reSee.it - Related Post Feed

Saved - June 1, 2023 at 2:31 PM

@GOP - GOP

Biden crime family https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-bidens-lawyer-met-vp-biden-white-house-same-day-discussed-subpoena

Hunter Biden’s lawyer met with then-VP Biden at White House on same day he discussed subpoena with Hunter Hunter Biden’s attorney had a 2016 meeting with then-Vice President Biden the same day the attorney met with Hunter to discuss a subpoena related to an investigation into Devon Archer. foxnews.com

@GOP - GOP

https://t.co/eCons2HKjl

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hunter Biden engaged in lucrative business dealings in China, Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan, often sharing his earnings with his father, Joe Biden. Emails and texts suggest that Hunter used his father's influence to benefit his business ventures. Chinese executives admitted to being introduced to Joe Biden by Hunter. Hunter also had business dealings in Mexico, with Joe Biden even flying on Air Force 2 with Hunter and his business partner. Joe Biden agreed to cover Hunter's legal fees for his dealings with a Chinese company. There is photographic evidence of Joe Biden golfing with Hunter and another member of the Burisma board. Hunter's business partner had a one-on-one meeting with Joe Biden in the White House before joining Burisma. Hunter's business partner made multiple visits to the White House and had a meeting with Joe Biden. Joe Biden denies discussing business matters with his family.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: His son, Hunter, joining the then vice president on the official visit to Beijing. Unknown to the press back then, Hunter Biden was forming a Chinese private equity fund, planning to raise money, including from Chinese investors. 10 days after the Biden's trip, Shanghai issued the funds business license. Speaker 1: Then vice president Joe Biden had dinner with his son Hunter along with Hunter's business associates From Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. And the day after the dinner, a Burisma executive said a note to Hunter, quoting, dear Hunter, Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spend some time together. Speaker 0: Hunter's Huss' lucrative business dealings often included giving as much as 50% of his earnings to his dad. Speaker 2: The text read, quote, I hope you all can do what I did and Pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It's really hard, but don't worry. Unlike pop, I won't make you give me half hun Salary. Speaker 3: And, Hunter introduced me as, this is Tony, dad, the the individual I told you about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and hun Speaker 4: The Chinese. The email reads this way, quote, at the moment, there's a provisional agreement if the equity will be distributed as follows. 10 held by Hunter for the big guy. Speaker 3: I a 1000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. I met with the former vice president in person Multiple times. Speaker 5: A newly revealed text message shows Bob Olinsky was apparently warned by business partner James Gillier. Don't mention Joe being involved. Hud It's only when you are face to face. I know you know that, but they are paranoid. Speaker 6: Chinese executives admitted to reporters that they were actually introduced to the vice Hunter Biden. Speaker 1: Hunter and the then vice president seen with a pair of Mexican billionaires. At the same time, Hunter had been working on energy deals in Mexico. Hunter. Speaker 7: Joe Biden also had Hunter and his business partner fly on Air Force 2 to Mexico. Speaker 8: The president agreed to pay Hunter Biden's legal fees for his business dealings with a Chinese controlled company. Hunter's assistant reportedly telling a pair of Biden aids, quote, I spoke with Hunter today regarding his bills, it is my understanding that Hunt's dad will cover these bills in the short term. Speaker 4: There is photographic evidence of Biden Speaker 7: hunt on a golf outing with both his son Hunter and a Speaker 4: man called Devin Archer, who was another member of the Burisma board. Speaker 6: We also know The Devin Archer in that picture had a meeting in the White House, 1 on 1 meeting with Joe Biden about a week before they joined the Burisma Board. Speaker 9: His closest his business partner, Hunter's, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations, including a sit down with then vice president Joe Biden in the West Wing. Speaker 5: Hung I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their business, period.
Saved - May 10, 2023 at 4:34 PM

@ACTforAmerica - ACT For America

Impeach Biden ➡️ https://bit.ly/3BqREHG

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlights that the President had a significant and legitimate business, encompassing his name, buildings, wine, branding, and The Apprentice. In contrast, Joe Biden lacks a business and solely relies on his political position. The speaker emphasizes the committee's responsibility to investigate this matter and states that they will continue to do so, allowing the facts to speak for themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President actually had a business, very big business. You could say it was his name, you could say it was his buildings, you could say it was wine, you could say it was branding, you could say it was The Apprentice, but he had a very big and legitimate business, which everybody in this room clearly knows and understands and can point to and say, ah, that's the thing, that thing over there. Joe Biden has no business except his position in politics, and it is the requirement of this committee to investigate that. We're gonna continue to do that, and we're gonna let the facts speak for themselves. Thank you, mister
Impeach Biden! Biden is intentionally failing to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. He has broken trust with the American people over his Vaccine and Mask Mandates including the coercive ‘Jabs for Jobs’. He failed us in his catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal and continued abandonment of US citizens and visa holders. His economic policies and destruction of our hard-earned energy independence has caused the worst inflation we’ve seen in forty years. Biden’s policies are causing irreparable harm to most working-class families, first responders, and service members who are losing their jobs, sufficient income, careers, and lives! Enough is enough! It’s time to Impeach Biden. , full_html actforamerica.org
Saved - May 11, 2023 at 2:18 PM

@nypost - New York Post

FBI refuses to give Congress informant file alleging Biden took bribes as vice president https://trib.al/nld2yYr

FBI refuses to give Congress informant file alleging Biden took bribes as vice president The FBI has refused to hand over an informant file alleging that President Biden took bribes while he was vice president, The Post has learned. nypost.com
Saved - May 19, 2023 at 12:35 PM

@JoeBell - Joe Bell

🚨 BREAKING: Articles Of Impeachment To Be Filed Against President Joe Biden! https://conservativebrief.com/articles-biden-73404/

