TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I'm not worried about being targeted for prosecuting insurrectionists. Our team was thorough and adhered to the rule of law. The charging decisions were supported by grand juries and upheld by numerous courts, including the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court merely narrowed the statute's application without questioning its use in these cases. The new U.S. attorney's investigation feels like a wild goose chase, especially given the vast amount of files involved. It's frustrating to see someone undermine our hard work and suggest wrongdoing by the prosecutors. This undermines the integrity of the department and is unfounded.

Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration. I'm gonna trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, balls in their hands. I've said plenty this last weekend. So if you guys wanna see my commentary on it, that's fine.

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.

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...

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.

The department has issued a letter outlining restrictions on the speaker’s testimony, and as a result, the speaker will not answer questions on topics of public interest that fall under those restrictions. Specifically, questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before the speaker’s appointment, and matters related to the Steele dossier cannot be addressed. These topics are the subject of ongoing review by the department, and any inquiries should be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department. The speaker reiterates the importance of adhering to what is written in the department’s report. The report contains the findings and analysis, along with the reasons for the decisions made. The speaker states that the results of the investigation were stated with precision and that there is no intention to summarize or describe the results in a different way during the testimony. Moreover, the speaker has previously stated that they will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of Congress. The speaker emphasizes a commitment to their role and to the standards of the department. They note that they were appointed as a prosecutor and intend to adhere to that role and to the department standards that govern. Finally, the speaker reflects on a history of challenges to democracy, highlighting that the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in U.S. elections are among the most serious.

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 speaker states that they have not interfered with the Hunter Biden investigation, and there has been no political interference. They cannot comment on whether Joe Biden is being investigated or if the Department of Justice (DOJ) said he is off-limits. The speaker refers to the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Weiss and mentions a long-standing policy. They emphasize the FBI's responsibility to remain non-partisan and deny opening an investigation into the attorney general. The speaker avoids discussing whether the FBI tipped off Hunter Biden's lawyer before executing a search warrant on a storage unit. They conclude by stating that the FBI is not accountable to Congress or the American people.

I refuse to answer questions regarding breaking laws, violating rights, or misusing funds during the Trump investigation and my time at the Manhattan DA's office, citing privilege against self-incrimination. The same response applies to inquiries about violating New York State Bar Rules and canons of legal ethics in both roles.

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.

"There's a concern that there were agents of the government or assets of the government present on January 5 and January 6, during the protests." "I'm need afraid I can't see that at all." "Alright. You have you have those images there, and they're captioned. They were from January 5 and January 6." "As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every but they need to go into the capital the next day, is then the next day directing people to the capital." "And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything." "One of the norms of the justice department is to not comment on impending investigations and particularly not to comment about, particular scenes or particular individuals." "So I'm not gonna violate this norm of, of of, the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing."

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.

I released a statement yesterday regarding the public hanging comment, and I stand by that statement. The statement is available for review. I'm not going to expand on why I said it, what I meant by it, or why people in the state should not see it as offensive. I will not be commenting on whether it evokes Mississippi's history of lynchings or whether it should be viewed with a negative connotation. That statement is all I am going to say about the issue, and I will not be answering any further questions.

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.

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.

The Justice Department is vital to democracy, ensuring investigations are fair and free from political influence. Protecting sensitive investigations is crucial. Despite attacks, we remain committed to following the law. The pace of justice system trials is out of our control. Thank you, everyone.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

The speaker emphasizes that the Department of Justice should not be politicized, echoing the president's previous statements. They are asked about convincing Americans to trust the department's independence and fairness, despite Donald Trump's repeated attacks. The speaker asserts that they have never influenced the department's decisions and expresses frustration with the situation. The transcript ends with a question about lying to the public and a strong reaction.

The White House refuses to comment on whether they would support the prosecution of the person responsible for bringing cocaine into the White House. They defer to the Secret Service, who are investigating the matter. The White House is confident that the Secret Service will uncover the truth. They decline to provide any further information at this time.

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.

No comments will be made on the specifics of the case or any concerns regarding the deal prosecutors arranged that ultimately fell apart.

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

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.

I will not comment on allegations regarding my family's business dealings. The claims are false. I did not interact with their business associates. There are many questions.

I disagree with the ruling that the justice department's process for picking special counsels is illegal. We believe it is constitutional and have appealed the decision. This process has been used for decades, including in previous administrations, and has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it, including the Supreme Court.