A group of Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation that would ban the federal government from using facial recognition technology.

The legislation was rolled out following weeks of criticism after the technology was used during protests over the death of George Floyd. 

The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act would prohibit the use of facial recognition technologies by all federal groups, a ban that could only be lifted by an act of Congress. This ban would extend to other biometric surveillance systems, including voice recognition tools and any other technology that used physical characteristics to identify an individual.  

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill would also withhold federal funding from state and local governmental groups, including law enforcement, that failed to ban the use of facial recognition technologies. Any information collected through the use of facial recognition or biometric technologies that violated the proposed bill would not be admissible in court. 

The proposed legislation was rolled out after weeks of protest over the deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police, during which concerns over law enforcement use of facial recognition were raised.

Advocates against the use of facial recognition are concerned that the technologies pose greater risks to non-white individuals. 

The backlash against facial recognition technologies forced groups including Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft to roll back facial recognition work with law enforcement in recent weeks, and the Boston City Council on Wednesday unanimously voted to ban government groups from using these technologies in the city. 

The bill was introduced by Sens. Edward MarkeyEdward (Ed) John MarkeyNASA names DC headquarters after agency’s first Black female engineer Mary W. Jackson Progressives riding high as votes tabulated in NY, Kentucky Overnight Defense: Navy won’t reinstate fired captain | Dems probe use of federal officers in DC | Air Force appoints woman as top noncommissioned officer MORE (D-Mass.) and Jeff MerkleyJeffrey (Jeff) Alan MerkleyHillicon Valley: Democrats introduce bill banning federal government use of facial recognition tech | House lawmakers roll out legislation to establish national cyber director | Top federal IT official to step down Democratic lawmakers introduce legislation banning government use of facial recognition technologies Facial recognition tools under fresh scrutiny amid police protests MORE (D-Ore.) in the Senate, and by Reps. Ayanna PressleyAyanna PressleyHillicon Valley: Democrats introduce bill banning federal government use of facial recognition tech | House lawmakers roll out legislation to establish national cyber director | Top federal IT official to step down Democratic lawmakers introduce legislation banning government use of facial recognition technologies The Hill’s Campaign Report: Progressive candidates face make-or-break moment ahead MORE (D-Mass.) and Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalHillicon Valley: Democrats introduce bill banning federal government use of facial recognition tech | House lawmakers roll out legislation to establish national cyber director | Top federal IT official to step down Democratic lawmakers introduce legislation banning government use of facial recognition technologies Former Sen. Kaufman to run Biden transition team MORE (D-Wash.) in the House. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Pressley, whose district covers most of Boston, said in a statement that “facial recognition technology is fundamentally flawed, systemically biased, and has no place in our society.”

“Black and brown people are already over-surveilled and over-policed, and it’s critical that we prevent government agencies from using this faulty technology to surveil communities of color even further,” Pressley added.

“Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country,” Markey said in a statement.  “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present.”

Merkley emphasized that “at a time when Americans are demanding that we address systemic racism in law enforcement, the use of facial recognition technology is a step in the wrong direction.” 

The legislation was introduced the same day the House was set to vote on a sweeping police reform bill, which Jayapal highlighted in a statement. 

“Introduced on the same day that the House is set to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, our legislation will not only protect civil liberties but it will aggressively fight back against racial injustice by stopping federal entities from using facial recognition tools and stripping support for state and local law enforcement departments that use biometric technology,” Jayapal said. 

Multiple advocacy groups have thrown their support behind the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which earlier this week filed a complaint against Detroit police for allegedly wrongfully arresting a Black man identified through flawed facial recognition technology. 

“No one should have to fear the government tracking and identifying their face wherever they go,” ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Neema Singh Guliani said in a statement on Thursday. “It’s past time Congress halted the use of face recognition and stopped federal money from being used to invest in invasive and discriminatory surveillance. This bill should immediately pass.”

Civil rights advocacy group Color of Change was also among organizations expressing support of the bill on Thursday. 

“For Black communities, surveillance is not safety,” Color of Change Senior Campaign Director Brandi Collins-Dexter said in a statement. “We endorse Senator Markey and Representative Pressley’s proposed ban on facial recognition technology because it recognizes the bias baked into its coding, and that especially in the hands of the police, it is a dangerous surveillance tool. 

Collins-Dexter added that “ultimately, facial recognition software will always heighten the tremendous attacks that Black communities already face from law enforcement. We support this bill as a critical step toward a society where our communities can live without surveillance.”

