TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Trump and his lawyers seem to forget that they are not yet the president. If the Supreme Court grants the president complete immunity from prosecution, what would stop the actual president, Joe Biden, from launching a preemptive strike on Mar-a-Lago to engineer regime change? However, I don't believe Biden has the authority to attack his political rival, as it would violate Pazzi Conicatus and murder laws. If Biden were to do so, he would likely face prosecution. Trump and his supporters fail to understand that the powers he claims for himself would also apply to future presidents.

The New York attorney general and Manhattan district attorney are teaming up to investigate the former president once he loses his immunity. They plan to sue him and challenge his legitimacy. They want to follow his money and bring him down. While the outcomes are uncertain, they have a good track record. The former president has insulted them, but they are determined to fight back and resist his influence. They believe he is crazy, losing control, and his days are numbered.

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It seems unlikely, especially when it involves the president's family and associates. Seeking such pardons raises questions about guilt; if someone is innocent, why would they need one? Preemptive pardons suggest that crimes may have occurred, even if they are not publicly known. If the president were to issue these pardons, it might be framed as protecting his family from external threats. However, the underlying concern appears to be about his own and his family's legal troubles. The idea of a permanent pardon for individuals like Rudy Giuliani and the president's children is troubling, especially if they haven't been convicted of any crimes. Many would interpret these pardons as an admission of guilt.

The DOJ is moving to end cases against Donald Trump before he takes office, citing a policy that prevents prosecuting sitting presidents. There was speculation that special counsel Jack Smith would push to complete the cases, but the DOJ believes there’s no chance for trial before Trump’s inauguration. Legal complexities and appeals make it unlikely these cases can proceed. Trump’s lawyers may have influenced this decision by requesting the cases be dropped. While there are ongoing appeals related to the classified documents case involving other defendants, Trump himself will not be part of these proceedings. This means he likely won't face accountability for serious federal charges, leaving unresolved questions about his potential guilt.

The president appears focused on self-interest and grievances as his term nears its end. He is reportedly inquiring about the possibility of issuing preemptive pardons for himself, his family, and Rudy Giuliani. The clear answer is no; this would constitute a serious misuse of presidential pardon power.

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It seems unlikely, especially when it involves the president's family and associates. Seeking pardons suggests concern over potential wrongdoing. If someone is innocent, why would they need a pardon? Preemptive pardons imply that crimes may have occurred, even if not publicly known. If the president grants these pardons, it could be seen as protecting his family from external threats, but it raises questions about guilt. The idea of a permanent pardon for individuals like Giuliani or the president's children is troubling, especially if they haven't been convicted of any crime. If the president pardons anyone, many would interpret it as an admission of guilt. Recently, it was reported that President Biden will pardon his son, Hunter Biden.

If Trump wins, DOJ won't stop ongoing cases. Cases in Florida and DC could continue until January if Trump is reelected. Garland would still lead DOJ for a while after inauguration. Trump is using the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity to delay his sentencing in New York until September. Uncertain how things will unfold in the coming months.

Not much has changed since yesterday, and this is a personal matter. Regarding the possibility of the president pardoning his son, the answer is no. I already addressed that. Please continue.

The president has previously discussed his power to pardon and has talked to his lawyers about it. He has pardoned Joe Arpaio, a former sheriff from Arizona, who was guilty of federal criminal charges. However, pardoning someone related to the Russian investigation carries more significance.

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It's unusual, especially when it's the president's family involved. Seeking preemptive pardons raises questions about guilt; if there's no wrongdoing, why ask for one? Such actions suggest that crimes may have occurred, even if not publicly known. If pardons are issued, they might be framed as protecting family reputations from external threats. The notion of a permanent pardon raises eyebrows, especially for individuals like Giuliani and the president's children, who haven't been convicted of crimes. If the president pardons them, many would interpret it as an admission of guilt. Meanwhile, there are still legal avenues to pursue accountability for any wrongdoing.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that there are no records of these required signatures, and it's unknown who used the AutoPen. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

Joy, again, our investigation currently is civil in nature. It is not criminal. Our civil suit will continue, whether he's president or not. After January 20 at 12:00, the investigation will continue. There’s no way a potential pardon for Trump or his three eldest kids would shield them from ongoing inquiries. He cannot pardon himself; he could step down and allow the vice president, vice president Pence, to pardon him. It’s expected he would pardon family members, his son-in-law, and others in his administration, then step down and let the vice president do the pardoning again; he is pardoned from federal crimes but not from state crimes. Last year I introduced a bill in the state legislature to close the pardon loophole, now law in New York, ensuring President Trump cannot avoid justice there.

This is about Trump wanting to get Leticia James and Alvin Bragg, and going after Illinois to get Pritzker by denying the states federal grant money. The Justice Department may hold up $8 billion from flowing into New York. Filing civil suits against the governor and attorney general is the way to do this. Adams, the mayor of New York, was left out because he doesn't matter. Adams may know where the bodies are buried with James and Bragg, but this is unconfirmed. Johnson and Adams have no power; they do what they're told. The state legislature holds the real power. Newsom in California is next and Pritzker is going to get destroyed. Trump will bring down Leticia James and Alvin Bragg because they went on a crusade to destroy him.

The speaker is asked about the process of pardoning Arpaio. They admit to not knowing the details but mention that the president has the authority to issue pardons, even without the Department of Justice's involvement. They believe this particular pardon was within the president's power.

Mike, it wasn't surprising that Joe Biden pardoned his family at the end of his term. The Hunter Biden pardon indicated that James Biden, who was involved in Hunter's business dealings, would also be pardoned. If Hunter's activities were criminal, the new Justice Department could have pursued investigations through James. The Biden family's involvement in these deals raises concerns about potential crimes, and the pardons aim to prevent any investigations. With a pre-pardon, there’s no basis for launching an investigation, as the Justice Department would lose the ability to seize evidence or documents related to the case.

