TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

President Biden issued pardons to members of the January 6th committee, which you were part of. This came after President Trump suggested the committee should face jail time. You previously expressed that you did not want a pardon and communicated this to the White House. Now that you’ve received one, are you considering accepting it or seeking legal recourse? We are evaluating the situation, but it’s unclear what can be done since the pardons apply to the entire committee. This is unprecedented territory. We’ve operated collectively, and the law regarding such pardons is ambiguous. It seems likely we’ll have to accept the pardon unless there’s an attempt to prosecute the committee.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The memo referenced people but lacked specific names, causing confusion. Upon returning to the office, the speaker and colleagues were met with confusion and heartbreak. Two hours later, termination letters began to arrive. Ultimately, 15 assistant US attorneys were fired. The speaker's termination letter cited actions and prosecutions related to the events at or near the US Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order characterizing the work as a grave national injustice and stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting US attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes the US attorneys represent the United States, not the president. The speaker believes that firing 15 qualified attorneys created a problem.

You think about Trump pardoning the January? Not so good. There were crimes that were committed. I did nine hundred days in solitary confinement, four years and six days without a trial in the DC Jail. I was never convicted. I was pardoned on 01/21/2025. I was arrested January 16. I never had a trial. Do you think that's wrong. No. That's wrong. So why was pardoning us wrong then? We had no chance in the DC Jail, in the DC court system. Is it a crime to stand up for your country against a stolen election? If you were an American, yes. Not would die. If the Democrats arrested you that you would get a fair jury trial in DC? I would certainly hope so. But but Republicans don't. Trump supporters don't. You're hoping it does not make it true. Bureaucrats, they couldn't care less about their constituency.

Joe Biden's Department of Justice has caused significant suffering, and justice feels delayed for many. I want to express my gratitude to President Trump for keeping his promise to pardon the January 6th defendants on his first day in office, despite pushback from some Republicans. This act will alleviate a lot of pain and is a crucial first step toward healing and justice for those whose lives have been devastated by the actions of the current administration.

The speaker questions why Pam Bondi hasn't prosecuted Garland and asks if the rule is that only Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon go to jail for obstructing Congress. They assert that the case doesn't require six months to decide, as it was resolved by the prior administration. The speaker suggests Garland wouldn't prosecute himself within the Justice Department. They express confusion about the difficulty in deciding whether to prosecute someone or, at least, announcing a review of the issue.

Will you advise the president against issuing blanket pardons? I haven't reviewed those files yet, but if confirmed, I will examine them. Will you be able to review hundreds of cases on day one? I will look at every file I'm asked to review. Can you advise the president? I will have sufficient staff to assist me. I won't mislead this body or you. Let me ask you another question. These moments are why Congress exists.

Chip expresses his concerns about nominees like Kash Patel, deeming him unqualified for FBI director due to his conspiracy theories and sycophantic rise in the Trump administration. He highlights the troubling implications of pardoning individuals involved in the January 6 violence, emphasizing that voters expect action against crime, not rewards for insurrectionists. Chip also addresses the potential prosecution of January 6 committee members, asserting pride in their oversight work and rejecting the idea of preemptive pardons, which could set a dangerous precedent. He has communicated these views to President Biden both publicly and privately.

I was going to discuss the January 6 hostages and the actions being taken regarding them. There's a lot happening, and you'll see more action soon. I also wanted to address Joe's recent pardons for individuals guilty of serious crimes, particularly related to the unselect committee that destroyed crucial information, including evidence about Nancy Pelosi rejecting an offer of 10,000 soldiers for security. Even 500 soldiers could have made a difference that day, despite the large crowd. There are many great photos from that day that aren't shown, focusing instead on the Capitol events. I was encouraged to wait to discuss these topics, but I felt it was important to bring them up now.

I was going to discuss the January 6 hostages, but there's a lot of action coming on that front. Today, Joe issued pardons for individuals guilty of serious crimes, and the unselect committee has destroyed much of the evidence, including hearings. They deleted information about Nancy Pelosi rejecting an offer of 10,000 soldiers for security. Even 500 could have made a difference that day, despite the large crowd. There are many great photos from that day that aren't shown, focusing instead on the Capitol. I intended to address this, but was advised to wait until tomorrow. I decided to bring it up now.