Click Here: cheap INTERNATIONAL jersey

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerGOP lawmakers voice support for Israeli plan to annex areas in West Bank The Hill’s Coronavirus Report: Rep. Mark Takano says Congress must extend worker benefits expiring in July; WHO reports record spike in global cases UPDATE: Trump denies he slowed down coronavirus testing MORE (D-N.Y.) said on Monday that he will not return a blue slip if the administration nominates Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton to be the next U.S. attorney for Manhattan.

“As the senator from New York, I will not return a blue slip on Mr. Clayton’s nomination,” Schumer said from the Senate floor.

Schumer’s opposition to Clayton could represent a significant roadblock to President TrumpDonald John TrumpSouth Korea slams Bolton book as ‘distorting the reality’ of nuclear talks Democrats face tough questions with Bolton Protesters try to bring down statue of Andrew Jackson near White House MORE’s hopes of getting him confirmed as the next U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) as Trump takes sharp criticism over the ouster of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman.

ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGOP rallies around Trump after firing of Manhattan US attorney Graham: Trump visa order will have a ‘chilling effect on our economic recovery’ Schumer says he won’t return blue slip if Trump nominates Clayton as US attorney MORE (R-S.C.) said over the weekend that he would “honor” the committee’s tradition of waiting to receive blue slips from home-state senators, which indicate if they support a nominee, before moving forward with the nomination. 

That would mean both Schumer and Sen. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandGOP rallies around Trump after firing of Manhattan US attorney Schumer says he won’t return blue slip if Trump nominates Clayton as US attorney Graham signals he won’t take up U.S. attorney pick without Schumer, Gillibrand signoff MORE (D-N.Y.) would get blue slips giving them the possibility of blocking Clayton by not returning the pieces of paper if the administration moves forward with the nomination. 

“As to processing U.S. Attorney nominations, it has always been the policy of the Judiciary Committee to receive blue slips from the home state senators before proceeding to the nomination,” Graham said in a statement. 

“As chairman, I have honored that policy and will continue to do so,” he added. 

Gillibrand has also signaled that she will oppose Clayton’s nomination. 

Click Here: camiseta rosario central

ADVERTISEMENT

“I will not be complicit in helping President Trump and Attorney General Barr fire a U.S. attorney who is reportedly investigating corruption in this administration. Jay Clayton should withdraw his name from consideration immediately and remove himself from this sham,” she said in a statement. 

Attorney General Bill Barr said over weekend that Berman was “stepping down” and that the administration was intending to nominate Clayton, who was a longtime corporate lawyer but has not worked as a federal prosecutor. 

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Monday that the president nominated Clayton for the role because Clayton “wanted to go back to New York City.”

“We wanted to keep him in government and therefore he was given the position at SDNY,” McEnany said. 

It wouldn’t be the first time a senator blocked the Senate from confirming a U.S. attorney by not returning their blue slip. 

Berman, for example, was not confirmed by the Senate after Gillibrand vowed to oppose his nomination and not return her blue slip. Instead, he was appointed by the federal district court to stay in the position until a nominee was confirmed by the Senate.

Schumer reiterated on Monday that he believes Clayton should withdraw himself from consideration. 

“Jay Clayton should withdraw his name from consideration and refuse to be an accomplice to this scheme. There appears to have been no legitimate motive to fire Mr. Berman, which leaves the obvious question: were President Trump and the Attorney General trying to remove him for a corrupt motive?” Schumer said on Monday. 

A large-scale coronavirus vaccine trial began in South Africa on Wednesday, making it the first African nation included in such a study.

The University of Oxford in Britain is conducting vaccine trials in South Africa, Britain and Brazil. The university, the Oxford Jenner Institute and University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg are collaborating in the South African part of the trials, according to a release. 

The first participants for the trial were screened last week and will be vaccinated this week, Shabir Madhi, a professor of vaccinology at University of the Witwatersrand who is leading the South African trials, said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This is a landmark moment for South Africa and Africa at this stage of the Covid-19 pandemic. As we enter winter in South Africa and pressure increases on public hospitals, now more than ever we need a vaccine to prevent infection by Covid-19,” Madhi said in a statement.

By last week, South Africa had 30 percent of all confirmed COVID-19 cases and 23 percent of the deaths in the African continent. This week the country also experienced its highest one-day increase in COVID-19 deaths with 111 on Tuesday.

As a whole, Africa has counted almost 325,000 cases. Countries have begun lifting coronavirus restrictions, with people saying they’ve been unable to feed their families while under lockdown.

Some public experts predict the continent will become the next hot spot in the pandemic. 

Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief John Nkengasong said Wednesday that the pandemic was delayed in Africa “but is picking up speed very quickly,” The Associated Press reported. 