Video Transcript AI Summary
I am introducing articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden for compromising national security, refusing to enforce immigration laws, and allowing illegal immigration. His administration has lost contact with 85,000 unaccompanied illegal alien children and forced many into slave labor. Biden's policies, such as catch and release, have flooded our country with illegal immigrants. He has violated federal law by granting mass parole to aliens and endangered American lives by allowing COVID-positive illegal aliens to enter. These actions have violated our laws and destroyed our country. Biden is unfit to serve as president and must be impeached, along with corrupt officials Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, and Alejandro Mayorkas. Impeachment is the constitutional process to remove corrupt officials.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is with the highest amount of solemn nindy that I announce my intention to introduce articles of impeachment today on the head of this America at Last executive branch that has been working since January 20, 2021 to systematically destroy this country, the president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden. Joe Biden has deliberately compromised our national security by refusing to enforce immigration laws and secure our border, allowed approximately 6,000,000 illegals from over 170 countries to invade our country, deprive border patrol of the necessary resources and policies sufficient to protect our country. And his administration has willfully refused to maintain operational control as required by the law. He has allowed Fentanyl, the number one killer of Americans between the age of 18 and 45, to overwhelmingly flood into our country and kill around 300 Americans every single day. These aren't just Americans. These are people's family members. These are their sons, their daughters, their brothers, their sisters, their mothers, their fathers, their cousins, aunts and uncles. These are American families. His administration has lost complete contact with approximately 85,000 unaccompanied illegal alien children. And his policies have forced tens of thousands of illegal children into slave labor. Where are these kids? No one even knows. It's horror it's horrible. Joe Biden has reinstated catastrophic and disastrous catch and release policies, which have allowed illegals to flood to flood our country and our communities. He ended remain in Mexico and reinstated catch and release. Under Biden's command, the secretary of homeland security, has illegally granted mass parole to aliens when US federal law only permits parole to be granted on a specific case by case basis. He endangered the lives of Americans by allowing illegal aliens who had tested positive for COVID nineteen to enter our country and infect American citizens, yet while enforcing strict COVID policies on American citizens. His policies, directives, and statements surrounding the southern border have violated our laws and destroyed our country. Biden has blatant blatantly violated his constitutional duty, and he is a direct threat to our national security. Therefore, Joseph Robinette Biden is unfit to serve as the president of the United States and must be impeached. Out in the real world where American taxpayers live. Employees are fired when they are corrupt or aren't adequately serving their employer or purposely destroying a country a company. In this case, the employer is the American people because they pay the salaries they pay the salaries of everyone in the federal government. The constitution outlines a very simple process to fire the corrupt officials serving in the federal government. Impeachment. Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Joe Biden are all corrupt and unfit to hold office, and they all must be impeached. This concludes impeachment week. And now I can
BREAKING: Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed Against President Joe Biden Today After Evidence Shows He Committed Wrongdoings, MTG Claims It is about time. conservativebrief.com
Saved - June 9, 2023 at 12:32 PM

@thewriterme - Shannon 🇺🇸I stand with America

Pollak: Indicting a Former President over Nonsense Is Playing with Fire https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/07/pollak-indicting-a-former-president-over-nonsense-is-playing-with-fire/

Pollak: Indicting a Former President over Nonsense Is Playing with Fire Indicting Trump over petty allegations in a selective prosecution will destroy public faith in the rule of law and voters' trust in democracy. breitbart.com
Saved - June 28, 2023 at 12:56 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Never Trumper Andy McCarthy Argued Every POTUS Can Declassify and POTUS Can't Be Charged With Obstruction - for Obama https://t.co/c469jSzInc

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses a pile of papers that were presented to them, which they claim shows secret information about wanting to attack Iran. They mention that President Trump talks in a certain way and that his supporters take him seriously but not literally. They also bring up the authority of the president over classified information and reference an article by Andy McCarthy discussing leaks during the Obama administration. The speaker concludes by criticizing Joe Biden for not using his declassification powers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me. This is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the defense department in hand. Yeah. I just found isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Mhmm. Except it is, like, highly confidential secret. There's a secret info. Look look at this. You attack And Hillary would print that out all the time. I was just saying because we're talking about it. And, you know, he said he wanted to attack Iran and what? It's a British. This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can probably play. I don't know. We'll we'll have to see. Yeah. We'll have to try to Declice it. Figure out a a yeah. See as president, I could have decliced it. Yeah. Speaker 1: But now I can't. Speaker 0: You know? But this is Yeah. There's no area of a problem. Is that interesting? Yeah. Speaker 1: I mean, did you hear that? You heard that right. Every Single law in the United States just completely and utterly done for, done away with. Our country will never be The same. Look. I gotta say, folks. This was the audio? This was the main thing they were talking about? Look. This is obviously president Trump making fun of general Milley. Anyone who's gonna read this with just a slight a a thimble of charity or just even understanding or try to understand, This is how he talks. This is how he talks in interviews. It's how he talks when he's on stage. It's how he it's how he talks when he's he's on, for lack of a better term. There's there's an old saying, it's it's old now at this point, that Trump supporters Take him seriously, but not literally. The media takes Trump literally, But not seriously. What does this mean? So, obviously, in the transcript, just to get past the goobers for a second, he uses the words secret. That doesn't necessarily mean he's referring to security markings, classifications on documents. He's just saying it's like a secret. It's like highly classified. Fact of the matter is president Trump is not a legal scholar. That being said, As the president of the United States and we did obtain I obtained footage earlier today of president Trump that definitively plays a role in the case against Jack Smith. Do you know what that footage is that I posted on Twitter this very morning? Well, that's footage of president Trump, Donald j Trump, being sworn in as the president of the United States. Because guess what? As the president of the United States, you have the sole authority over classified information. But don't Take my word for it. This don't just take my word for it. Let's go to never Trumper, Andy McCarthy. Andy, Andy, Andy. Look at Andy's articles out there today. The Trump indictment is damning. It's from June 10, 2023. Just goes in and in deeper and deeper. Nationalreview.com, Haven of never Trumpers. They would never, never throw out all of their credibility Just because they hate Trump so much, well, here's the slight problem. Because a decade ago, when Andrew McCarthy, The same Andrew c McCarthy was writing at PJ Media. Let's look at what he wrote then. Obama's classified leaks are probably not What? What could that possibly mean? You ask pray, tell. What could it possibly mean? Well, we see here in these documents that it says very, very clearly, And I think this is just amazing, that the president of the United States has sole classification authority. All classified documents are able to be classified and unclassified by whoever is the president, and I will quote, The lesson here of far more political than legal significance is that president Obama may have been a reckless custodian of the nation's secrets. By the way, this is all about the Suxtant leak. So we're we're, the sucks debt leak. So we're talking about the sucks debt, the sucks debt precedent, basically, here. When that information was leaked To the press, if the leak was done with the approval of president Obama, it's not really a leak. It's a release. It's the guy in the oval it's Andrew McCarthy. It's the guy in the Oval Office who sets the tone, and that guy, by the way, is Fully empowered to declassify whatever information he chooses to declassify no matter how sensitive, no matter how damaging its disclosure. So if it turns out that Obama effectively approved the leaks, they are probably not actionable disclosures of classified information. Uh-oh. What does that mean? What does that mean, Andy? What does it mean? It well, it well, it means that Andy McCarthy Had one standard, a legal standard, sounds like a pretty good and pretty solid legal standard. In fact, the one that we've been discussing here is the one that Mike Davis talks about when he comes on. It's the exact same one that we've always pointed out, that the president of the United States, every president of the United States, has the ability to declassify information. Last week, I was highly critical of Joe Biden because he did not use Those declassification powers declassify the fact that a missing submersible, when it was going to visit the Titanic, had been picked up on acoustic systems, sonar systems, that the United States Navy has, in that region. So the fact that that Was recorded, could have been released very quickly by Joe Biden. It could've come out right away, and yet he decided not to do it, decided to sit on it. Why? He's playing politics.
Saved - November 17, 2023 at 3:34 PM

