Biden’s Cancer Diagnosis Raises Serious Questions About Who Made These 5 Decisions

Here are five of the most consequential decisions of the Biden presidency that have many Americans asking whether Biden was truly the one behind them.

Justice is coming for Biden's 'autopen' pardons — and Trump's DOJ just put everyone on notice



Ed Martin, the incoming Department of Justice pardon attorney and director of the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group, announced Tuesday that he will review the rash of questionable "autopen" pardons issued in the final days of the Biden White House, noting that they "need some scrutiny."

"They need scrutiny because we want pardons to matter, and to be accepted, and to be something that's used correctly. So I do think we're going to take a hard look at how they went and what they did," Martin told reporters.

The Justice Department's probe could spell trouble for controversial Biden pardonees such as Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members of the Biden clan, and former members of the House Jan. 6 select committee — including Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), whom President Donald Trump and other Republicans have faulted for various alleged crimes and improprieties.

For instance, Trump has suggested that Milley may have committed "treason." While previously serving as Trump's most senior uniformed adviser, Milley called his communist Chinese counterpart, communist Gen. Li Zuocheng, on two occasions — four days before the 2020 election and on Jan. 8, 2021 — to reassure Zuocheng that he would provide him with actionable warnings should Trump decide to attack. Milley received a pardon just hours before former President Joe Biden left office.

Fauci, the fifth director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, received a "full and unconditional" pass for possible federal crimes going back to Jan. 1, 2014 — around the time the Obama administration supposedly halted funding for dangerous gain-of-function research.

In February, over 16 state attorneys general launched an investigation into Fauci's role in the COVID-19 pandemic response, "demanding accountability for alleged mismanagement, misleading statements, and suppression of scientific debate." Without his autopen pardon, Fauci would be legally exposed at both the state and federal levels.

"The American people were promised accountability, and I think Ed Martin is our best shot at it," Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News. "These pardons are fake and invalid, and the president has already said that is his view."

'There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people.'

"When these people, like the January 6 Committee and particularly Adam Schiff, are charged and try defending their bogus pardon, then we will start to learn who was really running the White House," continued Howell. "We need to answer the question everyone is asking: Who was running the government the last four years?"

Blaze News reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not immediately receive a response. Schiff also did not respond to a question about whether he would mind losing his pardon, given that he indicated in December he didn't want it in the first place.

RELATED: Trump declares Biden's 'autopen' pardons for J6 committee, Fauci, others are 'VOID'

 Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

In early March, the Oversight Project revealed that Biden's signature on numerous pardons, executive orders, and other documents of national consequence was likely machine-generated.

The watchdog group later confirmed "the same exact Biden autopen signature" was used on the pardons for Fauci, Milley, and members of the Jan. 6 committee, as well as on the pardons for several members of Biden's family who were apparently involved in dodgy foreign deals with the former president and his felonious son Hunter Biden.

— (@)  
 

Biden's cognitive decline was already enough for Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) and others to question the legal legitimacy of pardons bearing his machine-printed signature; however, suspicions about the validity of the documents was compounded by reports of staffers and family members making decisions on Biden's behalf; evidence that his signature appeared on documents while he was on vacation; Biden's alleged admission to having no recollection of a consequential January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas; and a former Biden aide's claim to the New York Post that a key staffer, who was not named, was suspected of unilaterally making decisions to sign documents as the former president's mental faculties declined.

"The prolific use of autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government," Howell told Blaze News at the time.

RELATED: The Great Biden Book War has finally begun

 Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

President Donald Trump soon weighed in on the autopen controversy, declaring in a March 17 post on Truth Social that the "'Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!"

"The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden," continue Trump. "He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime. Therefore, those on the Unselect Committee, who destroyed and deleted ALL evidence obtained during their two year Witch Hunt of me, and many other innocent people, should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level."

Martin suggested Tuesday that while the mere use of autopen is itself not necessarily an issue, "No one, I think, with the standard of ... reasonableness thinks that what Joe Biden did at the end of his term was particularly reasonable."