“Unless we act now, Africa is at risk of being left behind on the global vaccine,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

All 54 of Africa’s countries now have the lab capacity to test for the coronavirus, up from in February when only two were able to test, accordion got the AP. 

African leaders have been requesting more medical supplies, saying they have been left out of the competition for them during the pandemic. World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the initial supply of the vaccine should be distributed where it’s needed, rather than based on a country’s “ability to pay.”

Oxford University and AstraZeneca are expected to begin their third phase of testing in the U.S. in August, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases confirmed to The Hill earlier this month.

Click Here: camiseta rosario central

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration move forward with expanding a procedure for quickly deporting undocumented immigrants despite a lawsuit against the program.

A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new rule that significantly expands the number of undocumented immigrants who can be deported without being able to make their case to a judge or accessing an attorney.

In the 2-1 ruling, the majority wrote that a group of nonprofits had legal standing to bring the lawsuit but that immigration law granting broad authority to DHS makes their case unlikely to succeed.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal, within statutory bounds, to the Secretary’s independent judgment,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote in the majority decision.

Millett, an Obama appointee, and Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee, were in the panel’s majority. Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by President TrumpDonald John TrumpBowman holds double-digit lead over Engel in NY primary McGrath leads Booker in Kentucky with results due next week NY Republican Chris Jacobs wins special election to replace Chris Collins MORE, dissented, arguing the lawsuit should have been thrown out altogether.

Make the Road New York, one of the immigration groups that brought the suit, vowed to keep fighting the new policy.

Click Here: camiseta rosario central

“Expanding the expedited removal policy strips immigrants of the fundamental right of due process and destroys families, including those who have lived in the United States for years and are caught up in a dragnet enforcement tool that is prone to error and abuse,” Javier Valdés, the group’s co-executive director, said in a statement. “While we applaud the court’s finding that this change is reviewable, we strongly reject its allowing the policy take effect. We will continue to fight against Trump’s illegal fast-track deportation policy.”

Congress passed a law in 1996 allowing immigration officials sweeping power to quickly deport recently arrived undocumented immigrants. But in the years since the law was implemented, it had mostly been applied to migrants at the border.

ADVERTISEMENT

Then, last year, the Trump administration moved to expand the scope of the program to include any undocumented immigrant in the U.S. who could not prove they had been in the country for more than two years.

Tuesday’s ruling lifts a preliminary injunction that had been in place since September when a federal judge in D.C. sided with a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups, saying that DHS had not complied with procedural requirements in establishing the new rule.

Three groups — Make the Road New York, La Union Del Pueblo Entero and We Count! — filed their lawsuit in August. They argued that the the administration’s expansion threatened to exacerbate an expedited deportation process already rife with problems.

“The Administration’s unprecedented decision to expand expedited removal to a vast group of noncitizens apprehended anywhere in the United States, and to noncitizens who have been living in the country for long periods, disregards twenty years of experience showing that the expedited removal process, even at the border, is rife with errors and results in widespread violations of individuals’ legal rights,” the lawsuit reads.

“That experience shows that the government has erroneously deported numerous individuals through expedited removal, including U.S. citizens and individuals with bona fide fears of persecution in their countries of origin.”

A coalition of 17 states and D.C. backed the lawsuit, arguing the new rule would impose significant burdens on local and state officials and deprive undocumented immigrants in their communities of due process.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

The head of a major farm group on Wednesday blasted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a “barrier” for reducing greenhouse gases in biofuels.

“The EPA has been the primary barrier to a lot of additional success that we can have in the reduction of greenhouse gases in ethanol technology,” said Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, during a Senate hearing. 

“The story for grain-based ethanol in general, the EPA continues to be a barrier not only for the waivers that they’ve issued but also for barriers against higher blends,” he added. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Larew’s comments come days after it was reported that the EPA has received 52 new requests from oil refiners asking for retroactive exemptions to requirements that they blend biofuels into their products. 

A court in January overturned three agency-issued waivers, and the EPA did not appeal the decision. 

Politically, the issue is complex, as the administration struggles to maneuver between the conflicting interests of farmers and the oil industry, both of which are key parts of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump rally sparks self quarantine of dozens of Secret Service agents GOP: Trump needs a new plan Trump faces ObamaCare court deadline as political ground shifts MORE’s base.

The comments came during a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on a new bipartisan bill that aims to help farmers get carbon credits in exchange for sustainable farming practices.

The legislation, titled the Growing Climate Solutions Act, would create a program at the Department of Agriculture to connect farmers with experts to help them navigate the process of getting valuable credits in exchange for capturing and storing carbon. 

