In a recent Fox News interview, Donald Trump falsely claimed that President Biden preemptively pardoned members of the January 6th House select committee, preventing him from retaliating. He also lauded his own pardons of Capitol rioters, despite their unpopularity, and made unsubstantiated claims about the committee destroying evidence and the identity of the “pipe bomber.” Trump further alleged that the committee was composed of “sick people” and that Biden’s actions were “egregious,” requiring criminal sanctions. Finally, he reiterated his desire to release the full Jeffrey Epstein files.
Read More
President Trump declared former President Biden’s pardons void due to their alleged signing via autopen, a claim unsupported by evidence. This prompted widespread online commentary questioning the validity of numerous contracts signed using digital tools like DocuSign. Many social media users jokingly suggested this logic invalidated their own loan agreements and other signed documents. The legal implications of challenging autopen and digital signatures are far-reaching, potentially affecting millions of daily transactions. Despite Trump’s claims, the Department of Justice previously affirmed the legality of presidential autopen use.
Read More
Following a report questioning the validity of President Biden’s pardons, issued before leaving office, Donald Trump declared them “VOID,” prompting former Rep. Adam Kinzinger to challenge Trump to file criminal charges. Kinzinger, a frequent Trump critic and recipient of one of the pardons, argues that Trump’s actions are a distraction and that the use of an autopen for presidential signatures is not prohibited and has historical precedent. Legal experts have confirmed that a president’s handwritten signature is not required for a pardon to be valid. Kinzinger confidently asserts that any legal challenge would be easily defeated in court.
Read More
Former President Trump declared President Biden’s pardons of January 6th Committee members invalid, citing the use of an autopen for signing the documents. This claim is baseless, as the use of an autopen for signing official documents is legally binding, per Department of Justice guidance. Trump’s assertion ignores the president’s sole authority to issue pardons, and the Constitution provides no mechanism for their reversal. Committee members have publicly dismissed Trump’s pronouncements.
Read More
This latest development signifies a further consolidation of influence by Trump within the Kennedy Center. The move is expected to significantly impact the Center’s programming and artistic direction. Details surrounding the exact nature of this “new move” remain scarce, fueling speculation and concern among critics. However, observers anticipate a shift towards policies aligned with Trump’s priorities. The implications of this action for the future of the Kennedy Center remain to be seen.
Read More
The upcoming four years represent a pivotal moment for America, demanding unwavering commitment to unbiased news coverage. HuffPost, facing this critical juncture, is launching an ad-free experience for contributing supporters. This initiative aims to sustain its mission of providing free, fair journalism. Continued support is crucial to ensuring HuffPost can fulfill its vital role in informing the public.
Read More
Jan. 6 rioters are arguing that presidential pardons extend to charges far beyond their involvement in the Capitol riot, even encompassing serious crimes like plotting murder and possessing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). This claim is raising significant outrage and questions about the scope of presidential pardons and the potential implications for public safety.
The core of the argument hinges on the wording of the pardons themselves. While the pardons explicitly mention actions related to the January 6th events, the rioters contend that the broad language used implies a blanket pardon for all federal crimes, regardless of their connection to the riot.… Continue reading
President Trump’s blanket pardons for January 6th rioters encompassed individuals with extensive prior criminal histories, including convictions for violent crimes such as rape, sexual assault of a minor, domestic violence, and manslaughter. These pardons did not erase pre-existing charges or convictions, leaving some defendants still facing prosecution for unrelated offenses. Several cases highlighted the significant criminal records of pardoned individuals, demonstrating that consideration of individual circumstances was absent from the decision-making process. This oversight is further emphasized by ongoing cases against pardoned individuals for crimes ranging from child pornography production to illegal firearm possession.
Read More
Governor JB Pritzker issued a directive prohibiting state employment for individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol attack, directly contradicting President Trump’s recent pardons and commutations. This action, deemed necessary to uphold Illinois’ values and ensure the integrity of its workforce, declares participation in the attack as “infamous and disgraceful conduct.” The directive anticipates potential legal challenges but aims to utilize existing personnel code for strong legal standing. Pritzker’s decision represents a significant rebuke of Trump’s actions and continues his long-standing opposition to the former president’s policies.
Read More
Andrew Taake, a January 6th Capitol attacker pardoned by Donald Trump, faces an outstanding charge of soliciting a minor. Trump’s blanket pardon for those involved in the Capitol riot freed Taake from a federal prison sentence for assaulting police. However, a pre-existing state-level charge of soliciting a minor remains unresolved, making Taake a fugitive from Houston authorities. This situation highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding Trump’s pardons and their impact on justice for victims and law enforcement.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood