reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There were problems with the 2020 election, and I have been clear about that. I forwarded an email that presented an argument from a former inspector general for Donald Rumsfeld, who is an accomplished lawyer. The argument was based on the Federalist Papers.

I'm not worried about being targeted for prosecuting insurrectionists. Our team was thorough and adhered to the rule of law. The charging decisions were supported by grand juries and upheld by numerous courts, including the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court merely narrowed the statute's application without questioning its use in these cases. The new U.S. attorney's investigation feels like a wild goose chase, especially given the vast amount of files involved. It's frustrating to see someone undermine our hard work and suggest wrongdoing by the prosecutors. This undermines the integrity of the department and is unfounded.

There's been some thought given to this issue, and Senator Ron Wyden has already advised on what actions to take. I agree that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling. The courts depend on the legitimacy of their rulings, but they are currently eroding that legitimacy through deeply partisan and unfounded decisions. The justices themselves are undermining their own enforcement power. A ruling depends on enforcement, and the Biden administration has the power to choose whether or not to enforce it.

I want to address the dishonest narrative that's been emerging. Many outlets are fear-mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House, but the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. These judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. They have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is a concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump. We will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted.

"This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system." "These charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost." "His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country." "I stand strongly behind my office's litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two year investigation based on the facts and evidence, not politics." "Judges have upheld the trial court's finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud." "We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights."

It is essential for a prosecutor to begin with a crime rather than targeting an individual. The issue over the past four years has been the perceived targeting of Donald Trump, which began in 2016 with multiple investigations. If appointed attorney general, I will ensure the office remains non-political and will not pursue individuals based on their political affiliations. Justice will be administered fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward to preserve our nation. Concerns about the potential politicization of the justice department during my tenure are valid, and I assure you that I will maintain independence and uphold the Constitution, even if it means disagreeing with the president.

The speaker questions the appointment of a special counsel, suggesting that it may give him the power to charge in different locations. They mention that the special counsel previously claimed to have the authority to do as he pleased, but whistleblowers contradicted this, stating that he was unable to do so. The Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. However, the speaker believes that the recent move implies that the whistleblowers may have been correct. They express concerns about the political implications raised by Republicans.

We need more people like you in Washington, not the current politicians. Many Republicans missed the chance in 2022. I'm willing to go to prison to defend the constitutional separation of powers. This case could set a precedent on whether Congress can use subpoena power against a president. Executive privilege is crucial for presidents to receive confidential advice. The J Six committee is undermining this privilege. If I lose my appeal, executive privilege will be weakened. A president needs the ability to act on both sides.

My primary duty is to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. Without any other influences, we concluded that Mr. Trump committed insurrection under section 3 of the 14th amendment.

This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system. These charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. The president's actions are a grave violation of our constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties. His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replace them with someone who was blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country. I stand strongly behind my office's litigation against the Trump Organization. Judges have upheld the trial court's finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud.

Some Democratic members of Congress are preparing for the possibility of litigation. They're considering if they have the best teams possible to carry out their work. Some Republicans may say that Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department, citing Trump's trial as an example. But in the United States, we are judged by a jury of our peers. Trump was found guilty in court on 34 felony charges. It's hard to make a partisan argument against that.

Rudy Giuliani has suggested the possibility of pardoning himself, claiming he has that authority, though it hasn't been tested in court. This raises concerns about the precedent it sets and how it affects perceptions of justice in the nation. The justice department will operate independently, and I won't dictate their actions or prosecutions. The people I appoint to lead the department will have the autonomy to make decisions on prosecutions. In our administration, we will not adopt a similar approach to pardons.

The attorney general can only appoint a special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to avoid conflicts of interest. In this case, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed David Weiss, the US attorney in Delaware, who is ineligible under DOJ rules. Garland appointed Weiss because he has shown a willingness to cover up Hunter Biden's wrongdoings and protect Joe Biden. Two IRS employees have come forward as whistleblowers, accusing Weiss and Garland of obstructing justice and covering up wrongdoing. This appointment undermines the integrity of the Department of Justice.

The Justice Department is vital to democracy, ensuring investigations are fair and free from political influence. Protecting sensitive investigations is crucial. Despite attacks, we remain committed to following the law. The pace of justice system trials is out of our control. Thank you, everyone.

It's unacceptable that payments are being made to New York and other states because it's unconstitutional, biased, and an overreach of authority. Attorneys general across the nation need to uphold the rule of law. No one is above the law, not Elon Musk, treasury officials, or even the President. As attorneys general, we've been preparing for this situation. While this isn't the outcome we desired, we are ready to act.

Jack Smith was not nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the US Senate. The special counsel statute has expired, so the authority to appoint a special counsel is questioned as it was created without Congress authorization.

The judge's ruling against using executive privilege as a defense sealed our fate. We expected this outcome and will be appealing the decision. We have always known that this case would eventually reach the Supreme Court. I have been clear from the start that I am prepared to go to prison to resolve this matter.

Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government. Translation: Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government.

The speaker emphasizes that the Department of Justice should not be politicized. This stance has been consistently expressed by the president during the campaign and throughout his time in the White House.

Speaker 1 notes that there are thousands of ongoing investigations and prosecutions in the country, and that some involve people and entities the president has previously criticized and believes should be investigated. He says this is not pressure and will not keep him up at night, except to ensure every case is investigated to the fullest extent of the law using all available resources. Regarding weaponization, he argues that it has become a contested word, but says it means nothing to him because it is “completely false.” He contends that for four years, some in the room witnessed weaponization of the department like never before, with a president indicted four times by the department, and with the department assisting two local district attorneys in going after the president. He also asserts the department stood idly by while states tried to keep President Trump off the ballot. He emphasizes that the past four years saw this pattern, and insists that today’s department is changing, not pursuing political enemies but pursuing justice as the president has repeatedly said he wants. He acknowledges the ongoing media narrative about weaponization but rejects it, stating it happens not to be true. He emphasizes that tens of thousands of prosecutors across the country are putting bad guys in jail, something that, in his view, did not happen as it should have in the past four years. He concludes by reiterating his commitment to continue this work, saying it will happen tomorrow and in the coming days.

I have addressed this question multiple times, and my stance remains unchanged. We will not comment further on this matter. It is an independent investigation led by a Trump-appointed prosecutor and the Department of Justice. Therefore, we will refrain from making any additional remarks.

The US attorney in Delaware, despite being portrayed as having similar powers to a special counsel, was actually constrained and restricted by DOJ officials and other US attorneys. In my experience, it seemed that the investigation was constantly hindered and marginalized. Therefore, I believe that appointing a special counsel is essential for this case.

A prosecutor should begin with a crime and then seek a name, not the other way around. The issue over the past four years has been the targeting of Donald Trump, starting from his 2016 campaign, leading to numerous investigations against him. As attorney general, I will not politicize the office or target individuals based on political affiliation. Justice will be applied fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward; otherwise, we risk losing our country.

Individual judges have abused the system by issuing nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump's agenda. Statistics show that 67% of all national injunctions issued over the last 100 years have been against Donald J. Trump. 92% of those injunctions were issued by Democrat-appointed judges. This must be stopped.

I am proud to represent President Trump and stand with him, but I have concerns about the unfairness I witnessed in the courtroom. The judge denied us the opportunity to present important evidence and witnesses, and manipulated the questions and answers during the trial. This is a violation of our justice system. We will appeal the verdict and fight for everyone's right to speak and defend themselves. Despite the challenges, President Trump remains determined to fight for Americans. Thank you.