"There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people," continued Martin. "And if they can be charged, we'll charge them. But if they can't be charged, we will name them. ... And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed. And that's a fact. That's the way things work, and so that's how I believe the job operates."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Did Jan. 6 threaten ‘our democracy’? Or prove the republic still works?



Like Dec. 7, 1941, Jan. 6, 2021, has taken on a mythic stature that surpasses the actual events of that day. Trump’s opponents view it as an “insurrection” — a deliberate attack on the Constitution, carried out by his supporters at his command to illegally overturn the 2020 election by threatening members of Congress. Many of his supporters, though, see it as a protest that spiraled into chaos, ensnaring citizens who never intended harm but wanted to express their belief that the election had been unfairly conducted.

I do not consider the events of that day an insurrection, nor do I believe that all those arrested received fair treatment. Still, Jan. 6 was a dark day for the republic — an act of lawlessness that stains Donald Trump’s legacy.

As Lincoln stated, no matter how desirable our goals may be, 'there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …'

I do not believe he intended to overthrow the constitutional order. Instead, the events reflected the folly of taking politics to the streets, a tactic once favored by the left. More than anything, Jan. 6 exposed the dangers of unrestrained democracy — a threat America’s founders understood all too well.

The Great Seal of the United States proclaims that the American founding represents a novus ordo seclorum — a new order of the ages. The Constitution of 1787 was a remarkable achievement, establishing a commonwealth designed to protect the natural rights of all citizens. At the same time, understanding the founding requires looking to the past, particularly to the taxonomy of regime types identified by Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the founders of political science.

What the Greeks knew

Greek political science differs from modern political science by focusing on fundamental questions. What is the best form of government? What system best ensures citizens’ excellence (areté) and happiness (eudaimonia)? What causes political communities to decline?

In contrast, today’s political science fixates on minutiae. Modern scholars, adopting a value-free perspective, struggle to explain why one form of government is superior to another beyond personal preference. As a result, they increasingly write more and more about less and less.

For the Greeks, political constitutions directly corresponded to the human soul (psyche). They divided the soul into three parts: nous, the intellective, reasoning part; thumos, the spirited part, concerned with honor and justice; and epithumeia, the appetitive part, which governs basic desires and is especially vulnerable to passions.

Each type of government, according to this framework, reflected a part of the soul. In this political taxonomy, the noetic part of the soul corresponded to rule by one; the thumetic part to rule by the few; and the appetitive part to rule by the many.

Each system had both good and bad versions. In a just system, rulers governed for the benefit of the entire polity. In a corrupt system, they ruled for their own benefit. The Greeks classified kingship as the good form of rule by one, while tyranny was its corrupted counterpart.

Aristocracy was the noble form of rule by the few, while oligarchy or plutocracy represented its decay. The good form of rule by the many was politeia, or a balanced constitution — a concept the Romans translated as res publica, best rendered in English as “commonwealth.” The corrupted version of rule by the many was democracy in its worst form: ochlocracy, or mob rule.

The founders feared unbridled passion and mob rule, which led them to reject democracy. They saw it as easily corrupted and unstable, prone to constant turmoil and disorder, and just as much a threat to citizens’ rights as tyranny or oligarchy. Democracies, they believed, were especially vulnerable to demagogues who could manipulate the masses.

To prevent this, the U.S. Constitution deliberately established a self-governing republic — the virtuous form of rule by the many.

Republic vs. democracy

No founder articulated the dangers of democracy — the perils of unchecked passions — better than Alexander Hamilton. Like most of his contemporaries, he viewed the American Revolution as an act of deliberate action, designed to secure the natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, Hamilton also recognized that revolution is inherently lawless. Before establishing a government that safeguards rights and liberty, men must first “dissolve the [existing] political bands.” But revolutionary fervor, he warned, is ill suited for maintaining a stable political society — even one dedicated to protecting individual rights.

