Are Biden Pardons Legit? | Judicial Watch

SPREAD THE WORD

5G

🗞🗞️ Stay Informed! Subscribe to MPN Newsletter: MyPatriotsNetwork.com/Newsletter

📢 JOIN OUR PATRIOT MOVEMENTS! 🌟
🤝 Connect with fellow Patriots! Join FREE Today at PatriotsClub.com/MPN 🌍
🚔 Join the CSPOA Posse! Stand for Freedom with Constitutional Sheriffs! 👉 Sign up now at CSPOA.org/Join

❤️ SUPPORT US BY SUPPORTING OUR PARTNERS
🚀 Ready to Feel Younger? Get Your Health Back Today! Learn More at iWantMyHealthBack.com/MPN
🛡️ Protect Yourself and Your Family Against 5G and EMF Radiation. Learn How at BodyAlign.com/MPN
🔒 Secure Your Assets with precious metals. Get Your Free Wealth Kit Today at BestSilverGold.com/MPN
💡 Boost Your Business by Driving More Traffic, Leads and Sales. Start Today at MastermindWebinars.com/MPN

🔔 FOLLOW MY PATRIOTS NETWORK
🎙️ Sovereign Radio: SovereignRadio.com/MPN
🎥 Rumble: Rumble.com/c/MyPatriotsNetwork
▶️ YouTube: Youtube.com/@MyPatriotsNetwork
📘 Facebook: Facebook.com/MyPatriotsNetwork/
📸 Instagram: Instagram.com/My.Patriots.Network/
✖️ X (formerly Twitter): X.com/mypatriots1776
✉️ Telegram: T.me/MyPatriotsNetwork

 

 

Summary

➡ Judicial Watch with Tom Fitton, a long-time advocate for the People’s Justice Department, argues that recent pardons are invalid due to their lack of specificity and delivery. He suggests that President Trump should halt work on these pardons, particularly those related to the January 6th committee, as they lack clear details. Fenton also raises questions about the legality of blanket pardons and suggests that they can be revoked. He proposes testing this theory through a court-martial of General Milley, who could use the pardon as part of his defense.
➡ The discussion revolves around a controversial issue involving Biden and his family, with some suggesting they should be pardoned for unspecified crimes since 2014. However, the speaker argues that this is unenforceable and doesn’t halt criminal investigations. They also discuss the challenges they face in sharing their views on social media platforms due to perceived bias against conservatives. The speaker praises Tom Fitton for his work and dedication in pursuing these issues.

 

Transcript

Tom, the great Tom Fitton. So Tom Fitton, I tell people I always defer to your judgment on topics like this because you have been the People’s Justice Department, I don’t know, for 10 or 12 years. You put up something last night and you got to walk me through this because it’s very important for our audience. You said, hey, these pardons are irrelevant, illegal, they can’t go and we got to go and press forward on the J6 Committee. What did you mean, sir? Well, you know, to the degree the pardons are not specific, to the degree they frankly haven’t been delivered, and to the degree they require President Trump to affect them, they should be considered nullity.

Nullity is under the Constitution. And, you know, I was trying to think through how the challenge could proceed. And the challenge would be the Justice Department or other law enforcement agencies, such as the Defense Department in the case of Nillie, just proceed. And Nillie can highlight the pardon as a defense. Others can, Fauci, can highlight the pardon as a defense. But the idea that there are blanket pardons is constitutionally unprecedented, to be fair, other than Nixon. But Nixon’s was never challenged in that regard. And so all these Twitter reply guys, as I’m calling him and legal Twitter, you know, we’ve been around the block on this issue many times.

We look into this issue when you may recall when Clinton on his way out the door issued all sorts of pardons. We tried to convince the Biden, the Bush administration, you can shut it down by not delivering them. You know, you can’t be hijacked by Bill Clinton with last minute pardons to figure out who and what your people are being pardoned over. Similarly, look at those January. Tom, hang on slow down. Explain to our people what that process is. If they had issued a pardon a year ago, or for J6, six months ago, their Justice Department under Merrick Garland would have done all the paperwork and would have done the process.

Your point is when they wait till the last second and try to be cute about things, the next administration, and you were on the top of this about the pardons early on, that for Clinton, the Clinton pardons that you wanted Bush and those guys to take them, they wouldn’t take up. So walk me through, when you say just not deliver on or do it, what are you saying for President Trump? His Justice Department or the new Justice Department has to actually execute on these things and deliver them, correct, sir? Yes, and they’re going to, so the argument’s going to be whether they’ve been fully executed and acted upon.

