reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Breaking news from the Southern District of Florida (SD-FL): two junior assistant US attorneys have resigned after being asked to participate in a broad investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A source familiar with internal concerns tells MSNBC that US Attorney Jason Redding Quinones called a division-wide meeting this afternoon to address the resignations and the investigation. The reporting notes that at least 30 subpoenas were sent out late Friday by SD-FL to individuals including former CIA chief John Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In addition to the resignations, it is reported that one of the junior ASAs who resigned felt unable to participate because doing so would violate their ethical responsibilities. The resignations are notable because it would be unusual for junior ASAs to be pulled into such a major investigation. Significantly, the subpoenas were signed by SD-FL’s number three, the executive assistant US attorney, rather than by a career prosecutor in leadership. This is presented as abnormal, with a comparison made to past instances where leadership signatures were absent from such actions, such as Lindsay Halligan signing indictments in the Northern District of Virginia due to a lack of available career prosecutors. The developments prompted SD-FL US Attorney Quinones to convene a unit-wide meeting of two to three dozen prosecutors in the major crimes division. The scope of the ongoing investigation remains unclear, but it is connected to the broader claim—involving Trump administration officials—that former Obama and Biden administration officials undertook to undermine the candidacies and presidencies of Donald Trump. The report also notes that President Trump has explicitly called for the jailing of Barack Obama and referenced other individuals in relation to the investigation. Subpoenas have been issued, and at least two SD-FL assistant US attorneys have resigned so far. In summary, two junior ASAs resigned after being asked to participate in a high-profile investigation tied to claims of Russian interference in 2016, with subpoenas issued to notable former officials, and the sign-off on those subpoenas coming from the office’s number-three official, prompting an internal meeting at SD-FL.

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.

The president is not concerned about Hunter Biden's legal challenges distracting from the White House. This situation is a personal matter involving a private citizen. The investigation is led by a Trump-appointed prosecutor, and the Department of Justice operates independently. There will be no further comments on the specifics or characterization of the situation.

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.

To address the climate crisis, there was a question about the Hunter Biden investigation. The inquiry focused on whether the administration has sought or received favorable treatment from the Department of Justice regarding any investigations involving the president, his administration, family, or former President Trump. The response emphasized that the Department of Justice operates independently and that the president respects the rule of law, a principle he has upheld since before taking office.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Donald Trump's questioning of his attorney is not a crime, as it is allowed. The documents being discussed are photocopies generated by computers, not the only copies. The president still holds the same security clearances as when he was in office, unlike the vice president.

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.

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.

The US attorney overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden, David Weiss, has been designated as a special counsel. The reason for this change is unclear, but it is speculated that talks between the US attorney's office and Hunter Biden's legal team to resolve issues with a plea deal have fallen apart, making a trial more likely. The special counsel designation allows Weiss to bring cases in any jurisdiction. The decision to appoint a special counsel raises questions about the authority and scope of the investigation. It is also seen as an attempt to insulate the Justice Department and the attorney general from potential congressional testimony. The outcome of the trial remains uncertain.

A whistleblower's client, whose identity remains undisclosed, helped conduct an investigation related to Hunter Biden. The investigation, which CBS News has learned about, focuses on Hunter Biden. A few years ago, Joe Biden expressed his willingness to cooperate with the world. However, after the Department of Justice initiated an investigation into his finances, the FBI gathered evidence that they believed could lead to tax crime charges against Hunter Biden. The findings were then sent to the US attorney in Delaware. Since then, there has been no further information or updates.

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 1 explains the investigation is civil in nature and not criminal, and that "our civil suit will continue, whether he's president or not." After January 20 at 12:00, "our investigation will continue." Regarding pardons, "There’s no way a potential pardon for Trump or his three eldest kids would shield them from anything you're investigating." He adds, "He cannot pardon himself," but "he could step down and allow the vice president, vice president Pence, to pardon him," and "I suspect that he will pardon his family members, his children, his son-in-law, and individuals in his administration, as well as some of his close associates." Then "at some point in time, he will step down and allow the vice president to pardon him." He notes that "he is pardoned from federal crimes, but he is not pardoned from state crimes." He says, "Last year I introduced a bill in the state legislature, which would close the pardon loophole so that individuals such as the president of The United States would not evade justice. ... it is now the law in the state of New York. President Trump cannot avoid justice in the great state of New York."

