Image 01 Image 03

Biden’s last-minute pardons “proved beyond any doubt that there really was a Biden crime family”

Biden’s last-minute pardons “proved beyond any doubt that there really was a Biden crime family”

My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer: “Just because Joe Biden pardoned the Biden crime family, I’m not sure we need to rush out and change the Constitution…. Joe Biden proved that he is the Joe Biden we warned everybody about.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N2IPa5Akv4

I appeared this morning on Chicago’s Morning Answer with Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson (no relation). This is one of my favorite shows on which to appear because they are very knowledgeable and prepared, and they give me plenty of time to talk.

We started by talking about Trump’s DEI Executive Orders, and then Joe Biden’s last minute pardon of his family (Hunter was previously pardoned), just 15 minutes before Trump was sworn into office.

My segment starts at 5:40:

Partial Transcript (auto-generated, may contain transcription errors, lightly edited for transcript clarity)

Dan Proft (05:40): DEI is out, MEI is in. For more on this, please be joined by William Jacobson, clinical professor of law and director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell, founder of legalinstruction.com, and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, as well as the Equal Protection Project. Professor Jacobson, thanks, thanks for joining us again. Appreciate it.

WAJ (05:59):

Thank you for having me back….

Proft (06:27):

Uh, what about the EO on DEI, you know, as so indicated in Trump’s remarks in his address?

WAJ (06:37):

Yeah. Well, two things happened after the inauguration, some point last night. One, he signed an order rescinding a whole bunch of Biden executive orders, and including those were two of them for what Biden called his racial equity agenda. So in 2021 and reiterated in 2023, Biden had forced the bureaucracy to implement, call it DEI, call it critical race theory, call it whatever you want, but racial preferences throughout the government. So those were rescinded. So that’s part number one of what he did.

Part number two, in a separate executive order, he ordered the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the federal government. A fairly specific listing, the sort of job titles that can’t exist anymore, prohibiting the use of race and color in hiring and things like that, which of course should have already been the law, except the Biden administration ignored it.

So yeah, it, this will have a significant impact on federal programs and federal hiring that elevated racial quotas essentially over merit-based hiring.

Proft (07:57):

And the legislation that was passed that will go to President Trump’s desk to essentially amend the amendment that the Biden administration made to Title IX to prohibit men from playing girls sports, in federally funded schools … the extent of that Title IX language change, what, what that means for K through 12, what that means for any entity that receives federal funding?

WAJ (08:31):

I think the important part of that is that it prohibits federal funding being used for any of those purposes. And in all of these things, people need to understand the money is what matters. Federal funding is the elephant in every room in education.

And if you prohibit the use of federal funds for those purposes, and you nonetheless do that, you could get $10 million, but if you allocate even $50,000 towards things that are prohibited, you’re putting everything at risk. So that’s an enormous hammer hanging over the heads of the DEI bureaucracy and the gender ideology bureaucracies, that you cannot use federal funds for these purposes.

I don’t think his DEI order really went far enough because it really only affected what the federal government does. But the other order, the order on, you know, gender and sexual identities, went even further and it prohibited the use of the funds.

So I think that this will have an enormous impact. What you see is you see particularly teachers unions completely disregarding the law using their local political power to push the ideology into the school, teaching things, whatever they want to teach, that now puts the entire district’s funding at risk. So I think this will have an important impact if the federal government and the Department of Justice and the Department of Education actually enforce these things.

Amy Jacobson (10:05):

So, Mr. Jacobson, let me ask you this, hypothetically, or not evenm this could be a true story. There’s somebody at a public school that’s a male who’s transitioning to be a female and is on the volleyball team, and they refuse to take that player off the team. What will happen to their federal funding?

WAJ (10:23):

Well, it’s not clear, but it potentially, if it’s their policy to allow that, that would violate this executive order and presumably the amended Title IX rules that would be promulgated, and it would put their funding at risk. Now that’s somewhat the case now, not for gender ideology, but for racial discrimination, which we cover a lot at the Equal Protection Project, where the schools are openly violating the rules. They’re openly violating federal policy. They’re openly violating the Civil Rights Act, and nothing ever happens to them. You know, we file a complaint with the Department of Education, and the school says, okay, we’ll stop doing this. But there’s never an enforcement mechanism vis-a-vis funding.