Hamilton understood that a passion for liberty was necessary if the cause of American independence was to succeed, but that ultimately it had to be tempered by the rule of law. As he said during the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788,

In the commencement of a revolution … nothing was more natural than that the public mind should be influenced by an extreme spirit of jealousy … and to nourish this spirit, was the great object of all our public and private institutions. Zeal for liberty became predominant and excessive. In forming our confederation, this passion alone seemed to actuate us, and we appear to have had no other view than to secure ourselves from despotism. The object certainly was a valuable one. But Sir, there is another object, equally important, and which our enthusiasm rendered us little capable of regarding. I mean the principle of strength and stability in the organizing of our government, and of vigor in its operation.

Passions unleashed in the fight for rights can ultimately destroy those very rights. Individual freedoms survive only when society maintains a strong sense of law and order.

Hamilton was alarmed by calls for “permanent revolution,” a theme that dominated Thomas Jefferson’s rhetoric. He saw Jefferson’s dismissive and intellectualized response to Shays’ Rebellion and the French Revolution — expressed in statements like “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” and “the Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants” — as a dangerous philosophy. To Hamilton, this mindset invited chaos and guaranteed frequent upheaval rather than stable governance.

He believed that the solution was to instill respect for the Constitution, binding Americans to the rule of law. Though a creation of the people, the Constitution imposes necessary constraints that must be respected while it remains in force.

Hamilton argued that attaching people to the Constitution’s rule of law would preserve the new government as if it were an ancient institution. This stability would allow for the just administration of laws, without which the Revolution’s central aim — the protection of rights — could not be secured.

Through both words and actions, Hamilton worked to temper popular passions and connect citizens first to their state constitutions and then to the federal Constitution. He defended New York Loyalists after the Revolution, a position he reinforced through his "Phocion" letters. During the ratification debates in 1787 and 1788, he vigorously argued for the new Constitution, emphasizing its role in securing national stability.

As treasury secretary, he promoted fiscal responsibility, stressing the necessity of paying debts and honoring contracts. Within Washington’s administration, he sought to subordinate American gratitude to France and enthusiasm for the French Revolution to the dictates of international law.

Nothing better illustrates Hamilton’s commitment to moderating revolutionary fervor than a letter he wrote to John Jay around the same time he was crafting his own revolutionary pamphlets.

The same state of passions which fits the multitude … for opposition to tyranny and oppression, very naturally leads them to contempt and disregard of all authority. … When the minds of those are loosed from their attachments to ancient establishments and course, they seem to grow giddy and are apt more-or-less to turn into anarchy.

Lincoln: Passions vs. reason in politics

In his 1838 speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” Abraham Lincoln warned against the dangers of mob violence in pursuit of political goals. He saw it as a sign that unchecked passions were overtaking reason.

Lincoln identified the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity not as a foreign enemy but as an internal danger. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher,” he declared. “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country …

Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed — I mean the attachment of the People …

… Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. —Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws

Lincoln allowed that there were bad laws, among which he included the laws supporting slavery.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. —I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

But he maintained that “there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …”

The mobocratic spirit and Jan. 6

Political conservatives consistently denounced political violence, including the unrest that followed Trump’s 2016 election victory, the riots and destruction that erupted after George Floyd’s death in May 2020, and numerous other instances of domestic looting and property destruction carried out by left-wing groups in recent years.

Yet as former U.S. prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, the central charge against Trump regarding Jan. 6 — that he undermined the Constitution’s electoral process — is difficult to dispute. He gave the mob assembled that day the false impression that Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. More importantly, he failed to quickly and decisively use his influence to call off his supporters, denounce violence, and urge them to leave the Capitol grounds.

McCarthy contended that if Democrats had pursued an impartial investigation rather than overreacting for partisan purposes, they could have built a compelling case that Trump violated his constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution while faithfully executing the laws. A thorough congressional inquiry would have produced stronger articles of impeachment. Instead, Democrats omitted key allegations, allowing them to frame the riot as an “insurrection” for political advantage.

As McCarthy argued, the congressional January 6panel “was a blatantly partisan, monochromatically anti-Trump political exhibition that presented the country with a skewed picture, eschewing cross-examination and perspectives that deviated from its relentless theme: Trump’s incitement to insurrection had our democracy hanging by a thread.”

In the end, the riot of January 6 did not “prevent the peaceful transition of power.” Was the peace disturbed? Yes ...

... that’s why so many people have been prosecuted, some for serious offenses, and many others for trivial crimes that the Justice Department would normally decline to charge. But there was so little damage done to the Capitol that Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored. It promptly affirmed Biden’s victory, as it was always certain to do. No one tried to blow up the Capitol. No one tried to mass-kill the security forces. Our Constitution held firm, and there was never any reason to suspect it wouldn’t. Our democracy was not realistically imperiled, much less at the precipice of annihilation.

Ultimately, January 6 did not represent a threat to “our democracy” but instead illustrated why the Founders prudently established a republic rather than a democracy. They understood that democracies justify behavior such as occurred that day. Deliberation and the passage of laws by representative bodies are designed to permit prudence to curb the passions. As Lincoln stated, no matter how desirable our goals may be, “there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …”

Trump’s blanket pardons offer hope and healing



Processing the events and emotions of the past week has taken time. BlazeTV documented my immediate reaction to President Trump’s sweeping pardons, commutations, and case dismissals. In a five-minute video recorded right after I learned Trump kept his promise, I struggled through tears and jumbled words to share my thoughts.

 

Over the past few days, I’ve come to terms with the reality of my January 6 case being “dismissed with prejudice.” I’ve also absorbed the reactions of other “J6ers,” whose own legal battles ended last Monday, as well as the responses from media pundits and politicians. As expected, reactions range from positive to negative. (I’ll delve deeper into this in a future piece.)

While Blaze Media and BlazeTV have covered my January 6 journey at length, a quick recap might be helpful for those unfamiliar with my story.

What I did and didn’t do

I traveled to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, intending only to cover the final rally of Trump’s first presidency. I brought my camera, tripod, a microphone for street interviews, and extra batteries to capture reactions to the speeches scheduled for the day. My primary question was whether the so-called kraken would be unleashed — the final proof of an allegedly “stolen election.”

When it became clear that no such announcement would come from the speechmakers, including President Trump, a colleague and I began a mile-long walk to the Capitol building. Additional speeches were planned on the Capitol lawn at six separate, legally permitted “First Amendment Protest” events.

By the time we reached the west side of the Capitol’s outer perimeter, at about 1:15 p.m., there were no barricades or “Closed Area” signs — something I later learned had been breached and removed before our arrival. Hearing sirens, seeing smoke, and witnessing flash-bang grenades, we sprinted to the Lower West Terrace. There, at exactly 1:19 p.m., I turned on my camera and began documenting the events that would alter my life.

I followed the story wherever it led. An hour later, I was inside the Capitol building with thousands of protesters and around 80 other journalists and media personnel. I exited 37 minutes later through the Hall of Columns and out the south doorway. During that time, I committed no acts of violence, resisted no law enforcement, and caused no damage to Capitol property.

 

Media and news organizations worldwide quickly licensed my videos, which were featured in documentaries by HBO, the New York Times, the Epoch Times, and numerous others. I began writing accounts of that day and delved into investigations of the key figures and most puzzling anomalies related to January 6.

In July 2021, the FBI contacted me to request a voluntary interview. Because of my recognized status as “media,” the FBI needed written approval from the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. After my attorney negotiated and secured this agreement, I participated in the interview in October of that year. On November 17, 2021, my attorney received an email from Assistant U.S. Attorney Anita Eve, stating, “Your client will be charged within the week.”

To my shock — and admittedly, some amusement — the charges included a felony count of “interstate racketeering.” The Department of Justice alleged that I knowingly conspired to cross state lines (from North Carolina) with foreknowledge of an illegal event to profit from documenting and licensing footage of the activities.

Going public

On the Monday of Thanksgiving week in 2021, we sent a press release to over 200 media outlets, launching a public counteroffensive against the government’s absurd allegation. I did dozens of interviews with various news outlets, including newspapers, magazines, TV shows, podcasters, and bloggers.

This strategy caught the government off guard. No other individual accused of a January 6 crime had taken such an approach. The result? The government went silent for 20 months — no response, no action. During this period, my coverage of the January 6 trials and investigations into the conduct of certain U.S. Capitol Police officers gained attention from members of Congress and major media platforms, including Tucker Carlson.

Sources within the Capitol Police and the Justice Department informed me that officials were “not happy” with my reporting. In the spring of 2023, I was granted access to 41,000 hours of Capitol closed-circuit TV footage — all while I continued working independently, unaffiliated with any news organization.

For nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, the government went too far. It repeatedly trampled due process, destroyed lives over misdemeanors, and handed down egregiously unfair sentences.

In early July 2023, Matthew Peterson, the new editor in chief of Blaze Media, reached out to discuss bringing my work to the publication as a contributor. In the final week of July, before we finalized my contract, my attorney informed me that a D.C. grand jury had subpoenaed all my January 6 videos.

Grand juries are not convened for misdemeanor offenses, so they were obviously looking for a reason to charge me with a felony. Twenty months after going silent, with growing national attention to my work as an independent journalist, I had become confident that the government had decided not to pursue charges against me.

I was devastated by this news. Not only because of the renewed legal jeopardy, but I was certain that Blaze Media would withdraw the offer. You know the drill.

“Hey, Steve. We really love your work, man. And when you get all this legal stuff behind you, call us back, and we may have a place for you here.”

I sat on this news over the weekend, not informing Peterson at Blaze Media. My attorney picked up the subpoena on Monday morning, confirming my worst fears. I then posted to Twitter that I was back in the government’s crosshairs.

My phone rang. It was Peterson. I assumed this was the bad-news call I expected. Peterson nervously laughed and said, “Uh … it looks like I need to get you a contract … right away.”

I broke down in tears. This wasn’t the response I expected from any corporation. We finalized an agreement that afternoon, and by Wednesday morning, I made my debut on "The Glenn Beck Program" as a Blaze Media contributor.

The government makes its move

After complying with the grand jury subpoena, we heard nothing from the Justice Department until December 14, 2023. While sitting in Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie’s office, I received a text from my attorney: “You need to call me ASAP.”

A message like that is never good news. I stepped into the hallway of the Rayburn Congressional Office Building and called him. He informed me that the FBI had just contacted him, saying I needed to surrender within the week.

My next call was to Peterson. The company sprang into action, booking me on all BlazeTV programs, including Glenn Beck's. Other major media outlets quickly picked up the story. By the end of the next day, the FBI agent called my attorney back to say the bureau would postpone my arrest until “sometime after the holidays.”

Early the following week, Peterson called me again. Was this the other shoe dropping at last? No. Instead, he told me Blaze Media wanted to hire me as a full-time investigative correspondent with full benefits. Once again, the tears flowed. Who are these people?

On March 1, 2024, I was finally compelled to report to the FBI’s Dallas field office for arrest on four basic misdemeanor charges — the same charges leveled against hundreds of January 6 defendants. Despite their efforts, the Justice Department couldn’t make a felony charge stick. Nearly 38 months after January 6, 2021, I was brought before a Dallas magistrate in leg irons — for nonviolent misdemeanor charges.

 

I’ll spare you the details of the legal battles over the next eight months involving my attorneys, federal prosecutors, and Judge Christopher Cooper. Suffice it to say, I wanted to go to trial despite Cooper’s consistent denial of every motion we filed and his generally hostile attitude toward me. Since then-candidate Trump was openly promising pardons for January 6 defendants, we believed it was crucial for my trial date to occur after January 20, 2025, in hopes that he would win the election and end the proceedings in my case.

Judge Cooper, however, refused to grant a continuance, holding firm to the November 12 trial date originally set on the court’s calendar.

November 12 — exactly one week after the election. The timing wasn’t favorable for me, regardless of the outcome. In 2020, 95% of the D.C. jury pool voted for Biden. If Trump won, jurors might seek revenge. If Kamala Harris won, they’d feel emboldened to bury me. And Cooper’s dislike for me was plain to see.

Still, my attorneys were optimistic. They believed presenting a selective prosecution defense could force the government to explain why it hadn’t charged over 80 other journalists — mainstream, independent, bloggers, podcasters, social media influencers, credentialed, or uncredentialed. If successful, this strategy could lead to a landmark decision.

Alas, it was not to be. On November 6, the day after Trump won the election, I appeared before Judge Cooper at a pretrial hearing. The session was brief and brutal, as he denied every motion for discovery, a continuance, and even my right to argue a selective prosecution defense.

Immediately after the hearing, I joined a Zoom call with my four attorneys. One of them remarked, “This trial will be nothing more than a shaming exercise.” With that in mind, I instructed them to notify the prosecutors and the court that I would not proceed to trial and would instead plead guilty to all four misdemeanor charges.

I fully understood that it would take at least two months to be sentenced after my guilty pleas. I also recognized that if Trump fulfilled his promise to pardon nonviolent January 6 defendants, I would be in a unique legal position. Under federal law, a defendant is not considered “convicted” until sentencing, even after pleading guilty.

I took the risk. After I entered guilty pleas to all four charges, my sentencing was scheduled for March 6, 2025. If Trump kept his word, my case would be dismissed and the entire four-year ordeal would conclude — technically and legally — as if it had never happened.

The truth about January 6

Two months before joining Blaze Media, I spoke at a Wake County Republican Women’s Club luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina. During my remarks, I made what I thought was a simple filler comment: “Whatever the Oath Keepers may or may not be individually guilty of, the one thing they are not guilty of is the crimes for which they were convicted.”

Unexpectedly, more than 100 women in the audience rose to their feet in a standing ovation. In that moment, I realized that America hadn’t lost its desire for true justice in the January 6 cases, even for those convicted of seditious conspiracy.

This wasn’t just the largest investigation and dragnet in American history — it was the most politically motivated mass persecution.

At the time, Fox News had just fired Tucker Carlson and largely abandoned January 6 coverage. For those of us working to expose the Justice Department’s weaponization, it was clear that the American people’s demand for real justice — and their frustration with the Biden DOJ’s witch-hunt — was growing. Trump must have sensed it too, as his promise of pardons became a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign.

Americans understand government overreach because resisting it is why this nation was founded. It’s in our DNA. Trump’s fulfillment of that promise on his first day back in office wasn’t just anticipated — it was a crucial factor in his November victory. Perhaps the decisive one. Because Americans want true justice for every citizen, regardless of the crimes those citizens may or may not have committed.

For nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, the government went too far. It repeatedly trampled due process, destroyed lives over simple misdemeanors, and handed down egregiously unfair sentences. This treatment stood in stark contrast to D.C. rioters from 2017 and 2020, who often committed far worse crimes but saw their cases dismissed or received mere slaps on the wrist from the same D.C. judges and juries.

Relief, gratitude, and the need to heal

Initially, I advocated full pardons for all nonviolent January 6 defendants and a case-by-case review for the others. But in recent months, my stance shifted toward blanket pardons for everyone. Why?

It’s straightforward. Pick any case file from the nearly 1,600 defendants, and within five minutes, I could show you where the government violated basic due process rights or where judges allowed prosecutions to proceed under predetermined, unwinnable scenarios for defendants. Worse still, many defendants endured literal torture at the hands of their jailers.

Given the overwhelming complications and extenuating circumstances, reviewing each case individually would have taken months, if not years. Blanket pardons were the only just solution.

On the evening of January 20, I was stunned by Trump’s decision to grant blanket pardons, commutations, and dismissals with prejudice. Vice President-elect JD Vance and attorney general nominee Pam Bondi had already hinted at pardons for the nonviolent with case-by-case reviews for others. Trump’s final announcement and signature left me breathless.

It was the right decision and exactly what was needed. Even the most violent January 6 defendants had their rights trampled by Biden’s Justice Department. Trump’s courage and action brought tears to my eyes — and still do as I write this.

For nearly four years, I’ve said I saw bad people doing bad things on January 6. I also saw good people doing good things. And I saw otherwise good people doing stupid things.

This applied to both sides of the police line that day.

Critics decrying the pardons and commutations of the violent defendants fail to grasp the extent of the Biden administration’s weaponization against all January 6 participants — the violent, the rowdy, and the accidental tourists who walked through open doors to snap a selfie in the Rotunda.

This wasn’t just the largest investigation and dragnet in American history — it was the most politically motivated mass persecution. Nonviolent participants suffered severely for the minor offense of glorified trespassing. Those who assaulted law enforcement officers have already faced severe penalties, some warranted and others unconstitutional.

The president did the right thing. Let the healing begin.

Biden Uses Final Hours Of Presidency To Let Fauci, Others Off The Hook

'Politically motivated investigations wreak havoc'

Mark Levin EXPOSES Liz Cheney and January 6 Committee’s cover-up



You know what they say about lies — they only breed more lies.

Take the “insurrection” that happened on January 6, 2021, as an example. We still don’t know the full truth about what happened that day, but we do know with certainty that we were lied to — repeatedly.

To cover these lies, more lies were needed. Those came in the form of the corrupt January 6 Committee — “the Stalinist Pelosi committee,” Mark Levin calls it.

This committee, we were told, was formed to investigate the events of January 6, but actually the opposite was true — it was formed to cover the events of January 6.

 

That’s why Pelosi appointed Trump-hating “reprobate Republicans” Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to the board, Levin explains.

For starters, the committee “sent recommendations with a report to prosecutors at the United States Department of Justice to urge the criminal indictment of Donald Trump on a number of issues,” he recounts. “That is not covered by the Speech and Debate Clause [of the Constitution], in my view.”

According to Levin, the committee members can be prosecuted and charged for this because “it's not [their] official congressional duty to be pushing for criminal charges against somebody in the other branch of government.”

“That is not what the framers considered speech and debate on the floor of the House or the Senate,” he says.

On top of that, the committee “destroyed a ton of data and information.”

“If there's exculpatory information for Donald Trump or anybody else who's been charged and you don't provide it and you have it as a committee, or you destroy it … you've committed a crime; you've committed obstruction,” says Levin.

As Oversight Committee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) pointed out in his report, “that obstruction statute is 18 USC 1512,” which is ironically “the same obstruction statute that [the committee] tried to use against Donald Trump and the January 6ers.”

“Liz Cheney and every member of that committee … need to answer for this,” says Levin. There’s only one reason you “destroy mountains and mountains of data” — “it’s called a cover-up.”

To hear more of Levin’s analysis, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

BOMBSHELL: New Jan. 6 pipe bomber information



Kamala Harris certified the results of the 2024 election on the anniversary of the January 6 “insurrection” that took place at the Capitol — but that’s not all that’s happened this week.

A new House report from Congressman Loudermilk and Congressman Massie investigates Liz Cheney’s January 6’s select committee to find out why no details regarding the pipe bomber have been released.

“Of all the investigations that have taken place surrounding January 6, how come we don’t know anything about this guy?” Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” asks, before adding, “Well, what they found is crazy.”

“They found that the FBI actually narrowed phone data, they did that geo-fencing where they track the phones and the pathway that person carrying the phone takes in order to identify that person,” Wheeler explains. “They narrowed it down to one phone number and one person whose steps matched the pipe bomber.”


“And then it just, the path went dead. Or did it? Did the path actually go dead or did Congress and Liz Cheney decide to let the path go dead? Did the FBI decide to let the path go dead? Seems like a little bit more than a coincidence to me,” she continues.

Wheeler notes that FBI Agent Steven D'Antuono — who was involved in the Gretchen Whitmer “fed-napping" — was also involved in January 6 and claimed the phone data from one of the major carriers was corrupted and therefore they couldn’t track the pipe bomber.

“That’s not true, Loudermilk and Massie found,” she explains. “And this is according to the phone carrier themselves. None of the data that they gave to the January 6 committee or to the FBI was corrupt, and they and the FBI specifically never told the phone carrier that any data was corrupt.”

“So Steven D’Antuono of the FBI was lying about that. Seems pretty obvious that there’s a cover-up,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.