Those involved in the violent protests should face consequences, particularly those who assaulted police officers. The actions on the Supreme Court side were unlawful, and those who trespassed should be held accountable. There’s no justification for the violence that occurred. Regarding pardons, Trump has stated he would consider cases individually, not universally. It's important to recognize that Ashley Babbitt was the only person who died on January 6th, and her presence was influenced by Trump's claims about a stolen election. The investigation into that day should have been thorough for transparency. The public deserves to see the full picture of what transpired.

The president has suggested investigating Jack Smith, but I need to review the facts before committing to any investigation. A summary from the president isn't sufficient for me to act. Currently, I have no knowledge of any factual basis to investigate Jack Smith or Liz Cheney. My role requires independence, and I won't play politics. Regarding the 2020 election, I cannot confirm massive fraud without examining evidence. As for pardons, I will review each case individually if confirmed. I will ensure that evidence from the January 6th investigation is preserved according to the law and ethical guidelines. I cannot promise to destroy or not destroy evidence without understanding the legal context.

The speaker questions the authority of Jack Smith to represent the United States without nomination or confirmation. The discussion delves into the legality of Smith's appointment and the role of US attorneys under the Appointments Clause. The conversation also touches on the handling of January 6 protesters and potential Supreme Court rulings. The speaker raises concerns about excessive sentencing and the upcoming inspector general report on DOJ's response to the Capitol events. The attorney general emphasizes the independence of the inspector general and commits to following the law.

The speaker met with Mr. Martin, who seems like a good man. The speaker's concerns related to January 6th. Mr. Martin built a compelling case regarding some prosecutions that were heat-of-the-moment bad decisions. The speaker believes anyone who reached the perimeter on January 6th should have been imprisoned for some period of time and has no tolerance for anyone who entered the building. Mr. Martin explained how some people got caught up in it, making a stupid decision to enter a breached building. The speaker's issue isn't whether they should be charged, but by how much. The speaker believes what happened on January 6th was wrong, not prompted by others, and those involved disgraced the United States. Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, and the speaker agreed that some should not have been pardoned. The speaker would support Mr. Martin as a US attorney for any district except the one where January 6th happened and has indicated to the White House that they wouldn't support his nomination.

I am deeply troubled by your responses today. You need to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You avoided answering that question when asked by Senator Durbin. Additionally, you should clearly state that those involved in the January 6th insurrection who committed violence should not be pardoned. I don’t have to say what you want me to say. I speak the truth and won’t say anything just to gain confirmation. I will answer questions to the best of my ability.

This past week, a record 1,500 commutations were granted, the highest number in a single day. Among those commuted were individuals involved in serious crimes, including a judge linked to a cash-for-kids scheme that imprisoned many, a man guilty of tax fraud costing over $1.6 billion, and a woman involved in a $26 million Medicare fraud scheme. Are you comfortable with these decisions? No, I’m not. There was also a man in Duluth running a major drug operation who had money hidden under his bathroom tiles that was commuted. I also disagreed with the pardon of the president's son.

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.

After three weeks of training, the speaker saw a litigation hold on their phone with a memo giving Mr. Martin permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section. The memo referenced people but didn't have a list of names. The speaker headed back to the office and was met by colleagues who shared their confusion. Two hours later, letters terminating them started rolling in. At the end of the night, 15 assistant U. S. Attorneys had been fired. The termination letter stated the decision was based on actions and the prosecution of persons relating to the events that occurred at or near The U. S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. An executive order characterized that work as having involved a grave national injustice. The speaker's hiring hindered the ability of the acting US attorney Martin to staff his office in furtherance of his obligation to faithfully implement the agenda that the American people elected president Trump to SCU. The termination letter made it clear that mister Martin does not understand the role of a prosecutor. Firing 15 qualified attorneys created an immediate deficit in the office to appropriately prosecute cases.

Kash Patel is unqualified to be FBI director, having previously suggested shutting down FBI headquarters to open a museum for conspiracy theories. His rise reflects a troubling trend of rewarding sycophants. Regarding January 6 pardons, there’s deep concern about pardoning individuals who violently attacked police and tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. This contradicts the public's desire for action against crime, not political revenge. As for potential prosecutions of January 6 committee members, there's pride in their oversight work, making preemptive pardons unnecessary. Setting a precedent for blanket pardons at the end of an administration is also undesirable. This message has been communicated to President Biden both publicly and privately.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The speaker was unsure if they were on the list. Upon returning to the office, colleagues shared their confusion. Two hours later, termination letters arrived, dismissing 15 assistant U.S. Attorneys. The speaker's letter cited their actions in prosecuting individuals involved in the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order from 01/20/2025 characterizing that work as a grave national injustice. The letter stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting U.S. attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes Mr. Martin doesn't understand that U.S. attorneys represent the United States, not the president, and that firing 15 attorneys created a deficit in the office's ability to prosecute cases.

Two weeks ago on Fox News, you mentioned that those who protested peacefully on January 6th should be pardoned, while those who committed violence should not. You also noted that there are gray areas in these cases, particularly regarding the Department of Justice's handling of prosecutions, which you believe involved double standards and denial of constitutional rights. Regarding specific cases of violence against police officers, you clarified that while such violence is not justified, the focus should be on the unfair prosecution by the DOJ. You argue that the pardon power is not reserved for perfect individuals, and the decision to pardon was about rectifying perceived injustices in the legal process.

Joining us are former federal prosecutors Jason Manning and Ashley Akers, discussing the implications of recent pardons. Jason Manning expresses concern that these pardons send a damaging message, particularly highlighted by Sergeant Genell of the Capitol Police, who described them as a mockery of the sacrifices made by officers defending democracy on January 6. Manning emphasizes that this suggests crimes committed in the name of the president are acceptable, undermining the integrity of the justice system and the support police officers need to do their jobs effectively.

I advocate daily for true justice regarding January 6th. We need to shift the narrative to focus on exoneration for the innocent and significant restitution for those affected. This is not just about pardons; it's about doing what is right and addressing the constitutional violations committed by the DOJ under Merrick Garland and Matthew Graves. Our nation must confront the reality of January 6th and the institutional problems that arose from it. This is a critical issue that requires our attention.

The speaker questions the attorney general about pardons for January 6th offenders and asks if she advised the president on this. The attorney general refuses to discuss conversations with the president. The speaker accuses the administration of incompetence, corruption, and cruelty, focusing on corruption. She asks if the attorney general was ever registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The attorney general acknowledges representing Qatar for anti-human trafficking efforts related to the World Cup. The speaker accuses her of being a registered lobbyist for Qatar and not disclosing this during her Senate confirmation. The attorney general claims it was discussed in detail. The speaker asks if the attorney general advised that President Trump could accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar. The attorney general refuses to discuss advice given to the president. The speaker asks if she recused herself from that issue, and the attorney general questions the speaker's claim that the president wanted the jet because it was "pretty."

We were federal prosecutors on the Justice Department's Capitol attack investigation until the Trump administration fired us on January 31st. Why were we fired? Because we did our job. We followed the facts and the law. What we did was justice for 140 police officers wounded on January 6th, 2021. We were hired to prosecute cases from the riot, and none of our defendants were acquitted, which shows the evidence was overwhelming. But last month, the president pardoned even the most violent convicts, calling them "hostages." Letters of termination hit the Justice Department, calling the prosecution itself a grave national injustice. Anyone who has watched videos of January 6th knows that prosecuting the rioters was not the injustice. The injustice has been the Department of Justice turning its back on law enforcement officers, members of Congress, and all the victims affected.

We need to distinguish between the pardons being issued today. Joe Biden's pardons, especially for those involved in the January 6th events, differ significantly from others. Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of retribution, which is not constitutional. While I am a Democrat and find it unfortunate that Trump pardoned his family, the pardons related to January 6th are particularly concerning. They reflect a disregard for the constitution and the electoral process, as many felt their lives were not improved under Trump. Therefore, we should categorize these pardons separately, as not all pardons hold the same weight or significance.