So these are all important things, but they have to be enforced. And that would go whether it’s racial discrimination, whether it’s DEI, whether it’s gender identity, ideology, if the government’s not actually going to pull the money, then the schools won’t change their behavior.

Proft (11:23):

Presidential pardon power in the wake of the preemptive pardons that Biden issued. Is that something that you would like to see the Supreme Court weigh in on, to provide any guidance as to whether or not there are any limitations, whether it’s the president pardoning himself, whether it’s the matter of these preemptive pardons? Richard Epstein we talked to last week, believes that a compelling argument could be made that preemptive pardons are not within the scope of POTUS pardon power. But of course, this is all a matter for academic discussion at this point.

WAJ (12:05):

Well, I think you’d have to have somebody who’s prosecuted, not withstanding the pardon, for a case with “standing” to get into the court system. I’m not sure the theoretical passing, you know, of pardons or the theoretical, the issuing of pardons is enough to get it into the courts. But that’s a technical issue.

I don’t know the history of the pardon power thoroughly enough to say whether looking back to how it was originally created, this would be outside of it. But my feeling is that you either amend the Constitution and you specify it, or you leave it alone. And I think my inclination is to leave it alone. That we have, whenever you have bad conduct, there may be an inclination to immediately change the Constitution. And,what Biden does is did is really bad conduct, he proved beyond any doubt that there really was a Biden crime family.

So we all used to say Biden crime family, almost half jokingly, but that’s what it was. We all know it now. We’ll never get the facts of it probably. Just because Joe Biden pardoned the Biden crime family, I’m not sure we need to rush out and change the Constitution. We can condemn it but he pushed everything to the limit, not just in terms of what he did, but the timing. I mean, has there ever been anything done by an outgoing president 15 minutes before the new president had sworn in?

Amy Jacobson (13:38):

Are you surprised he didn’t pardon himself?

WAJ (13:42):

Well, I think he knows, because the Justice Department has already basically said, or the special counsel has said, he’s not mentally competent to stand trial.

So no, I don’t think Joe Biden himself is worried about getting prosecuted. They literally would be putting an empty shell on the stand. So I don’t think he’s worried about himself. He’s obviously not worried about Jill, Dr. Jill, so-called Dr. Jill, she probably didn’t have involvement in those things, but his whole other family did. I mean, this is not something recent. For decades that family has been using his positions of power to enrich the family. I mean, everybody knows that, they know it now. And so, yeah,

But I’m not ready yet to rush out and change the Constitution just because Joe Biden proved that he is the Joe Biden we warned everybody about.

Proft (14:41):

Professor William Jacobson and clinical professor of law and director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell, founder of legalinsurrection.com, president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation and the Equal Protection Project. Professor Jacobson, thank you as always.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“I don’t think Joe Biden himself is worried about getting prosecuted. They literally would be putting an empty shell on the stand.”

Empty shell? Then who signed the pardons?”

“For decades that family has been using his positions of power to enrich the family.”

If a bank robber receives a pardon, does he get to keep the money he stole from the bank?

AI: No, if a bank robber receives a pardon, they generally do not get to keep the money they stole from the bank; a pardon typically only forgives the criminal conviction, not the financial obligations associated with the crime, meaning they would still be expected to return the stolen funds to the bank as part of restitution.

In any case, wouldn’t an investigation be needed to see how much taxes the Biden Crime family owes?

    jb4 in reply to Paula. | January 21, 2025 at 9:52 pm

    Two things. Biden can now go to his grave knowing he out did Al Capone, who was gotten for tax evasion. Also, people have said that these pardons mean that they would now have to testify. But wouldn’t potential state income tax liability be a sufficient reason for them to be able to take the Fifth successfully?

      4fun in reply to jb4. | January 21, 2025 at 10:27 pm

      How about a congressional inquiry on his IRS case as well as tax evasion charges? I’d love to see the pedophile and his worthless progeny have to lie to a congressional committee. Then get the kid put in prison for a decade or more.

