reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Juries often make mistakes in civil trials, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker struggles to separate their emotions from following the law impartially. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and being criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

I applied for a presidential pardon because I believe Joe Biden owes me the same consideration he gave his son. Solitary confinement, where I spent 51 days, was a terrible experience. I understand the administration won't grant pardons to those who don't want them, but I think people might change their minds when faced with the reality of their situation. While I see the comparison between myself and Hunter Biden, I recognize that he is the president's son, and I am not. However, I still believe my request for a pardon is valid.

The speaker expresses surprise and hopefulness that their appeal was granted by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. They believe they have a strong case and are soliciting help for their legal defense. The speaker's legal team is also hopeful and optimistic about the appeal. They discuss the issue of venue and how their case was prosecuted in a different district. They argue that the prosecution's argument for universal jurisdiction is unprecedented. The speaker mentions the importance of free speech online and how certain districts may not provide a fair shake. They highlight the chilling effect on free speech and the danger of prosecuting based on intent. The speaker's case is seen as significant and they encourage support at memedefensefund.com.

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.

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...

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker acknowledges the challenge of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and facing criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

I told them they wouldn't get a billion unless the prosecutor was fired. I was leaving in 6 hours. They fired the prosecutor, and I'm getting a new one.

General Michael Flynn, a highly respected former general and intelligence officer, recounts a lifelong connection to the ocean and service to the country, describing his career as a path that led him to become the deputy and later national security adviser to President Trump. He frames his experience as a stark contrast between his duty and a perceived betrayal by the U.S. government and its institutions. Key points and sequence of events: - Early career and worldview - Flynn describes growing up near the ocean, surfing, and a commitment to service. He says he loves the country and entered the service to defend it. - He recalls facing what he calls the “worst enemy” in America after returning from service and becoming a target of accusations of treason and being called a Russian spy. - War, policy, and intelligence critique - Flynn discusses the costs and consequences of war, praising sacrifice but arguing that war is a failure of policy, diplomacy, and leadership. - He portrays war as a constant state driven by money within the military-industrial complex and questions the necessity and management of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. - He recounts the moment of taking command of a battalion and witnessing a helicopter crash, describing the grim realities of war and the reaction of coalition forces. - Intelligence reform and career advancement - Flynn emphasizes reforms to intelligence in Afghanistan, referencing a 2010 report titled a blueprint for making intelligence relevant in Afghanistan, which he authored as a senior intel officer. - He explains his appointment to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Senate confirmation process, highlighting the opposition from the existing intelligence establishment (SES) and the resistance within Washington. - He notes how his leadership and intelligence work were both celebrated by some allies and targeted by others who wanted to push him out. - Personal and family impact - Flynn’s wife, Laurie, is described as a stabilizing force; the couple recounts decades of marriage, raising a family, and the toll of public life on their private lives. - He discusses the stress and trauma inflicted on his family during investigations, including the impact on his son and grandchildren, and describes the emotional and financial burdens of legal battles. - Transition to politics and Trump - Flynn relates how his experience and reputation led him to work with Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, where he became a trusted adviser and ally. - He recounts meeting with Trump in 2015, the several-month collaboration, and his view of Trump as someone who could fundamentally change U.S. policy away from endless wars. - He describes the 2016 presidential transition, his offer to be national security adviser, and the initial endorsement by Trump, followed by a White House shake-up. - National security adviser role and the Russia narrative - Flynn explains the circumstances around his appointment as national security adviser and the opposing views within the White House about Russia and sanctions. - He recounts briefing the president and key figures in foreign policy, and the subsequent disputes and accusations that led to his resignation beneath a cloud of controversy, including claims that he had lied about sanctions. - Investigations, FARA, and prosecutorial conduct - Flynn details the scrutiny around his contacts with Russian officials and later the Flynn Intel Group’s work in Turkey, explaining that he was accused of violating FARA for actions tied to a private businessman rather than government-directed activity. - He discusses the narrative of being accused of being a Russian or Turkish spy, the portrayal of his son as a target, and the role of Covington & Burling in his legal defense. - He charges that the government used off-the-books deals and pressured plea agreements to pressure him into pleading guilty, including allegations of a “deal” that would protect his son from prosecution. - The courtroom and legal process - Flynn describes the high-profile court hearings led by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who publicly accused him of treason, stirred dramatic tensions, and threatened prison time for lying to the FBI. - He recalls the shock of the judge’s behavior, the break in proceedings, and the eventual decision to delay sentencing as he faced immense legal and financial strain. - Sidney Powell, exculpatory evidence, and defense strategy - Flynn’s legal team changes: Covington & Burling is replaced by Sidney Powell, who uncovers conflicts of interest and unveils Brady material and exculpatory evidence that had not been disclosed. - Powell’s involvement is described as a turning point that allowed Flynn to challenge government misconduct and pursue the truth rather than simply accepting a guilty plea. - Public support, family resilience, and the pardon - Flynn and family describe a groundswell of support from ordinary Americans through letters, gifts, and fundraising, including a legal defense fund that helped sustain them through financial hardship. - They describe the eventual decision by President Trump to issue a pardon of innocence in November 2020 after the government moved to dismiss the case, noting that Flynn did not seek the pardon initially and that Sidney Powell advised against accepting a plea in order to secure full vindication. - Flynn reflects on how the pardon, while welcome, carried mixed feelings given the years of damage and public misunderstanding. - Reflections on power, governance, and the future - The narrative frames a broader critique of entrenched agencies, media influence, and political storytelling, alleging the intelligence and justice systems have been weaponized and corrupted by political agendas. - The speakers emphasize the importance of truth, resilience, faith in family, and public accountability, arguing that Flynn’s story should illuminate issues of governance, the integrity of institutions, and the need for reform to restore trust in the republic. - The closing messages stress ongoing commitment to fight for reconciliation and reform, with Flynn characterized as a persistent presence who, despite wounds, remains engaged in public life and the defense of the republic. Throughout, the speakers present Flynn as a figure who faced relentless pressure from political and bureaucratic forces, endured personal and family hardship, and ultimately sought redress and vindication through a combination of legal advocacy, public support, and a historic presidential pardon. The narrative centers on themes of duty, betrayal, reform, and perseverance in the face of systemic challenges.

