angels.

And I'd like to extend a

heartfelt greeting to an

extraordinary group of women:

the heroic gymnasts

who stood up against abuse

and intimidation.

Your incredible athleticism is

matched only by your courage.

Well, good evening.

It's a real privilege for me

to join you and to help

celebrate a group of

extraordinary women tonight.

The reason I'm honored to be

here is because we're going to

be talking about two things

that matter most to me,

which is sports and courage.

The group we have today

could not possibly be

more deserving.

The athletes who were

intimidated, abused, and

betrayed have transformed

their sorrow and anger into

a force for good.

They're an army of survivors,

driven by courage,

solidarity, and the truth.

If we care about the future

of our children -- whether

it's in sports or any other form

of entertainment or discipline,

we have to give them the tools

to succeed safely.

To that end, GSD is partnering

with a leading child welfare

organization called

Childhelp USA to develop an

innovative new program that

will give people around the

world precisely those

kinds of tools.

I, in my good fortune,

have had the opportunity to sit

in a lot of rooms with a lot of

talented people, but I don't

think ever a room so empowering

and impressive as the group

that is here with me today.

We're here tonight to shine a

light and exemplify a group of

stunning women who have endured

immeasurable pain and have had the

the courage to fight against

this unacceptable pattern

of power and patriarchy.

And they have been fighting

hard for all of us - fighting

the men that abused them,

but also - and maybe more

importantly fighting the silence

The women in this room are

taking back what was stolen from

them - their dignity, their

confidence, and their ability

to come together as a

community and fight.

*cheering and applause*

Hope is rising.

Hope that the next person that

has to say "me too" will be

believed and supported.

Better yet hope that there

is not a next person.

Hope that our children and

yours can go to school and

church and sporting events

and feel safe.

What we started years ago

by speaking up about the horrors

we endured together

did not fall on deaf ears.

Change is happening.

Be proud.

We stood strong

in the face of resistance for

years - feeling at times as if

we were the ones being

investigated.

But we would not be silenced.

And now look where we stand.

With all these women -- all these

younger women who felt

empowered to say something.

And I'm so proud of every

single one of you for standing

up and saying something.

You gave us voices again.

And I cannot tell you how

thankful we are to you and

the difference that it's going

to make in the lives of people

going forward.

These types of questions are

hard. And they are awkward.

It's an uncomfortable topic,

but I assure you the small

amount of discomfort asking

your kids, your students,

your players, your gymnasts -

these questions is tiny

compared to the questions that

will rattle around in their

brains and hearts for the rest

of their lives.

Take the onus of initiating

the conversation off of

children's backs.

I share the same beliefs as

this remarkable foundation.

I, too, believe that we must do

everything in our power to

ensure that assault and

harassment are not a part of

our culture and to ensure the

nine year old little girls

I work with never ever

experience what I did

at their age.

WIthout my courageous

teammates beside me I'm not

sure I would've had the

strength to keep pushing.

And that's why we're all

here tonight.

To band together and keep

pushing for change in sports.

My wish is that a child can

go to any type of sports class

and be free of fear in pursuing

their dreams and walk away from

that sport with great

experiences and memories.

I just want to say to all of the

other survivors that are

out there -

we're here for you.

And we believe you,

and truly we will fight for you.

Our army --

We're never backing down.

Ever.

And even I listening to

you all am inspired -

You know...

To speak up

and to speak out.

And so I hope all of you

rest assured

that you are doing something

that is having impact.

And all of you deserve to be

commended for having the courage

to reflect on pain

and to feel that

and to make it have a purpose.

Take heart in that

and continue to forge forward,

because we need you.

*applause*

*applause and cheering*

No comments:

Post a Comment