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.

Speaker 0 contends that a large number of pardons were issued by the auto pen on the final day of the Biden presidency, and asserts there is no record showing that Joe Biden participated in the authorization of those pardons. The speaker claims that these pardons include notable examples such as those for Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the Biden family, Adam Schiff, the January 6 committee, and an extensive list that the speaker describes as continuing at length. The core assertion is that every one of these pardons was signed with the auto pen and there is no evidence that Joe Biden was personally involved in the decision-making process behind them. According to the speaker, the absence of Biden’s involvement in the decision-making is a key element of the argument, and the implication is that this absence of direct participation should be recognized in legal terms. The speaker further states that these pardons could be declared null and void by the Department of Justice. The underlying claim is that there is a basis for such a nullification rooted in the way the pardons were issued, specifically the use of the auto pen and the lack of documented presidential involvement. The speaker also asserts that the ongoing investigation will produce evidence that will support the DOJ’s decision to void the pardons. In this framing, the investigation’s forthcoming findings are presented as capable of reinforcing the claim that the pardons were improperly issued or improperly authorized due to the absence of direct presidential action. The overall narrative presented is one of procedural challenge to the pardons, anchored in the asserted method of issuance (the auto pen) and the supposed lack of Biden’s participation in the process. The speaker emphasizes a sequence in which the pardons, if deemed void, would be reversed or nullified by official action from the Department of Justice, with future investigative evidence expected to validate that outcome in court.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that no such signatures exist and the origin of the AutoPen use is unknown. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

They didn't just pardon Hunter; they effectively concealed 11 years of activities that could reveal Joe's involvement. Evidence exists, including checks and references to "the big man." This pardon was not merely about Hunter; it also obscured Joe's actions during that time. Additionally, there were lies told to the American public leading up to the election, and after it, they did exactly what was anticipated. This is not the end; expect more family members to be pardoned in the future.

Robert Shapiro suggested in the Washington Post that President Biden should offer Donald Trump a blanket pardon to allow him to focus on governing rather than seeking revenge. While this idea has merit, it raises questions about its effectiveness. A presidential pardon would only cover federal charges and not Trump's state convictions related to financial misconduct. The discussion also touches on the challenges Trump faces with ongoing prosecutions. Additionally, a Republican report claims Liz Cheney tampered with a witness, but talking to witnesses is not illegal. Cheney merely encouraged testimony, and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part.

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It's typically reserved for those close to the president, like family or associates. Seeking such pardons raises questions about guilt; if someone is innocent, why would they need one? Preemptive pardons suggest that crimes may have been committed, even if not publicly known. If the president issues these pardons, it may be framed as protecting his family from external threats. The obsession with pardons indicates concern over potential criminal culpability. The idea of a permanent pardon raises further questions about accountability. If figures like Rudy Giuliani receive pardons, many would interpret that as an admission of guilt, questioning the necessity of such actions if there were no wrongdoing.

The speaker announced a state-level investigation into potential violations of state law, despite federal involvement. The speaker believes it's necessary to ensure the truth emerges credibly. The speaker expressed concern that the same federal agencies prosecuting Trump are now investigating this matter, suggesting this may not be ideal for the country. However, the speaker acknowledged the federal prerogative while asserting the state's prerogative to conduct its own investigation. Further announcements regarding the state investigation will be made in the coming days.

This is all about Trump wanting to get Leticia James and Alvin Bragg. To do this, he's going after Illinois to get Pritzker by denying Illinois and New York federal grant money. The Justice Department might hold up $8 billion that would have gone to New York State. Filing civil suits against the governor and attorney general is the way to do this. Adams, the mayor of New York, was left out because he doesn't matter. He does not have any power. The state legislature is where the real power lies in both Illinois and New York. Next is Newsom in California. Trump will bring down James and Bragg because they went on a crusade to destroy him, and he is not a forgiving man.

The president can pardon individuals before they're charged. Trump may issue a plan. Influencers can help. The situation is fluid. Powell can't reach him. Handlers block her. Unclear who will enact the plan. Don't talk politics.

Speaker 0: He explains that he wanted to enforce laws with ICE agents and federal law enforcement but couldn't, so he needed to call the National Guard. The question is what "regular forces" means, since the statute says the president has to be unable to enforce the law with regular forces, and the Supreme Court had not decided that before yesterday. The Supreme Court now says "regular forces" means you have to try with the regular armed forces first before you can bring out the National Guard. The unintended consequence could be that the president is going to have to call the eighty second airborne or the marines or the hundred and first airborne division, as, for example, President Eisenhower did after Brown v. Board of Education in the South to enforce desegregation. The president might have to do that first in order to protect those federal buildings and ICE agents, and then if they fail, he can then call out the National Guard. Speaker 1: J. B. Pritzker, the governor in the state of Illinois, is saying this is a big win for Illinois and American democracy, an important step in curbing the Trump administration's consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism. The claim is political. The president has obviously tried to work within the framework of the law as his legal team sees it. What happens from here? In fifteen seconds or so, what happens from here? I’m not surprised by Pritzker’s response, and I guess you aren’t either. Speaker 0: He notes that Trump will now have the right to go to the Supreme Court on the full merits. This is just preliminary, and he may be able to get the court, the full court, to reverse this preliminary decision. More worrisome, the Supreme Court is essentially inviting President Trump to send regular armed troops and deploy those to Chicago and Los Angeles before he can send the National Guard. A governor would rather have National Guard troops than the eighty second Airborne and the Marine Corps patrolling the streets of Chicago. Speaker 1: Yeah. Especially when you think...