And you know, I understand it’s going to be two sides of the argument, you know, but the left wants us to believe there’s never any argument here, right? And I’m saying there is. So President Trump can direct his pardon attorney, stop any work on these pardons. Now, specifically on the January 6th committee pardons, there’s a list of names that aren’t present, you know, or there’s a group of names that aren’t delineated in terms of specificity. How is that pardon going to be implemented or delivered? Who’s on the list? And so President Trump should decline to affect that pardon because he’s being asked to affect the pardon effectively by being given, oh, you need to pardon, you know, we’re going to pardon everyone who talked to the January 6th committee, all the cops.

Well, what does that mean? Who’s the staff? How do we figure out what staff is versus, you know, people who weren’t staff? All sorts of legal questions. So my point is that pardons can be revoked. And the way in this case to revoke them is to question their level of specificity. Blanket pardons are really outside the legal norm, our constitutional norms and the common law of England in which the pardon power arises from. So there’s all sorts of reasons. And what is the way to test it? General Milley, court-martial. So I just want to be, hang on, hang on, hang on.

You’re, you’re, you’re recommending because you’re saying Fauci, J6 and Milley, but you want to start by having what the program was to recall General Milley to active duty, I think first, first step one, and then court-martial him in front of a UCMJ tribunal or court-martial panel and do that immediately. And he can bring up the fact that Biden, the commander in chief, although we think he’s illegitimate, the commander in chief at the time, although I would love to litigate that with you, issued him a part and that can be part of his defense, correct? Yeah, you know, and even as you talk, it occurs to me, Steve, is, is, is a, is a court-martial covered by this pardon? I don’t know.

I don’t even know. I don’t know if you can, I don’t know if you can pardon, unless you’re specific. I don’t know if you can pardon for, for, you know, under UCMJ. I’m, I’m not sure. Yeah, that raises another. Here’s where I admire. But, but Fenton, you’re, the guy, it’s the people’s justice department, right? What Tom Fitton has done over the last 10, 12, 14 years has been nothing short of, I mean, for the years in the wilderness during Obama, you were the only thing we had, judicial watch. My dad used to, you know, my dad in his 90s would tell me that Tom Fenton, Steve, is the best guy you ever met.

My dad would hit Tom with 50 bucks every, every year and say, he’d get his newsletter, read his newsletter. He read the ink off that because he was a guy that was a no BS guy and he knew you had him on all these other EOs were already in federal, they’re already hitting us in a firestorm of lawsuits everywhere. What other ones do you think are the most controversial? Well, a birthright citizenship is a brilliant, to me, is a brilliant EO. It addresses the issue quite directly. It recognizes that there’s this issue about what a natural born citizen is.

And the president has a right to interpret the law as he sees fit under the constitution. The congressional, as the EO points out, the congressional, the legislative language echoes the constitution. And that doesn’t resolve the issue as to whether someone who’s here temporarily or illegally, their children automatically become citizens. I don’t think that was what was intended under the 14th amendment. I don’t even think it was contemplated that this category of a person would be even considered possibly to be a citizen. So that’s, to me, brilliant. You know, I was thinking, I’m interested in your put on this to see these EOs.

It, you know, to me, the pardons were worth the price of admission for the Trump second Trump term. But you were there at the beginning of the last administration. What a marked difference. And it’s all due respect to everyone who was coming in into that situation. It’s just so show such great staffing. It’s fantastic. You’ve been at the forefront of this, this Michael Byrd, the murder of Ashley Babbitt. Where do we stand on this? And how did what happened yesterday play into this? Well, to me, this is part of the justice issue. We have this lawsuit against the federal government for thirty million dollars for Aaron Ashley’s and Ashley’s estate.

Aaron is her is her where were. And so we have a hearing, for instance, like scheduled the end of the month. I mean, if I were President Trump, respectfully, I’d shut this case down on terms favorable to her family. But are they going to defend the shooting death of Ashley Babbitt in court? I can’t imagine they would. And so I would I would elevate this to a high priority. This woman was needlessly shot and killed by Byrd. And the last thing I can imagine Trump wants to do is defend that in court and and or force us to have to fight them in court over this even for one minute.

Tom, I need to talk to you after the show and then I want to have you back on. But people, I want to tell you, Tom Fitton is one of the greatest warriors in our movement, and he’s a self-effacing guy. You never see the judicial watch team. His team is magnificent. They’re never promoting. They’re the least self-promotional people I’ve ever met. Just the people’s Justice Department. And now we got a real Justice Department in a different Justice Department. And the work you guys have dovetailed because I want to have you back on to go over all these.

But I want to talk to you first after the show and and we can coordinate, but it’s just magnificent what you’ve done. And your thing yesterday is the type of thinking that changes the way people approach things. It’s kind of very Trumpian in that regard. It’s not just outside the box. It’s changing the entire game. You are supported. This Fauci, what Tom Fenton is saying is that, hey, look, just because he tried to be cute and gave Fauci and the J6 and Milly these pardons on the way out, there’s so many questions and Trump’s Justice Department has to execute on them.

If he had done it a year ago, then it’d been his Garland, Merrick Garland, but he didn’t do that. So we have an opportunity. But Fijtton saying is that they don’t matter. Press on and let them use it in the defense in court. Is that basically the theory of the case for you, Tom? Yeah. Yeah. And you know, some of it may be valid. I’m not, you know, the point is this is the sort of thing you just can’t presume, oh, the Biden part in his entire family for crimes unknown since 2014.

And that settles the issue. That’s really unprecedented in scope. And the unspecified is on makes it unenforceable. They can’t implement it even if they wanted to. You can’t ask a court to say, oh, well, we, you know, what crimes are at issue here? What are we going to be litigating over? Let’s focus on what they did. Well, in the least, and it doesn’t stop criminal investigations. In the least, it doesn’t stop criminal investigations. And they’ve admitted now they got a problem. That’s saying they put, they came in. It was a great unmasking. And Nixon’s totally different.

That is a completely different thing about a sitting president, Tom, social media. And where do people first, where do people go to get these great little videos you put up and your social media? And then where do they go to learn more about judicial watch overall? We’re on rumble. Of course, you’re, you’re, you’re banned from YouTube still. Uh, but we’re on Twitter and Facebook and well, it’s a pain in the neck because we want to post this stuff. Well, I’m on with you on, on, uh, YouTube, right? I, I agree.

They take it down. Yeah. No, it’s because you’re still, you’re still banned on war room. You know, maybe, maybe they wouldn’t be Google would it? Yeah, it’s, it is Google. No, no, no. They may show up at the inauguration, but they’re still abusing conservatives. Okay. So we’re all over Facebook, Twitter, judicial watch.org directly. Uh, and, uh, we got to keep on, we got to keep on winning every day. Every day is a battle every day. And the left is an opposite, you know, they’re always be in opposition to the truth. So the battles never stop.

Listen to Tom Fenton. That’s a warrior’s warrior right there. And president Trump respects his judgment above all others in these areas. And that’s why this is what Tom Fitton said last night. When I saw it, I said, bang, that’s what I’ve been looking for. Fittons at the tip of the spear in this thing. And we’re going to roll. Remember where you heard it first, folks, where Tom Fenton put it up on the 20th in the evening and the 21st in the morning. This is going to happen. We’re not backing off any of this Fauci, J6, Milly, all of it.

Tom Fenton, honored to have you on here, sir. Talk to you after the show. Thank you for the good work. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.

Author

5G

Sign Up Below To Get Daily Patriot Updates & Connect With Patriots From Around The Globe

Let Us Unite As A  Patriots Network!

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you agree to receive emails from My Patriots Network about our updates, community, and sponsors. You can unsubscribe anytime. Read our Privacy Policy.


SPREAD THE WORD

1 thoughts on “Are Biden Pardons Legit? | Judicial Watch

  1. Ivan Talbot says:

    I made the following comment to some friends yesterday. Your interview backs
    up what I stated, even using the same word “nullity” to describe these Pardons.

    “Yes, Biden inadvertently proved the people he pardoned were actually guilty
    of a crime otherwise why did they need a pardon?

    Pardoning someone before they are convicted means they were guilty of something, and
    the pardoner, in this case Biden, also committed a crime by perverting the course of
    Justice. These people (if you could call them that) are so evil they pervert the Law openly,
    but will they get away with it? The Court of Public Opinion must see that they do not. Biden’s
    pardons are a nullity!!! All beneficiaries of Biden’s pardons, including Biden, must be brought
    before a Nuremberg Trial No.2 to answer for their crimes against Humanity.

    What think ye of that?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

How To Turn Your Savings Into Gold!

* Clicking the button will open a new tab

FREE Guide Reveals

Get Our

Patriot Updates

Delivered To Your

Inbox Daily

  • Real Patriot News 
  • Getting Off The Grid
  • Natural Remedies & More!

Enter your email below:

By clicking "Subscribe Free Now," you agree to receive emails from My Patriots Network about our updates, community, and sponsors. You can unsubscribe anytime. Read our Privacy Policy.

15585

Want To Get The NEWEST Updates First?

Subscribe now to receive updates and exclusive content—enter your email below... it's free!

By clicking "Subscribe Free Now," you agree to receive emails from My Patriots Network about our updates, community, and sponsors. You can unsubscribe anytime. Read our Privacy Policy.