TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It's unusual. This situation seems to involve not just prospective pardons for uncharged individuals, but also the president's family and associates who have supported him. The president appears to be using these pardons to shield those who have protected him, creating an environment filled with questionable characters.

You confirmed you were asked to obstruct justice? No, that’s not what I confirmed. The Mueller report clearly stated there was no collusion or obstruction. That’s not accurate. Did you read the report? No, I haven’t. Then how do you know? Congress members clarified it. I read the entire report, and it lists ten examples of obstruction. That’s not true. Here are the examples: asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, firing Comey, trying to remove Mueller, and influencing witnesses, among others. Legal experts agree these are obstruction. How can they determine that without knowing all the facts? The report outlines actions that would have led to charges for any citizen. Attorney General Barr and the deputy AG found no obstruction. A thousand former federal prosecutors, from both parties, stated there was evidence of obstruction that would have led to charges for a regular citizen.

Have you ever heard of someone receiving a preemptive pardon despite being completely innocent? It seems unlikely. This situation appears to be an attempt to pardon individuals for potential future crimes they may never be charged with, particularly those close to the president, including family members. The president has surrounded himself with people who have supported him, creating an environment that resembles a den of thieves. This preemptive pardon seems to be a way for the president to protect those who have been loyal to him.

Speaker 0 questions the president's actions: "You're gonna honor first responders today, but you pardon hundreds of people who assaulted first responders. Why did you do that?" He also says, "Yeah. But you pardoned people who assaulted first responders." Speaker 1 replies: "No. I pardoned people that were assaulted themselves. They were assaulted by our government. I fired I pardoned j six people who were assaulted by our government. That's who assaulted, and they were treated unfairly." He continues: "There's never been a group of people in this country outside of maybe one instance that I can think of, but I won't get into it, that were treated more horribly than the people of J Six. So, no. I didn't assault. They didn't assault. They were assaulted." "And what I did was a great thing for humanity. They were treated very, very unfairly. There's never been an incident like it."

Speaker 0 is asked if President Biden accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

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.

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.

Have you ruled out a pardon for yourself or family members? Yes, I have. What would I pardon myself for? I have no intention of pardoning myself because I didn't do anything wrong. Could you comment on Meta's decision to...

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The President recently discussed the possibility of preemptive pardons in an interview with USA Today. While specifics are not being disclosed, further announcements regarding pardons and commutations are expected soon, within the next ten days. More details will be provided before the end of his term.

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.

The question of whether the president will pardon or commute his son Hunter's sentence if convicted has been addressed multiple times. The answer remains clear: no. Despite inquiries about any potential changes in the next six months, the stance is consistent. The president has firmly stated that he will not grant a pardon or commutation to his son. This position is definitive and will not change. The answer is still a no, and there is nothing further to add on this matter.

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.

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.

Neither Mr. Bobolinski nor Mr. Galenis have heard of any offers of a pardon for those involved in the Biden Family Enterprise corruption investigation. Mr. Bobolinski confirmed this during the questioning.

Speaker 0: Upon taking office, I also ended the weaponization of law enforcement against religious believers and pardoned the pro life activist thrown in jail by Joe Biden for saying that. Speaker 0: Upon taking office, I also ended the weaponization of law enforcement against religious believers and pardoned the pro life activist thrown in jail by Joe Biden for saying that. Speaker 0: Upon taking office, I also ended the weaponization of law enforcement against religious believers and pardoned the pro life activist thrown in jail by Joe Biden for saying that. Speaker 0: Upon taking office, I also ended the weaponization of law enforcement against religious believers and pardoned the pro life activist thrown in jail by Joe Biden for saying that.