The speaker mentions that an investigator's work was compromised due to political considerations. The investigator, referred to as Michael, does not provide specific details about his client or the target of the investigation. However, it is revealed that the investigation is related to Hunter Biden. The speaker also mentions that two years ago, Biden claimed to be cooperative when the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into his finances. The FBI collected evidence to potentially charge Biden with tax crimes and shared their findings with the US attorney in Delaware. Since then, there has been no further information or updates.

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.

Hunter Biden and the Biden family's private citizen status means their work does not reflect administration endorsement. The State Department has no concerns about Hunter Biden's involvement with a Ukrainian gas company. Biden has stated he will not work for foreign companies if his father becomes president. The President's son's investments are being unwound, and any further questions should be directed to his representatives. The President's policy remains that his family will not have business relationships with foreign entities. The focus should be on investigating Trump. Hunter Biden's alleged overseas business dealings are not to be discussed from the podium.

The speaker believes that there could be more charges based on the document's description of Hunter Biden as a lobbyist. Lobbyists are required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) if they work for foreign interests. The indictment focuses on Hunter Biden's business deals with Burisma in Ukraine, CEFC in China, and Romania, which suggests potential FARA violations. Subpoenas have also been issued for James Biden, the president's brother and Hunter's business partner. However, it should be noted that Hunter Biden's team has not admitted to lobbying on behalf of these entities, although they accept responsibility for this period in his life.

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.

We must remain focused on conducting our work properly, adhering to rules without letting partisan preferences influence our approach. In the investigations involving the president-elect, we strived to uphold these principles. Regarding the FBI's search for classified documents at Trump's home, we only resort to search warrants when all other avenues, like voluntary returns and subpoenas, have been exhausted and obstructed. There has been no interaction with the Biden White House concerning investigations into Trump. The FBI also investigated President Biden for classified documents and his son Hunter, who faced legal issues. This job often angers powerful individuals, but the rule of law dictates that investigations are driven by facts and legal standards, not political pressures.

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 President's reaction to the recent legal developments regarding Hunter Biden remains unchanged. This is a personal matter for Hunter, handled independently by the Department of Justice under a Trump-appointed prosecutor. There will be no further comments beyond what was stated previously. The President and First Lady love and support their son as he works to rebuild his life.

The ongoing saga surrounding David Weiss, the US attorney for Delaware and the Hunter Biden investigation, has raised questions about his ability to charge Hunter. Whistleblower Gary Shapley testified that Weiss stated he was not the deciding official on charges in the Hunter case, contradicting Attorney General Merrick Garland's comments. Weiss also claimed he had sought authority to bring charges against Hunter in the District of Columbia but was denied. Shapley's account was confirmed by others at the meeting. The release of Shapley's testimony prompted Garland to reiterate Weiss's authority, but Weiss later confirmed he needed to partner with relevant US attorneys. Weiss's shifting statements raise doubts about his credibility.

Speaker 0 asks if Joe Biden received payments from Burisma or any other foreign companies while he was vice president, president, or a private citizen. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing investigation led by the US attorney in Delaware, appointed by President Trump. Speaker 1 suggests referring to the US attorney for any information that can be shared. Speaker 0 then asks if the president is under investigation, to which Speaker 1 refuses to confirm or deny, following department policy. The conversation ends without a clear answer regarding Biden's involvement with foreign payments or the president's investigation.

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.

It is unknown if lawsuits against Donald Trump will lead to impeachment. Trump has come close to criminality, and the greatest risk to him is Special Counsel Bob Mueller. The risk is that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey with corrupt motives after Comey refused to drop the Flynn investigation. There is disagreement over whether Mueller can pursue criminal charges against Trump. The DOJ and president's lawyers historically take the position that a president cannot be criminally charged. It is an unsettled question that could end up in the Supreme Court. At a minimum, Mueller can charge Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator and seek permission from the grand jury to issue a report to Congress of the illegal conduct.