The speaker states they were relaxed in court due to greater worries about the WHO and gene-transforming vaccinations, making their personal situation trivial. The case against them was based on three minutes taken out of a 90-minute period, which, when viewed in full, showed the charges were out of context. The speaker read a letter from Holocaust survivors comparing vaccinations to a second Holocaust, which was used against them, accusing them of trivializing the Holocaust. The judge acquitted them after a nine-hour meeting. The speaker felt gratitude towards the judge for upholding the honor of German jurisdiction by going against the mainstream. The speaker believes the acquittal was a good day for the world and hopes it sets an example.

I chose to go to trial instead of taking a plea deal, even though it would have been easier. The government offered me a lesser charge, but I saw it as a lie that would harm others. I refused to be a part of that deception.

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 DOJ tried to put me in for eight years. I was sentenced to almost three. But because I didn't take that plea and continue to press an appeal of all charges, I was vindicated by the Supreme Court decision in Fisher. And then I continued to press a full appeal until the DOJ vacated all five charges. So I've been completely exonerated within the legal system. The charges were rescinded as if they had never been brought because Wow. Of course, they were they were fraudulent from the beginning.

We've faced years of politically motivated attacks from the New York Attorney General, who campaigned on targeting me. Despite millions of pages of documents and extensive litigation, they lack evidence against us. The only witness they have is a convicted felon who has recanted his statements. We've already won in the Court of Appeals, but the judge has been slow to acknowledge that. This case is unprecedented, using a consumer fraud statute inappropriately, and feels like a witch hunt and election interference. Despite these challenges, our poll numbers are strong, and the American people understand the situation. Thank you for your support.