@laralogan - Lara Logan

In Classified Docs Case, Biden Walks While Trump Threatened With Jail https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/16/special-counsel-lets-biden-off-scot-free-in-classified-docs-case-while-doj-tries-to-imprison-trump-for-the-same-thing/

In Classified Docs Case, Biden Walks While Trump Threatened With Jail Trump faces jail time over the boxes found at Mar-a-Lago. Biden gets chastised over the classified documents in his garage, office. thefederalist.com
Saved - December 12, 2023 at 10:21 PM

@ConservRoof - Conservative Roof

BREAKING UPDATE: US Supreme Court Responds to Jack Smith's Request for R... https://conservativeroof.com/us-supreme-court-responds-to-jack-smiths-request-for-ruling-on-trumps-immunity-claims/

BREAKING UPDATE: US Supreme Court Responds to Jack Smith's Request for R... Here are the details... conservativeroof.com
Saved - December 14, 2023 at 12:54 PM

@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •

Remember when Biden said people who defy Congressional subpoenas should be prosecuted?🤣🤣 https://t.co/HKlvMOmKAl

Video Transcript AI Summary
My message to those who defy congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee is that I hope the committee takes action and holds them accountable, including possible prosecution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And what's your message to people who defy congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee? I hope that the committee goes after them and, holds them accountable. Do they be prosecuted by
Saved - December 25, 2023 at 12:41 AM

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

President Trump says he is entitled to Presidential immunity because he was doing his duty as President by investigating a rigged and stolen election. “It was my obligation to do so, and the proof found is voluminous and irrefutable.” https://t.co/C73vcOeF2z

Saved - February 8, 2024 at 11:45 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Special Counsel's report accuses Biden of willfully retaining and disclosing classified materials, posing national security risks. Concerningly, it suggests Biden lacks the mental state for prosecution. The President's condition is worrisome.

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

Special Counsel just reported that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” and engaged in practices that “present serious risks to national security.” Even more disturbing: Biden would lack a “mental state of willfulness” necessary to prosecute! https://t.co/v9fKoKH17I

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

The President of the United States is not well… https://t.co/47ZKE6T9JN

Saved - March 11, 2024 at 11:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Riley Gaines and Lia Thomas tied in the Women's 200 Yard Freestyle, but Thomas was given the award due to a photo requirement. Gaines felt guilty for participating in the unfairness and questioned why no one stood up for them. A discussion about a scene from the movie "Life of Brian" mocks transgenderism. Megyn Kelly regrets her initial positive coverage of transgenderism. The media ignores Gaines' story. The slippery slope argument about transgenderism is debated by Bill Maher and Dr. Phil. Democrats argued for presidential immunity in the past but criticized Trump for making the same arguments. Joe Biden survived two aneurysms in 1988, which may explain his gaffes. Biden discussed his recovery from brain aneurysms in 2011.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Riley Gaines and Lia (Will) Thomas both placed an identical 1:43:40 in the Women's 200 Yard Freestyle at the NCAA championships. Thomas was arbitrarily given the award. The answer to Riley Gaines' question "Why?" captivated and stunned Joe Rogan: "We have been advised as an organization, that when photos are being taken, that it's crucial that the trophy is in Lia's hands." Gaines: "I felt guilty for participating in the farce." "I wasn't necessarily scared to approach the topic, I just thought someone else would. I thought a coach would say something, I thought someone with political power, someone within the NCAA. Quite honestly I thought someone's dad would come down there and yank this man out of our locker rooms." "What we're applauding is our own erasure, our own demolition. How in world can we as women, expect someone to stand up for us, if we aren't even willing to stand up for us. This has to come from us."

Video Transcript AI Summary
We tied in a swimming competition, but only one trophy was given to the male swimmer. The reason given was for the sake of a photo. I felt guilty for participating in the unfair situation. No one else spoke up, so I realized we must stand up for ourselves as female athletes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tide. We get out of the water. We go yeah. You can see here. We both went 143.40. Not one of us going 143.39 or 143.41 tying. Get out of the water. Go behind the awards podium. The NCAA official looks at both Thomas and myself. Thomas, who is towering over me. Right? 6 foot 4. And this official looks at both of us and says, great job, you 2. But you tied. And we only have one trophy, so we're gonna give the trophy to Leah. Sorry, Riley. You don't get one. My Jesus Christ. Heart rate was still high having just competed. My adrenaline was still pumping. And so the first thing that I thought ended up being the first thing that I said. And the first thought that I had was just what you had just said. Right? Like, isn't this everything that Title 9 was passed to prevent from happening? What do you mean you're gonna give the trophy to the man in the women's 200 freestyle? I asked the question that no one dared ask all season. And I said, why? Which, of course, he didn't have an answer as to why. They didn't give him a script of what to say when someone asks you the dreaded question of why. And so his first his first excuse he came up with, he he's stumbling on his words, and he's, well, we're actually just doing this in chronological order, he said. And so I said, okay. Do you mean alphabetical? Because g comes before t. Otherwise, I literally have no idea what you're being chronological about. Right? We tied. So, again, what's your rationale here? And finally, he realized that he didn't have a justification. He didn't have an answer for this. And so, and I actually appreciate his honesty, this is when his face changed. He looked sad. His voice changed. I could tell he didn't even believe what he was about to say. But this official looked at me and said, Riley, I am so sorry, but we have been advised as an organization that when photos are being taken, it's crucial that the trophy's in Leah's hands. Again, you can pose with this one, but you have to give yours back. Leah takes the trophy home. You go home empty handed. End of story. We can eventually mail you one. Oh my gosh. Is what they said. So it was kind of it was like that moment when I could like, I felt guilty at that point. I felt guilty for participating in the farce. I felt guilty for even getting in the water at this point. And so it kinda hit me. I won't say I was necessarily cowering because I didn't feel like that to me. I wasn't necessarily scared to approach the topic. I just thought someone else would. I thought a coach would say something. I thought some other swimmer. I thought someone with political power, someone within the NCAA. Quite honestly, I thought someone's dad would come down there and yank this man out of our locker rooms. But it was in that moment where we were standing on the podium, myself included. I'm standing on the podium. And we're clapping and we're smiling and we're cheering. And it hit me. I'm like, what in the world are we clapping for? Because, I mean, really what we're applauding is our own erasure, our own demolition. And so, it was right then and there that, again, like a slap across the face, I was like, how in the world can we, as women, as female athletes, expect someone to stand up for us if we aren't even willing to stand up for us? Like, this has to come from us.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