      Paula in reply to jb4. | January 21, 2025 at 10:57 pm

      One more thing: Criminals often overlook at least one detail which eventually leads to their downfall. There’s a good possibility that sharp as a tack Biden overlooked some opening or vulnerability that could still put his family in jeopardy.

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to Paula. | January 21, 2025 at 11:06 pm

    Agreed. Let’s have an investigation so the American public can know the extent of the Brandon family corruption. Let it sink in as to the person the DemoncRats ran in 2020.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Paula. | January 21, 2025 at 11:14 pm

    Considering Biden’s family greed, the best thing which could be done to them is seizing all their ill gotten gains.

    ConradCA in reply to Paula. | January 22, 2025 at 11:47 am

    The fruits of their crimes should be confiscated.

They weren’t pardons; they were granting of immunity (which president doesn’t have authority). Should be challenged in court.

    puhiawa in reply to slagothar. | January 21, 2025 at 10:38 pm

    Actually the Ford-Nixon pardon does allow preemptive pardons, and I am surprised it has not been cited.
    I think a more precise issue is where does such a pardon begin and end.

      Dolce Far Niente in reply to puhiawa. | January 21, 2025 at 11:07 pm

      Actually, the pardon power has never been adjudicated or defined in any way.

      Was the Ford/Nixon pardon constitutional? Was the blanket pardoning of the draft dodgers constitutional?

      And the pardon vs immunity question is a legitimate one. I wonder if the Founders ever envisioned an actual criminal cabal running the executive; they should have. Heaven knows there were enough English kings who were even worse.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to puhiawa. | January 22, 2025 at 1:24 am

      Actually the Ford-Nixon pardon does allow preemptive pardons, and I am surprised it has not been cited.

      What Ford did was un-Constitutional and everyone knows it.

      OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to puhiawa. | January 22, 2025 at 4:50 am

      “… he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

      Let’s put it to the test for those that have not yet been indicated or prosecuted for the crimes for which they were pardoned. Make them ‘accept’ the pardon (United States v. Wilson [1833]) and see where this goes.

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to slagothar. | January 21, 2025 at 11:10 pm

    I think you commented on that in another column, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. The Constitution gives the President the right to pardon someone for a crime. It does not give the President the right to immunize someone for a crime that has not been prosecuted or brought to trial.

      My bet is that a majority of SCOTUS would say that prosecution, trial, conviction, sentencing are just process details, that have not yet “matured” for one reason or another – and might never if the person is found not guilty The core of a pardon is to protect the person from any consequences for their actions as defined by a time period or otherwise.

    Milhouse in reply to slagothar. | January 22, 2025 at 12:32 am

    They weren’t pardons; they were granting of immunity

    No, they were pardons. Which is absolutely in the president’s power, and has worked that way for many centuries.

    Actually, the pardon power has never been adjudicated or defined in any way.

    See Ex Parte Garland, which says explicitly that the power is unlimited, and can be used at any time after an offense was committed. The draft-dodger pardon was not at all new, it followed a long tradition of such blanket pardons, going back to Washington and earlier.

    And of course Trump just issued exactly such a pardon to anyone who was involved in the Jan-6-2021 protest, with a handful of named exceptions, for all offenses committed in connection with that event.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | January 22, 2025 at 1:35 am

      “They weren’t pardons; they were granting of immunity”

      No, they were pardons.

      No, they were not. The word “pardon” actually has a definition and it has limits. The pardon power of the Presidency is not a power to declare any individual untouchable by the legal system. That is not a “pardon”. That is, at best, a “meta-pardon”, which is not a pardon.

      Tell me, what is your actual definition of a “pardon”? Give me the exact legal definition that you are working with. And I would remind you that the Constitution says:

      “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States”

      This is pretty concrete. Name the Offence, grant the pardon. It dies not say that one can use the meta-statement of “any offenses he may have committed”. If I tell you that you can pick three things to take, you can make one of your things “all the things in the world”. You have to name three individual things. This is part of the understood nature of human communication that allows society to use it and advance.

      But … let’s hear your loony definition of a “pardon” …

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | January 22, 2025 at 2:24 am

      And of course Trump just issued exactly such a pardon to anyone who was involved in the Jan-6-2021 protest, with a handful of named exceptions, for all offenses committed in connection with that event.

      Luckily, the only important part of those pardons was for the crimes they were convicted of. As to those that were still in process, that would have been better just being dropped by the DOJ and issued statements that the prosecutions had been abuses of governmental power and not based in the law. And then, all those who perpetrated the crimes against the Jan 6 people to be pursued and tried.

      Trump could also have very easily just named the specific crimes/charges that were being being pardoned – since they were all listed, anyway.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 22, 2025 at 2:48 am

      “…the power is unlimited, and can be used at any time after an offense was committed.”

      This means that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, because they can only be issued “after an offense (has been) committed.” A pardon can only be attached to an offense, or set of offenses. Because the set of all federal offenses is a set of offenses (and a POTUS can issue a pardon for any set of federal crimes), I have to conclude the POTUS can issue a blanket pardon, but acceptance of any pardon is an admission that at least one federal crime was committed.

      Joe said it himself. When asked if he would pardon himself, he replied “What would I pardon myself for?…I didn’t do anything wrong.”

      The “offences” mentioned in the Constitution must be real and not merely imaginary. A pardon isn’t needed for imaginary offenses.

      So, what were the “pardons” for? They’re meant to allow their recipients to avoid trial for federal crimes, because no crimes are in evidence for which they could have been pardoned (none of those pardoned, save Hunter, have been found guilty of crimes and all or nearly all of the recipients have maintained they’re innocent of any crimes – none have admitted to committing federal crimes except for Hunter, and even he was given a blanket “pardon” rather than a pardon for particular crimes). They sure seem like grants of immunity from prosecution.

      Remember, Hunter’s sweetheart deal was shot down for being too broad, granting him immunity for unnamed crimes. This seems a lot like what Joe has done for many of those “pardoned” by him.

        diver64 in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 22, 2025 at 5:59 am

        I would point out one thing, here. The people do not have to accept a pardon. Once issued it is done no matter what the person or persons think, they can’t turn it down.

        THIS——->>>>“…the power is unlimited, and can be used at any time after an offense was committed.”

        This means that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt,

        YES- THEY ARE CRIMINALS. THEY ARE COWARDS. otherwise they should reject the pardon for having done nothing wrong.

        henrybowman in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 22, 2025 at 12:50 pm

        “Joe said it himself. When asked if he would pardon himself, he replied “What would I pardon myself for?…I didn’t do anything wrong.”

        Sharp as a tack, that guy. What a backhanded compliment to the stadium full of people that he DID pardon.

The concept of Presidential pardons couldn’t be foreseen of a President using pardoning powers to flaunt the law committed by a (Biden) crime family. What’s been committed is actual TREASON, which was never meant to be covered up or freely pardoned in this matter.

Couldn’t this matter (of treason) be handled in a military tribunal?

Or perhaps this is a matter for a civil suit. If some justice doesn’t come out of this double treason; 1. money illegally earned from an enemy of the U.S. AND 2. pardoning a crime from the highest office of the land.

The law of the land becomes a horrible joke of two tiered justice and sets a hideous precedent.

Biden wanted a legacy, and he got one.

He was a crook, and everyone knows it.

    mailman in reply to ChrisPeters. | January 22, 2025 at 4:24 am

    His legacy is Trumps second term!

    When Biden’s presidential library opens, as you enter there will be a huge rotunda and in the middle of the rotunda will be prominently displayed: the Hunter Biden pardon! It will be protected with heavy glass and humidity control that will make the Declaration of Independence look like a cracker jack prize.

    Millions of people from around the world will flock to see it every year.

“I don’t think his DEI order really went far enough because it really only affected what the federal government does.”

It will be up to Pam Bondi to sue other entities (including the States) to prevent them from instituting or maintaining DEI protocols.

    mailman in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 22, 2025 at 4:25 am

    I think it only went that far as the Feds can only control what the Feds do. As you say DaveG, its now up to Pammy to sort out everyone else!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 22, 2025 at 2:20 am

The lil’ old Constitution:

“shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States”

If you cannot name the Offence then you cannot grant the pardon.

English is not all that difficult.

    irishgladiator63 in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | January 22, 2025 at 11:44 am

    I disagree with this. Do you realize how many millions of pages of federal laws there are? If they can’t get you on something real, they’ll find some BS charge or torture a few of them to get you, just like they did with Trump. We’ve all seen the DOJ charge innocent people in the last four years and convict them of things that aren’t a crime.

    The fact is Biden gave pardons to thousands of actual criminals. That’s bad. That doesn’t mean we throw out pardons. They are absolutely needed to protect citizens. Trump is going to have to issue the same at the end of his presidency because who knows when some leftist nut gets in and goes after his family and staff. And even statutes of limitation don’t seem to matter, as we’ve seen them change them to get Trump.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 22, 2025 at 2:31 am

For the lawyers in the crowd, who have so many difficulties with the English language, the Constitution does not say that the President has the power to grant pardons for “allusions to offences” or for “possible offences” or for “categories of offences”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 22, 2025 at 4:48 am

So … people seem to think that the President has line item veto power over the entirety of Federal law. If the President doesn’t like some federal law, A, he can just “exercise his pardon power” and declare “no person shall be held liable for breaking law A”, thereby striking law A from the federal books for the duration of his term.

Does anyone actually think this is the sort of power the Constitution gives the President, to pick and choose laws that he likes on his whim? Or, even better, to pick certain laws and just declare that some set of people are now considered to be out of the reach of these laws., “I issue pardons for all of my buddies, John, Jack, Mohammed, Jugdish, and Larry, as pertains to laws A,B,C, and D for the entirety of my term. Because. Have at it, boys!”

LOL. To believe that such a thing is Constitutional is to be an insane retard. But so many people are actually arguing that this is the case. It’s crazy.

    That kind of power is only afforded to Democrat Presidents. For Republicans there is a separate standard, more limited and patrolled by the media to ensure adherence.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to mailman. | January 22, 2025 at 6:09 am

      Yep.

      And Barky did it, explicitly, but he laughably claimed that it was “prosecutorial discretion” and everyone went along with it, which was really, really disappointing and shameful. It was insane, as if that sort of discretion is license, carte blanche, to “rule at one’s whim”. But the GOP was scared sh*tless to even think about impeaching Barky – though he committed hundreds of impeachable acts of all sorts – and the propaganda media acted as if it was known that prosecutorial discretion had always meant that prosecutors/enforcers could just pick and choose any laws they liked to enforce or ignore. Pure retarded insanity.

MoeHowardwasright | January 22, 2025 at 7:03 am

The pardon does take away the right to claim the 5th for actions covered by the pardon. Senate and House convene a select committee to look into the Biden money laundering, tax evasion. Bring them via subpoena and force them to testify under oath where the money came from. What accounts received the wire transfers. What accounts did they shuffle the money to and from. What banks did they use offshore. What accounts of the family members received the wire transfers after laundering the money. Probe all of their overseas contacts. Probe into Burisma, Romania, China and Russian payments. All the testimony has already been archived. If they lie, charge them. If they refuse to testify, charge them and send them to jail. The American people need to see and hear the utter corruption of this family.

IMO the focus of Congress and the Trump Admin needs to be advancing the legislation to meet the broad agenda the voters sent them to do. Secure the border, deport illegal aliens, root out wokiesta DEI/Tranny nonsense, reform/downsize/eliminate Federal workforce, simplify regulations/tax.policy, provide incentives to bring manufacturing back to the US, redefine US economic success as what benefits the middle/working class not Financial markets, end unproductive alliances or the US bearing an outsize burden outside our own hemisphere, drive out the ‘deep state’.

Get those things done and then if time remains they can worry about pardons.

E Howard Hunt | January 22, 2025 at 7:12 am

It proved something far worse! The entire justice department, the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, congress and the media were directly involved in its coverup. We live in a societal matrix. Nothing is as it appears. All is sham controlled by the oligarchs who feed the masses fairy tales.

    E Howard Hunt in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 22, 2025 at 7:16 am

    And, by the way. The banking evidence already gathered directly proves the criminality far more than the indirect evidence of the pardons. In the absence of that, the argument about forestalling baseless, vengeful prosecutions might have held water.

      E Howard Hunt in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 22, 2025 at 8:20 am

      This headline clearly shows how the legacy media still drives the narrative. Pardons are big news so must be reported. The mountain of documentary evidence and eyewitness (Hunter biz partners) testimony can be downplayed or ignored altogether. Fox can’t afford to bore its audience with even a summary of financial forensics. The NYT still leads everyone around by the nose.

Burdick v US
“A pardon is the imputation of guilt and acceptance a confession of it”

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to MarkS. | January 22, 2025 at 7:59 am

    Yep.

    Presidential pardons are only for “Offences against the United States”. If there is no “Offence” or the President cannot identify the “Offense” then there can be no pardon.

    The Jan 6 cases, really, are meant to be handled in the courts – with the DOJ filing motions to claim that the original prosecutions were criminal on the parts of the prosecutors and their bosses and the criminal pursuit of those those people. The President can issue pardons for the convictions but then those pardons imply the “Offences”, which means “guilt”.

    But this idea that a President can say, “I have no idea what Offences may have been made … but if there are any that anyone finds then this person is absolved of all criminal liability, anyway. So, there!” is laughable. Clearly, that’s just not how it works.

    Pardons can only be issued for “Offences against the United States”. No “Offences”, no pardon. Cannot name the “Offence”, no pardon. It’s the clear language of the text.

      So, do I understand you correctly to be saying that had Hunter just turned up with a ton of money and fine houses and cars and Joe really had no idea where it came from – stock market trading, selling drugs, trafficking illegals across the border, whatever – that Joe could not pardon him, as a precaution?

        ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to jb4. | January 23, 2025 at 4:19 am

        Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution only gives the President the power to grant “pardons for an Offences against the United States”. The Constitution does not give the President the power to immunize a person from any legal inquiry or liability. It also does not give the President the power to pardon for any miscarriage of justice. Only for actual “Offences”.

I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a cretin such as Biden rising to the Presidency or they might have put some limits on the pardoning power.

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to FinbarOS. | January 22, 2025 at 9:08 am

    They did put limits on the power, in the clause. It’s only people who like to pretend they have no idea what words mean who have helped to stretch the pardon concept into an unrecognizable, monstrous form.

    The Founders certainly dealt with politicians just as bad as Traitor Joe. They had just fought for independence from King George III, who was insane and tyrannical. And they were well aware of what people could vote to do, if allowed without any serious guardrails.

    But they did count on there being enough men of courage in government to fight against these abuses. We have had a plethora of cowards in Washington – true cowards – for some time, which is really why things had broken down so badly.

    tjv1156 in reply to FinbarOS. | January 26, 2025 at 11:45 am

    wait. 3 frauds. Sexual assault. Libel. 34 felony convictions. 91 indictments. 2 impeachments.And Biden’s a cretin? huh ? wha? Talk about a cult. Sheeees.#DEPLORABLE

I doesn’t prove any such thing. It just shows how much Biden doesn’t trust this new MAGA on steroids administration full of MAGA flunkies .The new AG doesn’t even concede he lost the election in 2020. SMH. This new FBI creep is a throwback to the old Soviet ‘ go after your enemies’ style . SMH. ‘
It’s going to be a shit show led by a scumbag who couldn’t get hired at Walmart with his criminal resume. Cult: ‘ he never does anything wrong”

I’m pretty sure most people know that the Bidens are a crime family long before the pardons were written.

    tjv1156 in reply to George S. | January 26, 2025 at 11:49 am

    REALLLY?he’s been in public office for over 50 years and not a single indictment. Can you explain that? Trumps was in Office for just 4 and racked up 91 indictments.All backed by a mountain of credible evidence. Can you say #CULT?

Like a poor marksman they keep hitting the wrong target …
https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1881451842443616353

They told me that if America elected Donald Trump, the president would pardon fascists—and they were right.

Can stated make bribery of federal officials a state crime? States joined the union with the implicit assumption that the federal government would obey it. When they violate the constitution the states could make that a state crime.