This week, the Trump fraud case went before the appellate court, where judges questioned the basis of the case. The judges repeatedly interrupted the Democrat lawyers, asking them to provide precedent for prosecuting someone who lied about property value when the loan was repaid with interest, or for a case with no public damage or malice. They also inquired about cases where the defrauded party claimed they were not defrauded. Unable to provide such examples, the lawyers' closing arguments focused on avoiding sanctions. One judge suggested the case was brought due to Trump's presidential run, potentially violating regulations and constituting electioneering interference. The speaker claims Trump will get his money back, as Deutsche Bank stated the loan was given regardless of property value, leading to the lawyers begging to avoid sanctions.

The judge's ruling against using executive privilege as a defense sealed our fate. We expected this outcome and will be appealing the decision. We have always known that this case would eventually reach the Supreme Court. I have been clear from the start that I am prepared to go to prison to resolve this matter.

My family's real estate company in New York faced unfair treatment in court. Despite our impeccable record, we were targeted politically. We have always paid our loans and taxes, even during COVID. The system is rigged against us. We will fight this injustice and win on appeal. My father is determined to prevail. The attacks on us are because he is a strong presidential candidate. The appellate court has already ruled in our favor on key issues. This unfair treatment must end for the good of our country.

I was offered a plea deal to admit guilt, which would have reduced my charges to a single misdemeanor, allowing me to avoid jail time. However, I refused because it required me to accept a false narrative that aimed to destroy not only me but also the integrity of our constitutional system. This decision was incredibly painful, yet it was clear to me that I had to choose right over wrong. I had to trust in God’s faithfulness and strength to bless my obedience, even when it was uncomfortable.

The speaker discusses the possibility of appealing a conviction and winning the appeal. They mention that the shaman received a 41-month sentence, while the speaker believes that their own sentence of 8 months was fair considering the shaman's actions. The speaker also mentions that some people are criticizing others for their opinions on the matter.

All things that are wrong are not illegal. And I'm not standing before you today telling you that what happened in that park was wrong. But I am standing before you today telling you that I trust the word of the attorney who was assigned to this case when he said, although those actions were wrong, he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were illegal.

My clients were initially charged with conspiracy to commit wounding, along with ten others. The prosecution dropped the conspiracy charge, and today they are pleading guilty to violent disorder. The judge at Birmingham Crown Court has granted them a suspended sentence, providing a second chance. We appreciate the judge's decision. It's important to remember that there is a defense for every offense.

In the United States, it's unusual that we don't have a jury, which I find unfair. However, I need to address a misconception in the press. We didn't have the option to choose a jury, contrary to what's being repeated. Personally, I believe juries often make mistakes, but I have a tool called "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" to handle those situations. I can declare that a reasonable jury would never have reached that conclusion.

I'm granting a full pardon to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I believe he was wrongly targeted and given an unfairly harsh eighteen-year sentence. He's a good person with a supportive wife who fought hard for him. This pardon allows him to live a normal life. While I considered him for an ambassadorship, that's not happening, though I believe he's as clean as anyone here. This was a terrible injustice, and it's my honor to correct it.

I can't explain because the judge is corrupt. His ruling is a disgrace. Everyone saw what happened. I'm innocent, but held by a corrupt judge who's conflicted. It's a disgrace to New York and the country. I need to get back to the campaign trail. Thank you.

We did not win yet, but we will when the case is reversed. Leticia had to delete all her tweets due to the court's decision. The appellate division upheld due process, allowing assets to be kept. The courtroom situation was a travesty, but the appellate division restored faith in the justice system. Tish James and Judge Yirguaran may not feel shame, lacking a moral compass. They may have overreached, but humility was served. More humility will come in the future.