OUTRAGE: Biden Protected while Trump Prosecuted! | Judicial Watch

➡ Judicial Watch, a legal group, has sued for access to interview transcripts of President Joe Biden with a special counsel. They believe the Justice Department is hiding these records, which could reveal whether Biden’s memory is good or bad, impacting his fitness for presidency. The transcripts were released after the lawsuit, but Judicial Watch still wants any existing videos or audio. The group also claims that Biden has lied about not sharing classified information and that he’s being protected by the Justice Department, while former President Trump was treated differently.

Protect your friends and punish your enemies. That’s how this Justice Department is run. And her’s testimony confirms it. Compare and contrast the treatment of Trump on presidential records with the treatment of Biden on presidential records. And to that end, you know, the her and investigation came under scrutiny this week in Congress. Republicans had one approach. Democrats, as you might imagine, had another approach. Of course, just before the hearing came out, they’re going to have the special counsel who gave Biden a pass because he was mentally unfit.

And there’s a big debate about what was in the transcript. So we sued. And as I described here, this is the reason for the suit. Hey, everyone, Judicial watch President Tom Fitton here. We got a big new lawsuit. We just sued in federal court for the interview transcripts of Joe Biden’s interviews with the special counsel. The Garland Justice Department is hiding the records from us. Whether they be the written transcripts, audio or video, I’m not sure.

But either way, we want access to the records because we have a right to under FOIA law. Now, I know there’s a big controversy about what went on in those interviews, and that’s why her is testifying to Congress this week and that’s why we sued under FoIA just a few minutes ago. We have a right to know whether Joe Biden’s memory is good or bad because it bears on his fitness for the presidency.

So the fact Garland’s hiding them, I think speaks volumes about what the transcripts might show. But in the end, we have to get them. The Congress wants them. The american people have a right to them and certainly we have a right to them under the law. Well, we got them. They came out the day after we sued. They were leaked initially to friendly media and then released to Congress.

Now the question is, are the transcripts all that exist of the meetings that her had with Biden? I think there were two interviews. Were there videos? Where’s the video of the interviews? Was there audio of the interviews? I believe there are. And I want them, judicial Watch wants them. So this ain’t over because the transcripts themselves show that Biden was, maybe his memory was know. He expressed outrage that the special counsel supposedly brought up his son’s death, Bo’s death.

In fact, the transcript shows he brought it up and the leftist tried to pretend that her had no good faith basis to suggest, see, his memory was failing. The transcript shows that Biden’s memory was a mess and her fairly concluded that his memory was awful. Now, I think the decision not to prosecute him based on his appearance of a failing memory because the jury wouldn’t buy it. I don’t really buy that.

I think it was just more, I’m not going to prosecute the president, and I have to have a good reason for doing it. However devastating politically it turned out for Biden. And, of course, we can get further confirmation one way or another by looking at the videotape. Right. Let’s go to the videotape. My team and I conducted a thorough, independent investigation. We identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials after the end of his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.

This evidence included an audio recorded conversation during which Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter that he had, quote, just found all the classified stuff downstairs, end quote. When Mr. Biden said this, he was a private citizen speaking to his ghostwriter in his private rental home in Virginia. Why wasn’t he prosecuted? I mean, the new rules are you can prosecute presidents no matter when they’re saying you can’t prosecute a president when he’s in office.

Well, I don’t know if I buy that, since if you can prosecute a president for official acts after he’s in office, why can’t you prosecute a president when he’s in office? Especially for, it looks like in this case, a crime that took place when he wasn’t in office at all. I’m not persuaded by her, given the gravity of what her describes. I mean, look at this other comment by her.

My task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information willfully. That means knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids. I could not make that determination without assessing the president’s state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the president’s memory and overall mental state and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial.

These are the types of issues that prosecutors analyze every day. And because these issues were important to my ultimate decision, I had to include a discussion of them in my report to the attorney general. The evidence, and the president himself, put his memory squarely at issue. We interviewed the president and asked him about his recorded statement, quote, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs, end quote. He told us that he didn’t remember saying that to his ghostwriter.

He also said he didn’t remember finding any classified material in his home after his vice presidency, and he didn’t remember anything about how classified documents about Afghanistan made their way into his garage. My assessment in the report about the relevance of the president’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair. Most importantly, what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe.

I did not sanitize my explanation, nor did I disparage the president. Unfair. Well, you can see I’ve been playing around with the new Instagram function of just watching stuff that gets me upset. In that case, I was making a cup of coffee. But how ridiculous an argument is, you know, I guess maybe it’s not ridiculous from his perspective, to be fair, but how can Garland accept that analysis? Because he’s accepted the report.

And if he thinks President Biden is sufficiently with it to be prosecuted and that he’s wrong, that his memory is failing and there’s evidence of it that will come across to a jury, then Garland should overrule her’s recommendation and prosecute Biden, because as the previous clips show, her concluded, there were violations of law, strong evidence of violations of law warranting prosecution and lies. Let’s go to Matt Gates’s questioning.

February eigth, the White House question. Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter, the president. I did not share classified information. I did not share it. I guarantee I did not. That’s not true, is it? Mr. Her that is inconsistent with the findings based on the evidence in my report, yes. It’s a lie is just what regular people would say, right? Yeah. All right, so the next one, and all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked.

That wasn’t true either, was it? That was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation. Another lie, people might say, right? Because what you put in your report was among the places Mr. Biden’s lawyers found classified documents. In the garage was a damaged open box. So Biden lies and Trump is the one who gets mean. That’s what the special counsel said. Because what Trump did, it was worse. Trump has been held to a different standard.

Well, maybe it’s the same standard. I often say, you know, everyone complains about the double standards, right, and that the left has, there’s one standard for Democrats, one standard for Republicans, one standard for friends of the deep state, one standard for its enemies. And I would say it’s probably just one standard. And it’s the Obama standard. Protect your friends and punish your enemies. So that’s the standard. It’s a single standard.

Protect your friends and punish your enemies. That’s how this Justice Department is run. And hers testimony confirms it. So we’ve got a lawsuit about her hur the transcripts and such and you can bet more is coming. Recall we sued in Delaware for access to Biden Senate records. We sued and were up and down. I think we went to the Supreme Court of Delaware twice and the University of Delaware successfully stonewalled the release of this information because there were Senate records that could reflect on not only his presidency and the public had an interest in getting but as we now know he committed crimes.

There’s evidence of crimes in those records with the Senate, the classified information from his Senate records and it was judicial watch that was alone in fighting for that. So we just sued. We had asked for the records back in February of the transcripts so I don’t know if there are any videos. I think there are but the bijustice department needs to follow the law and get us the records asap.

I’m sure you agree. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .

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