reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The president decided to address the injustices faced by 1,500 individuals affected by politicized prosecutions, many of whom had endured significant hardships over the past four years. This includes cases where even innocent bystanders, like two grandmothers, were arrested for merely being present at the Capitol. The president's actions aim to restore fairness to the justice system, particularly for those protesting against the killing of unborn children. Critics argue that this undermines safety, but the president believes reversing these politicized prosecutions enhances security. He highlights the disparity in sentencing, noting that a career criminal received only 27 months for burning down a police station, contrasting it with the treatment of those unjustly prosecuted.

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."

Your party supports law enforcement, but if released prisoners commit crimes, should Trump be held accountable? No more than Biden should be for his policies. If Biden charges offenders who reoffend, he bears responsibility. Why can't your party admit when Trump is wrong? If offenders like the Proud Boys reoffend after being released, isn't Trump responsible? If judges are Trump-appointed, they face consequences; if Biden-appointed, they often walk free. During the Black Lives Matter protests, many offenders weren't prosecuted. You claim there's no coverage of riots, but that’s not true. I left the White House during a riot, and my life was threatened, yet there's no coverage of that. If they break the law, they go to jail. I asked you to acknowledge if you think the pardons are wrong. Those released under Soros-backed DAs often commit worse crimes without punishment. Thank you for your time.

On January 6, we need to address the situation of the J6 defendants and others wrongfully imprisoned, including pro-lifers. A blanket pardon is just the beginning; true justice requires restoring balance. Many individuals are in jail for peacefully walking in the Capitol, some without ever being charged or given a chance to defend themselves in court. We must consider how to compensate them for their lost time and resources. To achieve this, we will organize a class action lawsuit against members of the January 6th committee and key figures like Merrick Garland and Liz Cheney. Our goal is to hold them accountable and ensure that the funds taken from them are redirected to support the J6 defendants.

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.

It's never acceptable to assault a police officer. Regarding DJ Rodriguez, who used a stun gun on an officer during the Capitol riot and later confessed, the question of his pardon arises. However, many murderers today go uncharged, particularly in cities like Philadelphia and LA. Those who have served time in harsh conditions deserve consideration. In places like Portland and Minneapolis, where violence occurred and no one was held accountable, the situation is troubling. I decided to grant pardons, similar to Joe Biden, who also pardoned numerous criminals. Questions should focus on his pardons, including those for his relatives and associates.

We acknowledge the tragic losses of some January 6th offenders who took their own lives after facing severe consequences. The Department of Justice, FBI, and the January 6th committee bear responsibility for this. Restorative justice is crucial. We are uniting January 6th defenders and advocates globally to demand accountability for the government's actions and the harm caused. Our goal is to pursue historic civil damages and collaborate with the incoming Trump administration to ensure justice is served. We must hold government officials accountable for upholding the Constitution and not violating civil rights. Strong laws exist that need enforcement, and we require a reckoning with these institutions. Additionally, I spent time in solitary confinement but have since received a full pardon from the president.

The weaponization of the justice department is concerning. Under Joe Biden, the department suggested that traditional Catholics could be considered domestic terrorists and indicated that individuals protesting school board policies might be investigated for terrorism. This politicization of the justice department is alarming, and we should not exacerbate the situation by allowing anyone appointed to the federal government to demand a pardon upfront. This could lead to a troubling precedent where appointments come with the expectation of immunity alongside a salary.

There’s a claim that Democrats lack a strong argument against recent pardons by President Biden, including those for family members and an activist convicted of killing two FBI agents. However, it's crucial to recognize that this issue transcends party lines. Biden has indeed pardoned many individuals, and he should explain his decisions. The key difference is that those pardoned by Biden did not engage in violent actions against law enforcement or attempt to overthrow the government, which resulted in injuries and trauma to police officers. This situation is not merely a partisan issue; it’s about accountability and the gravity of actions taken.

If we are issuing pardons, President Trump should pardon Derek Chauvin from federal charges. The railroading of Chauvin was the inciting event for the BLM riots. Evidence suggests Chauvin didn't murder George Floyd, who was high on fentanyl and had a heart condition, even saying he couldn't breathe before exiting the car. Chauvin's knee was often on Floyd's shoulder or back, not his neck, and the autopsy showed no trachea damage, suggesting excited delirium as the cause of death. Despite the lack of hate crime accusations and the scanty evidence, Chauvin was convicted amidst massive pressure on the jury. He's rotting in prison because the media turned a tragic event into the cause of the 2020 election, leading to chaos and damaged race relations. President Trump should consider pardoning Chauvin on federal charges. Go to pardonderek.com and sign our petition asking President Trump to grant justice to officer Derek Chauvin.

The president decided to address the cases of 1,500 individuals affected by the Department of Justice's actions over the past 48 months. Many were arrested for minor infractions, including two grandmothers jailed for being near the Capitol. This politicization of justice raises concerns about fairness. The president's recent pardons for 21 individuals protesting against abortion reflect a commitment to restore balance in the justice system. Critics argue that these actions make the country less safe, but the president counters that reversing politically motivated prosecutions is a step toward safety. He highlights the disparity in sentencing, noting that a career criminal received only 27 months for burning down a police station, while others faced harsher penalties for lesser offenses. The president aims to secure the nation while addressing these injustices.

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.

My son and brother are facing unjust persecution. It's time to take action by peacefully protesting, holding judges, the DOJ, and the FBI accountable for their actions against American citizens. We must stand up for our rights.

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.

If smart, focus on January 6th: Trump should not pardon Capitol attackers. They are thugs, not hostages. Trump's support for them is a mistake. We need leadership that stands for law and order, not violence. As a Republican, I want a Republican president, but we must choose wisely. Trump's association with the attackers is wrong. We should find, try, and jail those who attacked the Capitol. Let's trust the jury system and law enforcement to bring justice.

The Supreme Court ruled that the felony charges against many January 6 protesters were unjust and should not have happened. We have been unfairly persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned. It is time to release my people.

I walked out of the DC Gulag after four years and six days, now a free man thanks to President Trump’s pardon. We sincerely thank him for his support, but the fight isn’t over. Many of my comrades remain imprisoned due to unjust charges from the DOJ. Jeremy Brown, a Green Beret, and Edward Kelly, a former Marine and father, are still behind bars, along with others like Dominic Bach and Daniel Ball. The pardon did not cover all charges related to January 6. We urge the president to expand the pardon to include these unjust charges. God bless America.

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.

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 presents seven core points about the January 6 investigations and related prosecutions. 1) Original sins of government and due process concerns - The lawless formation of the House Select Committee on January 6 led to a one-sided, due process-free process. - The committee was gerrymandered by Speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel for the ranking member, and Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to cover that up. - The committee conducted scripted hearings with prewritten Q&A paths and cherry-picked, highly edited audio and video. 2) Collaboration with mainstream media and narrative shaping - The committee worked with major outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC) to blast a narrative of an insurrection. - The speaker claims secretly recorded video shows Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and friends admitting no real insurrection occurred. - The combined effect of the committee’s conduct and the media blitz allegedly poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC, and suggested that venue transfers should have been permitted. 3) Fourth Amendment concerns and the dragnet - Many defendants were swept up in a broad dragnet that the speaker believes resembled a general warrant violating the Fourth Amendment. - This involved geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants to telecom providers. - People arriving after the speech and the ellipse allegedly did not see that areas normally open to the public were closed, creating a trespass trap for the unwary. 4) First Amendment rights and unequal treatment - The Department of Justice did not treat First Amendment rights of the protesters with appropriate respect. - The speaker contrasts the January 6 cases with the 2020 Portland protests, where nightly attacks on federal courthouses and antifa/BLM activity were characterized differently. - The speaker asserts that insurrection labeling in Portland was more applicable to those actions than to the largely spontaneous January 6 crowd, implying selective enforcement. 5) Selective prosecution and unequal treatment - The January 6 defendants have not been treated the same as Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who damaged property and threatened the White House. - The speaker calls this a flat violation of equal protection of the laws and suggests broad public belief in selective prosecution. 6) Brady violations and exculpatory evidence - Widespread Brady violations are alleged, focusing on two areas: concealed or underreported footage of the Capitol, and the large number of unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts (over 800), with the possibility that exculpatory evidence remains unseen by defendants and their lawyers. - The committee allegedly acted like a star chamber, and there is concern that not all exculpatory material has been made available. 7) Judicial influence and misapplication of obstruction statutes - DC federal judges are said to have been influenced by the January 6 committee’s narrative and the mainstream media. - A statute designed to close an obstruction-of-justice loophole from Arthur Andersen/Enron is claimed to be applied to activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment, with unequal sentencing: Antifa and BLM defendants allegedly receiving lighter outcomes or settlements, while January 6 defendants face disproportionate sentences. - The speaker concludes by expressing disagreement with the overall approach and intention to speak on these concerns.

President Trump is reportedly considering preemptive pardons, raising concerns about the precedent it sets and how it affects perceptions of the U.S. as a nation of laws. This approach to pardons and policy-making via social media will not be part of our administration. We will adopt a fundamentally different approach to the justice system.

President Trump is reportedly considering a series of preemptive pardons. This raises concerns about the precedent it sets and how it affects the perception of the U.S. as a nation of laws. In our administration, we will not adopt this approach to pardons or make policy decisions through social media. Our focus will be on a fundamentally different approach to the justice system.

We need to differentiate between the pardons happening today. Joe Biden's pardons, particularly for those involved in January 6th, are distinct from others. Donald Trump ran on a platform of retribution, which is not constitutional. Pardoning his family is unfortunate and clouds his actions. The events of January 6th were unprecedented, and those pardoned undermined our constitution and the election process. Many people felt their lives were not better under Trump, leading them to elect Joe Biden. Therefore, we should categorize these pardons separately, as not all pardons are equal.

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.