A simpler time, when this discussion was considered comedy, not "hate speech": https://t.co/Kn5ChM8sNS

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

In this edition of "They couldn't make that movie today" : Life of Brian (1979) This scene alone would have cancelled the entire careers of Monty Python today. Mocking the entire concept of transgenderism "You want to have babies!?" "It's every man's right to have babies" https://t.co/935HT1QxQG

Video Transcript AI Summary
Our anti-imperialist group must represent diverse interests. Women have the right to be part of the movement. Stan wants to be called Loretta and have babies, sparking a debate. Ultimately, fighting for his right to have babies is symbolic of the struggle against oppression.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I do feel, Reg, that any anti imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interest within its power base. Speaker 1: Agree. Francis? Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid. Right? Provided the movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man Or woman. Or woman For rid himself Or herself. Or herself. Agreed. Thank you, brother. Or sister. Or sister. Where was I? I think you're finished. Oh, right. Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man Or woman. Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off. Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg. Why are you always on about women, Stan? I want to be one. What? I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta. What? It's my right as a man. Speaker 0: But why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? Speaker 1: I want to have babies. You wanna have babies? It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. But you can't have babies. Don't you oppress me. I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You're under a womb. Where's the fetus gonna just take you? Gonna keep it in a box? Speaker 0: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans, but that he can have the right to have babies. Speaker 1: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother sister. Sorry. What's the point? What? What's the point of finding for his right to have babies when he can't have babies? It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

https://t.co/zpu2E2RqaG

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Megyn Kelly gets emotional recounting her past coverage of transgenderism, regretting her initial positive coverage. "I realized now I was part of this problem. If you aren't actively fighting against this you are part of the problem." Modern society's ultimate rarity: A genuine, contrite apology.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I regret my past actions promoting harmful behavior towards kids. If you're not actively fighting against it, you're part of the problem. Support people like Isabelle and Jordan by donating, using your voice, or spreading awareness. Don't be misled into thinking it's empathetic to support radical experimentation on minors.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, the pronouns where I said, you know, when I was at NBC, kind of emotional about it because look at this poor girl, what it was down to her, that I realized now I was part of this problem. You know, I was my heart was in the right place. I wasn't trying to push anything bad on kids. I thought I was being supportive of them. I thought I was promoting anti bullying, and now I just have such regret about it. And I'm not a regretful person as you know. If you're not actively fighting against this, you are part of the problem. You are hurting people like Isabelle. You have to fight, whether it's a donation or just using your voice or retweeting, you know, support for people like Isabelle and Jordan, do it. Do something. Just do something. Please don't protect yourself, and don't be lured into thinking it's empathetic to support this radical, radical experimentation on minors.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Joe Rogan's face when Gaines described how Thomas was arbitrarily awarded: https://t.co/VfJlFv1Sjz

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

The media will ignore Gaines' story like Laken Riley: https://t.co/xCrQLydzjH

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Chaya Raichik was accused of 'race baiting' by the Piers Morgan commentators when stating that illegal immigrants are dangerous. When Chaya mentioned Laken Riley - who was murdered by an illegal immigrant - they drew blanks. "Why don't you ask Laken Riley's parents?" "I don't know who those people are." Instead of researching the consequences and victims of illegal immigration, leftists stick their head in the sand and call you racist.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes a comment about the 3rd world as race baiting and fear-mongering. They challenge the other person to explain the intended purpose. The other person mentions understanding potential consequences and asks for clarification on the term "3rd world." The conversation shifts to discussing victims of violence by illegal immigrants.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That we all know that that comment about the 3rd world is so unnuanced. It doesn't have any meaning to it. And you know that it's just baiting. It's race baiting, and it's stoking fear. And, I mean, I mean, you're welcome to tell me. Tell me what the other intended purpose of that if it's not to do those things. Do you want to tell me? Speaker 1: I think it's very important that that we understand what could happen. Speaker 0: What could happen? Tell me Speaker 1: what could happen. Okay. What do you mean by the 3rd world? What what what exactly Why don't you ask, you know, why don't you ask Lake and Riley's parents? Why don't you speak to that? I don't need those these people. Okay. What do you mean when you say people are not allowed to walk people that were murdered by illegal

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Seems like the religious right was 100% correct about the slippery slope argument regarding transgenderism https://t.co/lvmvq0ggZF

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Bill Maher and Dr Phil debate the importance of family and religion: "You think family and faith are a big fix to the problems we have. I don't have a family, and I definitely don't have faith" "Then you're definitely not part of the solution" Bill Maher being anti family is frankly, eugenic.

Video Transcript AI Summary
We debated the role of family and faith in society. I lack both, but see the rise of singles and non-religious as positive. The decline in church membership concerns me as it affects family bonds and birth rates. Immigration is necessary, but we must be cautious. Our views are political and reasonable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I think we disagree a lot on is that you think family and faith are a big fix to the problems we have. I mean, some I don't have a family, and I definitely don't have faith. Speaker 1: So I think it's definitely not part of the solution. Speaker 0: Maybe I am. Speaker 1: No. You here's the thing. I'm just saying that you come from a family. Speaker 0: I come from untrue. So don't tell me you don't Yes. Speaker 1: Don't tell me you don't have a family. Speaker 0: Well, they're all gone now except my sister. Yes. But Oh, so Speaker 1: you gotta Speaker 0: But I didn't start a a new family is what I'm saying. And I am an atheist, so I don't have religion. And I I think the the country's moving in my direction, by the way. More people than ever are single, and more people than ever don't have a religion. Now you may think that's a bad thing and why we're going to hell in a handcart, but maybe it's also part of the solution. And it's certainly just where people wanna be. I I mean, when you say religion is the fix to this Speaker 1: I didn't say that. Speaker 0: Seen the Middle East? Speaker 1: I didn't say that. There there You Speaker 0: did in the book. Speaker 1: No. I did not. Speaker 0: What do you say about family and faith, not the fix? Speaker 1: I said that for the first time in our country's history, membership in an organized religion has dropped below 50%. Now here's why that's a problem. Here's why that's a problem because that was one of the reasons that families got together at least once a week and spent quality time together. The reason it's dropped below 50% is because the reason they usually join the church was because they wanted to have their children christened or baptized or whatever the ceremony was in that particular church and our birth rate has dropped to 1.6. We need 2.1 in order to sustain the infrastructure that we have. So we need immigrants. We just need to know who they are. A very reasonable position. I'm I'm very pro I'm very pro immigration as as are you. Right? Speaker 0: Yeah. Absolutely. And your position that you just said, very reasonable and a political position. Speaker 1: A political stance.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Clinton's presidential immunity case https://t.co/3VrHSIqJDG

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Democrats seem to forget Bill Clinton's presidential immunity case. I wonder why: "Paula Corbin Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994. He denied it in a general way but his defense is that nobody can sue him for anything in a civil damage suit while he's president. Because he's too busy and his time and attention are a precious national resource that shouldn't be squandered defending civil damage suits. It's a defense of presidential immunity." Democrats argued for presidential immunity in the 90's, then turned around and said Trump couldn't make the same arguments 30 years later. October 7th, 1996

Video Transcript AI Summary
The presidential immunity case involves Paula Corbin Jones suing President Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994. President Clinton argues that he cannot be sued in a civil damage suit while in office due to his duties as president. Lower courts rejected this defense, leading to an appeal to the US Supreme Court. President Clinton is now arguing that no one should be able to sue him until he leaves office, halting all proceedings in Jones' case, including evidence collection from other witnesses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then there's the presidential immunity case. Briefly tell us what that's about. Paula Corbin Jones, as is widely known, sued President Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994. His, he denied it in a general way, but his defense is that nobody can sue him for anything in a civil damage suit while he's president because he's too busy and his time and attention are a precious national resource that shouldn't be squandered defending civil damage suits. It's a defense of presidential immunity. Both lower courts rejected this defense, while the president, was appealing, and one of them said the constitution did not establish a monarchy. They rejected it rather resoundingly. The president appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and is now arguing in the court that except in very exceptional cases perhaps, nobody should be able to sue him until he leaves office, including Paula Corbin Jones. And that all proceedings in her case have to stop cold, not just a trial, but for example, she couldn't she has been prevented so far by interim orders even from taking, evidence from other witnesses, unrelated to the president himself.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Brain damaged Biden https://t.co/uxDOLFXSkK

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Flashback to September of 1988, when Joe Biden survived two aneurysms. Joe Biden returned to the Senate after weeks in the hospital. "The Delaware Democrat had been hospitalized for several weeks after undergoing surgery for an aneurysm." "Senator Biden has boldly recovered from two life threatening aneurysms following successful surgery at Walter Reed Medical Center." Now the gaffes make sense. President Biden governs like he has brain damage.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Joe Biden returned to the Senate after recovering from surgery for an aneurysm. His colleagues welcomed him back with a resolution, praising his successful recovery from two life-threatening aneurysms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wednesday's senate session, the first following the August recess, marked the return to work of senator Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat had been hospitalized for several weeks after undergoing surgery for an aneurysm. During Thursday's proceedings, members welcomed him back with a resolution. Coming up next, we bring you that discussion. Speaker 1: To take up the senate resolution to officially welcome back my good friend and distinguished colleague, senator Joe Biden. As we all know, senator Biden has boldly recovered from 2 life threatening aneurysms following successful surgery at Walter Reed Medical Center.

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Biden discussing his brain damage https://t.co/OHzfI9X9kj

@EricAbbenante - Eric Abbenante

Joe Biden in 2011 discussing his recovery from two brain aneurysms in 1988: "I over twenty years ago had two craniotomies, because of uh... aneurysms that are in my subarachnoid cavity." "I remember asking the doctor thinking I would never be able to function very well again." Just a tip: Don't drop long "uh's" right before you discuss your brain damage.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I had two craniotomies for aneurysms in my brain, learning about the limited knowledge of neurosurgeons and the brain's functions. We know little about its recovery abilities and predicting outcomes. I once doubted my ability to function well after a medical procedure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I had the, the great privilege of dealing with a lot of neurosurgeons. I, over 20 years ago, had 2 craniotomies because of aneurysms that are in my subarachnoid cavity. And I learned an awful lot about, what neurosurgeons know and they're incredible but also what they don't know. How little we know about the brain? How little we know about how it's functioning? How little we know about its, recuperative capabilities. How little we know and are able to predict about what is going to happen. I wish the press weren't here and I'd give you a not that's inappropriate you're here but I would give you a personal example of something I went through where I remember asking the doctor thinking that I would never be able to function very well again.
Saved - April 25, 2024 at 8:38 PM

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

WATCH: During his oral argument in front of SCOTUS just now, President Trump’s lawyer John Sauer made a strong point by stating that if Presidential immunity is canceled, @JoeBiden could face charges for his open borders policies. #PresidentialImmunity https://t.co/K5DGygG7cO

Video Transcript AI Summary
For 234 years, no president was prosecuted for official acts, as an energetic executive was seen as crucial for liberty. Charging a president post-office could lead to blackmail and distort decision-making. The court's decision has broader implications, questioning if past presidents could have been prosecuted. Prosecuting a president for official acts is not historical or traditional and clashes with the constitution's structure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Presidency as we know it. For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. The framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W Bush have been sent to prison for Obama be charged Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing US citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. The original meaning of
Saved - April 25, 2024 at 11:29 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A journalist noticed and then deleted a tweet about the government's argument that no President has ever been prosecuted because no President has ever committed a crime. The suppressed source tweet is available.

@Snowden - Edward Snowden

The journalist who first noticed it deleted her tweet without explanation, but the transcript shows the government really did argue today that the reason no President has ever been prosecuted is that 𝐧𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞. Wild. https://t.co/uYxW0G8B8A

@Snowden - Edward Snowden

Here's the suppressed source tweet: https://t.co/tss2RaQBhE

Saved - April 30, 2024 at 2:09 PM

@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •

Joe Biden says “It’s just who I am” https://t.co/CBTIN3cWkO

Video Transcript AI Summary
In the upcoming months, I will address various issues directly. Today, I want to discuss gestures of support I've made that have made some women and men uncomfortable. I have always aimed to connect with people by shaking hands, hugging, and offering encouragement. I understand that social norms are changing, and personal space boundaries are being redefined. I will be more mindful of this going forward.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The coming month, I expect to be talking to you about a whole lot of issues, and I'll always be direct with you. But today, I wanna talk about gestures of support and encouragement that I've made to women and some men, I've made them uncomfortable. And I always try to be, in my career, I've always tried to make a human connection. That's my responsibility. I I shake hands. I hug people. I I grab men and move by the shoulders and say, you can do this. You can do this. You can do this. You can do this. Our former vice president is And, whether they're women, men, young, old, and it's it's the way I've always been. It's the way I've tried to show I care about them and I'm listening. And over the years, knowing what I've been through, those things that I've faced, I found that scores of hundreds of people come up to me and reached out for solace or comfort, something something anything that may help them get through the tragedy they're doing with. Joe, you having a good time, Joe? And, and and so, it is just just poop what it is. You having a good time? I've never thought of politics as cold and antiseptic. I I've always thought about connecting with people. I said shaking hands, a hands on the shoulder, a hug, a encouragement. Now and now it's all about taking selfies together. You know, social norms have began to change and shifted, and the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset. And I get it. I get it. I get it. I get it. I get it. I get it. I hear what they're saying. I understand, and I'll be much more mindful. That's my responsibility. I will. I will. Give me a give me a kiss.
Saved - May 17, 2024 at 11:35 AM

@RNCResearch - RNC Research

NOTHING IF NOT HYPOCRITES: Biden omits free vacations at million dollar homes from ethics forms despite Clarence Thomas outcry https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/biden-omits-free-vacations-from-ethics-forms-despite-clarence-thomas-outcry/

Biden omits free vacations at million dollar homes from ethics forms despite Clarence Thomas outcry President Biden again failed to list his free stays at the vacation homes of rich patrons on annual ethics forms Monday. nypost.com
Saved - December 3, 2024 at 3:48 AM

@ProjectLincoln - The Lincoln Project

When MAGA cultists complain about a "weaponized justice system," remind them that President Biden has refused to show favoritism towards his son because he has a commitment to the rule of law and our judicial system, regardless of who is involved. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/politics/biden-will-not-pardon-hunter-biden/index.html

Biden says he won’t pardon son if he’s convicted at trial | CNN Politics President Biden said in an interview Thursday he would not pardon his son Hunter if he’s found guilty of criminal gun charges. cnn.com
Saved - July 14, 2024 at 1:09 AM

@CassandraRules - Cassandra MacDonald

Biden on July 8: ‘We’re Done Talking About the Debate, it’s Time to Put Trump in a Bullseye’ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/biden-july-8-were-done-talking-about-debate/

Biden on July 8: 'We’re Done Talking About the Debate, it’s Time to Put Trump in a Bullseye' | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald A quote from Joe Biden from five days before the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump has come back to haunt him. thegatewaypundit.com
Saved - September 7, 2024 at 7:21 PM

@_johnnymaga - johnny maga

Trump just said he’s going to support modifying the 25th amendment so that if a Vice President like Kamala ever conspires to cover up the decline of a president again like she did with Biden, they will be removed from office https://t.co/KsYSTJ5tnz

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker supports modifying the 25th amendment. The modification would state that if a vice president lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the president, it is grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office. The speaker believes a past vice president engaged in such a cover up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I will support modifying the 25th amendment to make clear that if a vice president lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the president of the United States. If you do that with a cover up of the president of the United States, it's grounds for impeachment immediately and removal from office, because that's what they did.
Saved - December 2, 2024 at 8:55 PM

@LeahRain77 - Leah Rain ✝️🇺🇸🎸🏝️

Enjoy ⚠️9 minutes of INCONSEQUENTIAL Media claiming Biden WOULD “NEVER” Pardon his son... https://t.co/JK8d56ah3w

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Biden has committed to respecting the judicial process, stating he will not pardon his son, Hunter, if convicted. This decision highlights a stark contrast with Donald Trump's approach to legal challenges. Biden emphasizes the importance of the rule of law, asserting that no one, including family, is above it. While Biden accepts the jury's verdict, Trump continues to claim the system is rigged against him. This situation underscores the differing values between the two leaders, with Biden prioritizing legal integrity over personal loyalty. Ultimately, Biden's stance reinforces the principle that justice must be upheld, regardless of personal ties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Presidential promise to put the law before a family. Speaker 1: I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that, and I will not pardon him. Speaker 0: Letting the world know that he will not wipe away the decision of 12 of his son's peers was asked directly, and he has said he wouldn't pardon, his son if he gets convicted. Speaker 2: Let's quite see what happens if he loses. Speaker 0: Yeah. But, I mean, but he said it. Speaker 3: He's gonna get pardoned by his dad. There's no question about that. Speaker 4: The president has ruled out pardoning his son. Speaker 5: Major commitment from the president, accepting the outcome of the trial and also pledging not to pardon his son. Speaker 6: So the challenge for him is really to continue to live up to his values when it was really personal, and he did that today. Speaker 5: It seems like a pretty normal, straightforward answer, but it it it takes new weight when we see what Trump is saying about the outcome of his trial. We're hearing other Republicans who say they don't accept Speaker 6: the jury's verdict here in New York. Speaker 4: The contrast is profound. To sit there and say, well, I'm not gonna intervene in the legal process, and I wouldn't pardon my son. One side, Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump. Speaker 7: A current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son. I mean, what Yeah. You know? Again, it's all about the contrast. Speaker 3: President Biden saying I will respect whatever this jury decides versus Donald Trump after he was convicted on 34 counts, saying the entire system is rigged against him. Speaker 8: Their latest attack has been that Joe Biden has politicized and weaponized the DOJ. Right? That was the whole argument around Donald Trump's conviction. And this week, of course, Hunter Biden was found guilty, and Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son. He would not commit his sentence. How stark is this difference? I mean, how can Republicans keep making this argument now that that no. Now that Joe Biden has really put it out there. Where's Hunter? And he stood there in a courtroom flanked by his family, and he's accepted his sentence. Speaker 9: He is not pardoning, his son, which he could do. These are federal charges. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 9: He is not doing that. Speaker 1: He is not doing it because he is living what it means Speaker 9: to have a rule of law in this country. And then it is it isn't I mean, if you wanna know if he believes it, you you can actually see what is happening with his own son. Speaker 10: The president, Anderson, has been really clear, that he is going to accept the outcome of the trial no matter what happens. Speaker 11: So Joe Biden's gotten asked Speaker 6: about, you know, talking about law and order. Speaker 11: He's gotten asked if he would pardon his son. He has said no. On the other side, you've got Donald Trump who has said that he will pardon the January 6th insurrection. They're not even his sons. They're just sons of bitches. Speaker 9: Washington said I am not running again because he understood the self restraint was absolutely essential to this country. So you don't have a king. He did not pardon his son. He did not order the Department of Justice to to say don't prosecute my son. So impressive. Speaker 6: Could have, ordered, the Justice Department to halt the prosecution of Hunter Biden according to this court. Everyone understands he's a decent man. Speaker 12: I think Joe Biden has a chance here to stand up for the rule of law, to say the rule the law is the law no matter who it is, no matter if it's Trump or Biden. And remember, part of Trumpism's dangerousness is that it tears down institutions, important institutions of our democracy. So there is an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, the jury found him guilty. This is how it's supposed to work, period. Paragraph. End of story. Speaker 13: Have you ruled out a pardon for your son? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 6: As I said last week, I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal. You know, the president said he won't touch it. He's not he said he's not gonna pardon his son, and it seems that mayor Garland let it go through. How can the justice department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening? Speaker 14: But Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. You know, and and we've been saying that Trump's not above the law. Hunter Biden's not above the law. No one is above the law. And it is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks. Speaker 15: For years, these conservatives have been crowing about a politicized justice department, Biden politicizing it and so on. What happened today? The justice department convicted the president's own son, his only living son. You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case. I know no other word for that, but presidential. Mhmm. He even went so far as to say he wouldn't pardon his son. That's how much respect he has for the system. Speaker 13: President has said, that he will not pardon his son. What what did you think Speaker 16: of that? Speaker 13: I thought it was extraordinary. I mean, it was, it was a moment of, just moral clarity on the part of, Joe Biden and couldn't have been in, you know, starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own, conviction. Speaker 16: He could still pardon him. He said he won't do that. All of that conduct, given that it's his son, is is kind of we should pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a 1000000 years, if the shoe were on the other and Donald Trump was facing, the prospect of his son being prosecuted by a Biden help me if I've been held over. A Biden holdover Obama holdover prosecutor, not in a 1000000, 1000000 years would that have happened. So, you know, some of the people on the right, the people who support Donald Trump, are trying to cast this as some clever ops program. Yeah. Speaker 17: Hunter Biden was found guilty by a jury of his peers just like Donald Trump because this is our justice system at work. The divide here is stunning, and it's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law and the other doesn't. Speaker 2: Joe Biden has already proven he's willing to stand up for the rule of law in a way that we could all never imagine Donald Trump Speaker 18: to do. Pretty emphatic over the last few days that he does not plan to pardon or commute his son. But that really is him saying is I don't plan to use the powers of the office, the powers of the presidency to provide private relief for my family. In a sense, he's staking out a pretty bright line between being, as he says, a president and a dad. And that's not just an emotional expression. He's in effect saying, I don't think that I should. I don't have a right even if it's legal, and god knows it must be tempting Yeah. To use this power in a way that is not available to so many other Americans facing similar kinds of struggles. There's a kind of old school sort of flinty core to his conception of how you are to be in the system, how you are to be as a person, a a moral person, and, ultimately, how to contend with questions of power. One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power. Speaker 3: We'll accept the verdict no matter what it is and that he has ruled out pardoning his own son. Contrast that from what we hear from Donald Trump. And, again, we have to underline, in no uncertain terms, president Biden saying, I will accept the outcome. I will accept what the jury decides here. That's the way our legal system works. And, no, I will not pardon my own son if he is convicted. Speaker 9: And the contrast is so clear in terms of decency and principle and transactional, guidances in terms of how you view the world. Speaker 19: It is still a good day for the United States that this conviction is a prime example of the way our judicial system is supposed to work. Even president Biden saying in a statement that he would respect the outcome of this case. Those words so completely contrast with what his opponent, now a convicted felon himself, continues to say about the US courts. Speaker 2: The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law. This was a a a good day for the system. Good day for, sort of a of of sort of America as an example of how the rule of law should work. Speaker 19: President Biden told David Muir that he would absolutely accept the verdict, whatever it was, and that he would not pardon his son regardless. And today, he said the same thing in a statement. Meanwhile, you know, Donald Trump comes out and calls the justice system completely unfair. What do you think of that contrast? Speaker 6: There's the contrast of 2 different men. Speaker 0: Here is Joe Biden who has lost a son who served honorably in the armed forces, who now has basically said, I will sacrifice my surviving son's future. I will allow him to serve a prison term if that's what's determined because that is what the rule of law demands. Speaker 20: President announces that he will not pardon his son. Do you think ordinary Americans give enough thought Speaker 1: to how this system is a miracle, Speaker 20: a gift to this country, a gift to democracy?
Saved - January 16, 2025 at 3:30 AM

@Breaking911 - Breaking911

BREAKING: Biden calls for Supreme Court term limits & amending the Constitution to declare no president should have immunity "To make clear that no President is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office." https://t.co/tT0xnVpBg7

Video Transcript AI Summary
We need to eliminate dark money from political campaigns and implement an 18-year term limit for stronger ethics reforms. It's essential to ban members of Congress from trading stocks while in office. Additionally, we must amend the Constitution to clarify that no president is immune from crimes committed while in office. The president's power is significant but not absolute, and it should be held accountable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need to get dark money. That's that hidden funding behind too many campaigns contributions. We need to get it out of our politics. We need to enact an 18 year time limit. Term limit. Time in term for the strongest ethics and the strongest ethics reforms for Supreme Court. We need to ban members of Congress from trade from trading stock while they're in the Congress. We need to amend the constitution to make clear that no president, no president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president's power is not limited. It's not absolute, and it shouldn't be.
Saved - January 21, 2025 at 2:33 AM

@ClayTravis - Clay Travis

In December of 2020 Joe Biden said you wouldn’t see any pre-emptive pardons in his administration. All Biden did was lie for four years: https://t.co/kuOwf9aXmg

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump is reportedly considering preemptive pardons, raising concerns about the precedent it sets and how it affects perceptions of the U.S. as a nation of laws. This approach to pardons and policy-making via social media will not be part of our administration. We will adopt a fundamentally different approach to the justice system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump is, reportedly considering a wave of of preemptive pardons. Does this concern you, all these preemptive pardons? Speaker 1: Well, it's, it concerns me in terms of, what kind of precedent it sets and how the rest of the world looks at us as a nation of laws and injustice. You're not gonna see, in our administration that kind of approach to pardons, nor are you gonna see in our administration, the approach to making policy by tweets. You know, it's just gonna be a totally different way in which we approach the justice system.
Saved - January 23, 2025 at 6:12 PM

@ggreenwald - Glenn Greenwald

For years, Dems and media shrieked that Trump would destroy the rule of law with preemptive pardons for his family and allies. He didn't: despite constant CIA threat of arrest of him and his sons. It was Biden who did this, despite no basis for fear. https://t.co/51zg008eq6