A federal court in Washington, D.C., blocked the deportation of a 16-year-old Honduran boy as part of the first legal challenge to a controversial Trump administration policy that invoked the Public Health Service Act to turn back thousands of immigrants at the southern border. 

In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order barring the entry of anyone into the country without authorization, including asylum-seekers, as the country sought to curb the spread of the coronavirus by limiting “nonessential” border crossings. The order resulted in children and adults seeking asylum being removed from the country. 

The court ruled that the CDC surpassed its authority in issuing that order and that the Trump administration violated federal laws that govern the processing of unaccompanied minors.

ADVERTISEMENT

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the boy, who fled to the U.S. to seek protection from persecution in his home country, should be able to live with his father, who resides in the U.S., while waiting for his asylum case to be heard.

“This ruling is a critical first step in pushing back against the Trump administration’s unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove children and asylum seekers under these public health laws,” Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, said in a statement. “We are thrilled for this boy and his family.” 

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, could lead to more challenges to the Trump policy, which turned away thousands of immigrants at the southern border citing the CDC order.

Before that, unaccompanied children would be picked up by Border Patrol agents and sent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. There, they would be housed in shelters across the country as they began their asylum application and waited to be reunited with family members in the country.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking a judge to temporarily block the release of former national security adviser John BoltonJohn BoltonLincoln Project launches new ad hitting Trump over China policies Trump criticizes Bolton as memoir excerpts offer scathing account of White House Bolton book portrays ‘stunningly uninformed’ Trump MORE‘s upcoming memoir, arguing that it contains classified information. 

The Trump administration filed an emergency application Wednesday asking for a restraining order to halt the publication of Bolton’s book, called “The Room Where It Happened.”

“To be clear: Defendant’s manuscript still contains classified information, as confirmed by some of the Government’s most senior national-security and intelligence officials,” reads the DOJ’s memorandum supporting their argument.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Disclosure of the manuscript will damage the national security of the United States,” it continues.

The application includes declarations from top U.S. intelligence and national security officials, including Director of National Intelligence John RatcliffeJohn Lee RatcliffeDOJ seeks temporary restraining order blocking Bolton book release Hillicon Valley: Report finds CIA security failures led to massive breach | Pelosi calls on advertisers to pressure social media giants | Experts warn firms facing serious cyber threats in COVID-19 era Coronavirus Report: The Hill’s Steve Clemons interviews Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney MORE and National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone.

The motion comes the same day The Hill and other news outlets published details of the book almost a week before its release, including explosive allegations that President TrumpDonald John TrumpLincoln Project launches new ad hitting Trump over China policies Trump criticizes Bolton as memoir excerpts offer scathing account of White House Bolton book portrays ‘stunningly uninformed’ Trump MORE asked Chinese leader Xi Jinping to help him get a competitive edge in the upcoming presidential race against former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSenator demands Trump Organization explain Chinese business dealings in light of Bolton book Hillicon Valley: Senate Republicans, DOJ target Section 230 | Facial recognition under the spotlight | Zoom launches E2E encrypted beta The Memo: Bolton exposé makes Trump figure of mockery MORE, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Bolton claims Trump stressed the importance of getting the vote from U.S. farmers and advocated that China make more purchases of U.S. soybeans and wheat to help his electoral chances.

While Bolton does touch on infighting within the White House, he focuses heavily on Trump’s foreign policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

The DOJ’s filing escalates the legal fight between Bolton and the White House over the publication of the book.

Bolton announced plans earlier this year to move forward with the memoir’s publication after a dispute with the White House, saying at the time that he had removed all classified information from the book.

The White House argues Bolton did not receive the green light to use such information, that he is in violation of his nondisclosure agreement with the Trump White House and that he will be publishing classified information.

“The type of classified information in these passages is the type of information that foreign adversaries of the United States seek to obtain, at great cost, through covert intelligence,” Ratcliffe wrote his signed declaration.

“Unauthorized disclosure of these types of classified information could reveal, in some instances, the limits and, in some instances, the capabilities of U.S. intelligence collection and would cause irreparable damage to national security,” Trump’s intelligence chief continues.

ADVERTISEMENT

The motion for an injunction comes as part of a lawsuit the Justice Department filed on Tuesday against Bolton over the book’s publication.

Bolton’s publisher slammed the lawsuit in a statement, calling it “the latest in a long running series of efforts by the Administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the President.”

“Ambassador Bolton has worked in full cooperation with the NSC in its pre-publication review to address its concerns and Simon & Schuster fully supports his First Amendment right to tell the story of his time in the White House to the American public,” Simon & Schuster said in a statement.

While the restraining order against Bolton is a civil case, he could face criminal charges if the DOJ decides to prosecute him over the information he has included in his book, should he proceed with the book’s publication next week.

A top Facebook executive acknowledged the platform has a “trust deficit” in a call with advertisers obtained by the Financial Times as brands join a growing boycott of the social media giant.

Neil Potts, Facebook’s head of trust and safety policy, made the comments on a call convened by the Interactive Advertising Bureau trade body in Canada.

He was asked by a member “why as advertisers we should risk our brands’ reputation by staying on your platform” and how the group was “reconciling the loss of faith in Facebook as a trustworthy source of information,” according to the Financial Times.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There is a trust deficit. You try to make a decision, and people disagree, and maybe that builds that deficit even deeper,” Potts responded, adding that the company aimed to “eliminate” the deficit. 

A spokesperson for Facebook told The Hill that “it’s normal for us to have conversations with advertisers and discuss issues, including policy matters.”

“This is something we do routinely and will keep doing,” they added.

More than a dozen companies in the last week have joined a campaign to boycott advertising on Facebook in July.

Advocacy groups including the Anti-Defamation League, NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, Free Press and Common Sense are behind the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, which criticizes Facebook’s handling of hateful content and disinformation.

The U.S. economy shrank at an annualized rate of 5 percent in the first quarter of 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic triggered an unprecedented economic collapse, according to data released by the Commerce Department on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) fell at an annualized rate of 5 percent between January and March, according to the third estimate of quarterly economic growth released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA previously estimated first-quarter GDP to have dropped by an annualized rate of 5 percent in a May projection and 4.8 percent in its April estimate.

The pandemic forced thousands of businesses across the U.S. to close or severely restrict operations to slow the spread of COVID-19, pushing the unemployment rate to a record high of 14.7 percent and shutting down wide swaths of the U.S. economy. 

The first-quarter drop in GDP was the steepest seen in the U.S. since the Great Recession, but only covered the start of the coronavirus-driven pandemic. Economists expect GDP to have fallen by an annualized rate of up to 40 percent in the second quarter, which covered the depths of the downturn.

Developing

Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey

A Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday called for Attorney General William BarrBill BarrJustice Department officials say decisions are politicized Judiciary Democrat calls for House to pursue impeachment of Barr Barr to testify in House oversight hearing next month MORE to be impeached, alleging that he is not following the rule of law.

Rep. Steve CohenStephen (Steve) Ira CohenJustice Department officials say decisions are politicized Congress must act on police reform, don’t let opponents divert the conversation Judiciary Democrat calls for House to pursue impeachment of Barr MORE (D-Tenn.), an outspoken progressive on the panel, advocated for Barr to be impeached during a hearing on the politicization of the Justice Department (DOJ).

“We should pursue impeachment of Bill Barr because he is reigning terror on the rule of law,” Cohen said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another House Democrat, Rep. Bill PascrellWilliam (Bill) James PascrellJudiciary Democrat calls for House to pursue impeachment of Barr Push to oust Manhattan attorney sparks fresh crisis for DOJ Democrats pan Trump, Barr over dismissal of US Attorney Geoffrey Berman MORE (N.J.), later endorsed Cohen’s call for impeachment on Twitter.

Two Justice Department officials were testifying at the hearing that the agency has grown politicized under Barr, alleging that the top brass at the DOJ has taken in political considerations when handling cases against allies of the president. 

Prior to his impeachment remarks, Cohen slammed Circuit Court Judge Neomi Rao, a former White House official whom Trump appointed to the court last year, who was part of the federal appeals court panel that ordered Wednesday an end to the government’s case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Cohen hit Rao for her past rulings that repealed regulations imposed by the Obama administration, including those on automobile exhaust, saying she does what “Trump likes best,” which is jeopardize clean water by giving into the pressure of industry, profits and pollution.

“Who is supposed to look into the executive branch when what they do is not in the interest of justice? It should’ve been Judge Rao,” Cohen said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The other way to do it is impeachment. Impeachment is the process by which the Justice Department and executive branch are not pursuing the interest of justice,” he continued.

Then Cohen turned to focus on Barr, arguing that he should be impeached and removed from office, claiming that “it is questionable what he is doing.”

At the start of the hearing, a DOJ spokeswoman announced that Barr has agreed to testify before the committee in late July, where Democrats are expected to press him on a series of high-profile decisions, including the DOJ handling of the case against longtime Trump ally Roger StoneRoger Jason StoneJustice Department officials say decisions are politicized GOP House candidate publishes 23-page report claiming George Floyd death was deepfake video Judiciary Democrat calls for House to pursue impeachment of Barr MORE, Flynn, as well as other matters.

Updated at 4:05 p.m.

Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey