TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they had socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 had ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

"This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system." "These charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost." "His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country." "I stand strongly behind my office's litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two year investigation based on the facts and evidence, not politics." "Judges have upheld the trial court's finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud." "We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights."

I will challenge this illegitimate president when our rights are at stake. The President can be indicted for criminal offenses. He threatens our rights daily. We must focus on Donald Trump, his abuses, and follow his money. We need to uncover any money laundering or conspiracy. The days of Donald Trump are ending. As Attorney General, I will sue him, defend your rights, and go home.

It is essential for a prosecutor to begin with a crime rather than targeting an individual. The issue over the past four years has been the perceived targeting of Donald Trump, which began in 2016 with multiple investigations. If appointed attorney general, I will ensure the office remains non-political and will not pursue individuals based on their political affiliations. Justice will be administered fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward to preserve our nation. Concerns about the potential politicization of the justice department during my tenure are valid, and I assure you that I will maintain independence and uphold the Constitution, even if it means disagreeing with the president.

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...

I refuse to answer questions on legal advice. Objection, invoking privilege against self-incrimination. Same response to questions about breaking laws, violating rights, misusing funds, and ethics violations while investigating Trump and working at the Manhattan DA's office.

I will not appear before the Georgia Senate committee without a subpoena. I believe they do not have the authority to subpoena me. I will not do anything unlawful as I have not broken any laws. I treat everyone equally, even if it upsets some people.

I have experience with Donald Trump as the chief deputy in the attorney general's office. We sued the Trump administration over 100 times for various issues like the Muslim travel ban, family separation at the border, and shenanigans with the census. I led the team that handled the Trump Foundation case. Holding Trump accountable is important, considering the lawlessness I've witnessed. There are two standards of justice, favoring rich, old white men like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Trump. I've seen a pattern of lawlessness over 20 years, and I believe there's a path forward to make a case based on what I've seen in the public domain.

Will the Department of Justice provide all documents and correspondence with Alvin Bragg's, Fani Willis', and Letitia James' offices? These are independent state offices, and we do not control them. If you make a request, it will be referred to our legislative affairs office. You claim there's a conspiracy against Trump, but when asked for documents, you suggest a lengthy process, which seems to support that theory. As a former judge, did you ever make political donations? No, because federal rules prohibit it. Shouldn't judges be unbiased? You’re asking about a specific case, which I won't comment on. Did a family member profit from a case you handled? I won't comment on that either. Matthew Colangelo's move to Bragg's office is unrelated to any coordinated effort against Trump. Concerns about judicial integrity are valid, but I disagree with your assertions.

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.

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.

We will challenge this illegitimate president and focus on Donald Trump. Investigating his finances fuels my determination. As the attorney general, I sue him regularly.

I've put an end to the weaponization of government. A prime example of this was when a sitting president was allowed to viciously prosecute a political opponent, like myself. But how did that turn out? Not too good. Not too good at all.

I will sue Donald Trump as the next attorney general because he is an illegitimate president. I believe he should be charged with obstructing justice and can be indicted for criminal offenses. I will challenge him and defend your rights every day. The days of Donald Trump are coming to an end.

- The questioning begins with noting a calendar or schedule, then moves to record-keeping instructions: "Turn off the video record at 01:05PM." - Mister Epstein is asked about sexual attraction to underage minor females. The question is objected to as harassing and argumentative. - Epstein invokes his rights: he states he must invoke his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights to not answer questions today or any questions relevant to this lawsuit. - The questions focus on the names of any underage minors who were the subject of criminal charges to which Epstein pled guilty. Epstein responds, "I don't know." - The examiner asks what the charges were about and what the underlying allegations were. Epstein states the charge as "Solicitation of prostitution," clarifying it was not underage prostitution but prostitution. - The examiner asks if the victims or prostitutes were minors. Epstein repeats, "I plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution." - The examiner presses for details of the cases—what happened, what the underlying facts were, how Epstein engaged with the individuals. Epstein repeats that he cannot tell more than that and ultimately says, "I plead guilty to the solicitation of prostitution. Not underage prostitution, but prostitution." - The examiner asks to clarify whether the three females who were the subject of the guilty pleas in state court were procured by Epstein by having underage minor females locate other underage minor females and bring them to Epstein’s house. Objections are raised for argumentative, harassing, and assuming facts not in evidence; the examiner moves to strike. - The examiner asks whether all people with whom Epstein engaged in sexual activity were underage and brought by other underage girls. Objections persist; Epstein states he does not understand the question. - The examiner repeats a question about whether Epstein used underage minor females to bring other underage minor females to his house for sex; the exchange indicates the question had been asked and answered earlier. - Epstein again states, due to his counsel, that he must assert his sixth, fourteenth, and fifth amendment rights and cannot answer that question at the moment. - In closing, Epstein cites that his firm, Edwards and Jaffee, has been described by the US attorney as perpetrating one of the largest frauds in South Florida’s history, crafting malicious cases of a sexual nature to fleece people using bogus schemes and investment schemes. He reiterates his attorneys advised he must assert his constitutional rights, and therefore he cannot answer at this time.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

I don't want a pardon. Accepting one implies guilt, and I'm not guilty of anything except revealing the truth about January 6th and exposing Donald Trump's inaction during that time. He may attempt to target others through various investigations, as seen with Brad Raffensperger in Georgia. While I wish to move on from this chapter of my life, if Trump brings it up again, I'm ready to discuss everything the committee uncovered.

I objected to obtaining flight records as it invades privacy. I am not the one on trial; those trying to steal the 2020 election are. My question remains. Translation: I opposed accessing flight records as it invades privacy. I am not the one being tried; those attempting to steal the 2020 election are. My question still stands.

"No matter the threats, I'm not backing down." "It is sad, telling, and downright dangerous that simply stating a bedrock principle of American law caused the president, our commander in chief, to threaten violence against me and to weaponize the Department of Justice against me." "I served at the Department of Justice." "I know that federal prosecutors have more control over the life and liberty of the American people than any other peacetime force." "I know that when these powers are used for good, they make us the more perfect union." "And I know that when these awesome powers are abused, when they are used to punish political opponents, to seek retribution, to do a president's personal bidding, there's nothing more dangerous in this country." "My message is clear. I took an oath to this constitution, and I intend to keep it." "I will never give up the ship."

I won't discuss any private conversations the president has with his family, including any talks with Hunter.

You mentioned that the White House will not interfere, but the incoming president believes he can direct the Justice Department. If he suggests investigating a political enemy, would you comply? I wish we could have discussed this in a meeting. It's essential for the attorney general to remain independent. While I haven't heard the president make such a request, I recognize that many Americans have lost faith in the DOJ. If confirmed, my priority will be to restore integrity to the department and ensure justice is served fairly. Let's move on to your current responsibilities as attorney general.

I have addressed this question multiple times, and my stance remains unchanged. We will not comment further on this matter. It is an independent investigation led by a Trump-appointed prosecutor and the Department of Justice. Therefore, we will refrain from making any additional remarks.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

A prosecutor should begin with a crime and then seek a name, not the other way around. The issue over the past four years has been the targeting of Donald Trump, starting from his 2016 campaign, leading to numerous investigations against him. As attorney general, I will not politicize the office or target individuals based on political affiliation. Justice will be applied fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward; otherwise, we risk losing our country.

Mister Bernal declined to answer questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. He declined to answer whether he advised President Biden to pardon Hunter Biden. He declined to answer whether President Biden was fit to execute the duties of president. He declined to answer whether any unelected official or family member of President Biden executed the duties of the presidency. He declined to answer whether President Biden ever instructed him to lie regarding his health, including in his testimony to Congress. It was stated that it was his intention to decline to answer all questions put to him by the committee based on his Fifth Amendment rights.