Video Transcript AI Summary
This Friday is significant as it marks the day grand jury indictments may be announced. It’s preferable to avoid the Ides of March next week for such announcements. There are expectations for more indictments, particularly concerning criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons and Russians. The investigation was ongoing during my tenure, focusing on potential collaboration between U.S. individuals and Russian entities. I anticipated that some individuals would face issues with the Department of Justice, and several have already been indicted or pled guilty. If any Trump family members are to be indicted, it would likely occur at the conclusion of Mueller's investigation, as such actions could jeopardize the special counsel's office's future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For example, this week on Friday, not knowing anything about it, but Friday is the day that the grand jury indictments come down. And also this Friday is better than next Friday because next Friday is 15th March, which is the Ides of March. And I don't think Robert Mueller will want to have that dramatic, flare of the Ides of March when he is gonna be delivering what I think are gonna be his indictments, the final indictments, as well as the report that he gives to the attorney general. Speaker 1: What makes you believe that he has more indictments? Speaker 0: Because he hasn't addressed the issues related to criminal conspiracy as well as any individuals Speaker 1: Criminal conspiracy involving the Russian Russians. Speaker 0: Yes. Yeah. I think it was very Speaker 1: And and that's a scenario Speaker 0: person. Yeah. US person. Speaker 1: That scenario you know something about. That that investigation was developing while you were still on the job. Speaker 0: Well, it was in terms of looking at what was going on with the Russians and whether or not US persons were actively collaborating, colluding, cooperating, involved in a conspiracy with them or not. But also if there's going to be any member of Speaker 1: Did you see a message at that stage to believe that there would now that that would result in indictments once investigated? Speaker 0: I I thought at the time that there was going to be individuals who were going to have, issues with the Department of Justice. Yes. And I think we've already seen a number of individuals who have been indicted. Either have plead guilty or have been convicted now. So again, I don't have any inside knowledge. I'm not talking with anybody in special counsel. Yes, you do. You have the inside knowledge. The status of the investigation right now. But I do think also if anybody from the Trump family, an extended family, is going to be indicted, it would be in the final act of Mueller's investigation because Bob Mueller and think his team knows that if he were to do something, indicting a Trump family member, or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving US persons, that would basically be the death knell of the special counsel's office because I don't believe that Donald Trump would allow, Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of actions. Speaker 1: John Brennan, thank you very much. You have to listen to every word in the John Brennan answer. Thank you very much for joining us. I really appreciate it.
Saved - April 4, 2025 at 12:13 PM

@MichelleMaxwell - Michelle Maxwell

And the Bidens will never be held accountable. https://t.co/6S1feQdmQa

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 states that the Biden family engaged in influence peddling, resulting in tens of millions of dollars. He claims his legitimate businesses became illegitimate through alignment with Hunter Biden, which involved selling the "Biden name." Speaker 1 alleges that Joe Biden was aware and involved, citing his participation in at least two business phone calls. He asserts that Joe Biden's claim of never discussing foreign business deals with his son or brother is a lie, supported by documents and evidence. Speaker 1 further alleges that Joe Biden negotiated with the Chinese Communist Party on a golf course to secure a board seat and receive money from the Chinese. He references a WhatsApp message and a billion dollars in Ukraine, conditioned on removing a prosecutor investigating Hunter.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me ask you. You were sentenced to a hundred and eighty nine months in prison. The Biden family got preemptive pardons. How much money do you believe based on your understanding of their business practices do you believe the the Biden family made, and how much of it do you believe was related to influence peddling? Speaker 1: A % of those influence, Vinny. I saw it firsthand. It was part of our game plan, and I say our game plan because at some point, my legitimate businesses became illegitimate by aligning with Hunter Biden. And the alignment included the Biden lift or Biden brand, and that that was selling the Biden name. By definition, I think that's influence peddling, and it resulted in tens of millions of dollars with the intent Do do Speaker 0: you know for a fact that Joe Biden was Joe Biden aware of all of it? Speaker 1: I can tell you firsthand he was. He was on at least two phone calls, business phone calls that I was directly, participant in. Speaker 0: And he when he said that he never once spoke to his son, his brother, or anybody about their foreign business deals, was that a lie? Speaker 1: Sean, that's a lie. That is an outright lie. Documents have proven it. Chairman Kovner has proven it. Chairman Jordan has proven it. That the the corroborating evidence that I produced that Mark Paoletta, who fought tirelessly for me, for the committee, for the country, produced corroborating evidence that that is a lie. Quid pro quo. Joe was on the golf course negotiating with the Chinese Communist Party to be able to sit on the board and take money from the Chinese. It's absolutely a lie. Speaker 0: And that WhatsApp message says a lot, doesn't it? And you're not getting the billion dollars, leveraging a billion dollars in Ukraine, unless, of course, you get rid of a prosecutor investigating Hunter. Jason Galanis, glad everything worked out for you. Certainly, the Biden family was not looking out for you.
Saved - July 30, 2025 at 2:17 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a statement from Trump's lawyer, David Schoen, who claims that Obama could still be impeached and stripped of his immunity, potentially leading to indictment. He references Article One, Section Three, Clause Seven of the Constitution, noting that Democrats previously argued during Impeachment Hoax #2 that a former president could be barred from office and subject to criminal prosecution. This implies that Obama could face similar legal repercussions.

@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra

Whoa… BOOMERANG 🪃 Trump's lawyer David Schoen says Obama could still be impeached, and therefore Stripped of his IMMUNITY and he could in fact be indicted. - He cites Article One, Section Three, Clause Seven of the Constitution, where Democrats during Impeachment Hoax #2 did in fact argue they could bar a former president from holding further office and subjects them to criminal prosecution or indictment, implying Obama could face similar consequences. https://rumble.com/v6wszxy-david-schoen-says-obama-could-still-be-impeached-and-therefore-stripped-of-.html

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump is correct that the immunity decision would help President Obama. However, it doesn't help him with impeachment. The Democratic Party and House managers in the second impeachment trial argued that a former president is still subject to impeachment after leaving office. This means figures like Lincoln or George Washington could be impeached. As predicted, this could backfire, as President Obama could be impeached if certain evidence holds true. Impeachment could strip Obama of immunity because, according to the Democrats' argument based on Article One Section Three Clause Seven of the Constitution, it bars one from holding further office while still being subject to criminal prosecution or indictment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help president Obama. But you know what it doesn't help him with? Impeachment. According to the Democratic Party and the house managers in the second impeachment trial, a former president, once out of office, is still subject to impeachment. In other words, they've argued link Lincoln could be impeached, George Washington impeached, and certainly, as I predicted at the time, this would come back, they would rue the day because president Obama could be impeached if this evidence really says what it says, and that it could also strip over the immunity because under article one section three clause seven of the constitution, the Democrats argued, it bars one from holding further office, and the language itself says you're still subject to criminal prosecution or indictment. So we'll see how that plays out.
View Full Interactive Feed