JUST IN: Former President Joe Biden's Pardons Of Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, Gen. Milley Could BACKFIRE - Biden Pardons 0311
Former President Joe Biden granted clemency to a select group of individuals in a round of last-minute pardons aimed at shielding allies from potential reprisals by President Donald Trump, but the move is not without complications for the recipients.
Former Wyoming Republican congresswoman and Jan. 6 Committee co-chair Liz Cheney and Dr. Anthony Fauci were among the limited list of pardon recipients, a gesture Biden’s aides say was intended to preempt acts of vengeance by Trump or his administration.
However, legal experts were quick to point out that the pardons would not exempt either individual from having to testify under oath if subpoenaed.
Federal litigation attorney Jesse Binnall pointed out that Biden’s pardons do not shield Cheney and Fauci from consequences if they lie under oath, should the GOP-controlled Congress subpoena them to testify. In his words, the pardons could be “great news” for anyone seeking to see the two prosecuted.
“The pardons are actually great news. No one who was just pardoned will be able to refuse to testify in a civil, criminal, or congressional proceeding based upon the 5th Amendment,” Binnall wrote on X, before dropping another truth bomb.
“And let’s just be realistic. Most of these disgusting individuals would probably have to be charged in Washington, DC, which doesn’t convict partisan leftists,” Binnall, also a former attorney for President Donald Trump, wrote.
Other X users offered a potential solution to the problem of liberal bias in DC, including retired U.S. Army officer, lawyer, and author Kurt Schlichter.
“This is key – the depositions and the actual testimony must take place outside of Washington DC. Washington DC is a biased venue that will not convict Democrats when they commit perjury. Accordingly, take this show on the road,” he wrote.
Others who received pardons were former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman and Army Gen. Mark Milley, who later criticized Trump during his first term and al,l other members of the J6 committee.
Former Arizona state legislature candidate Josh Barnett (R) explained in a lengthy post on X that blanket presidential pardons don’t automatically cover every potential wrongdoing.
“A pardon typically grants forgiveness for a specific offense or set of offenses committed before the pardon was issued. However, if someone is found guilty of treason after receiving a pardon for previous crimes, the pardon does not extend to this new offense,” he said, perhaps a reference to Milley, who reportedly contacted his Chinese counterpart in the waning days of Trump’s first term and said he would “warn” him of any pending U.S. attack.
“A pardon only covers the crimes explicitly mentioned or implicitly understood to be covered by the pardon at the time it was granted. If the treason was committed or discovered after the pardon, it would not be protected by that pardon,” he added.
During a recent interview on Fox News, Trump told host Rachel Campos-Duffy that “I can’t even go after” figures from the January 6 investigation because of Biden’s pardons.
“Look the unselect Committee of political thugs–these horrible people–Democrats and two of the worst Republicans in history, crying Adam [Kinzinger] and Liz Cheney, two of the worst. They are just sick people. This was the committee. And it went for a year and a half,” Trump began.
“At the end of a year and a half, what did they do? They destroyed every piece of evidence they had because it came out totally on our side. Nancy Pelosi was responsible for the security. She knew that. She proclaimed it on her daughter’s tape. I mean, her daughter’s a videographer or whatever the hell she does. And she had Nancy complain, you know, saying, yeah, that she was responsible for it. Yes. They burned everything. And then Biden gave them all a pardon. These are congresspeople,” he said.
Trump continued, “These are people that are in Congress, not respected members, but they’re in Congress. If you did that in a civil thing. But think of it, they burned, deleted, and destroyed every single document after a year and a half because like the person that said, I grabbed this massive Secret Service agent around their neck and I was rebuffed. And then I went to the other one, and I think he was like, this big karate guy. And I went over there. And I had friends who say, ‘don’t ever change. It’s so cool.’ You know, I said, ‘no, I just want the truth.'”
“So they work for a year and a half, making everybody’s life miserable. They realized that they were guilty as – you know, all those secret agents, secret service agents, they honestly testified. They testified in a very honest way, and everything was wrong for them. And what, rather than exposing what they did, the criminal acts, they created a criminal act, and they did it like – a really good. But could you imagine if I deleted and destroyed all documents. And this is a hearing, a big deal that was set up that shouldn’t have been allowed to go forward. And, that’s it. So we can’t even go after them because they were pardoned,” Trump argued.
“Now, these–we’re dealing with, with very corrupt people. We have a lot of corrupt people in our government,” he concluded.
Spencer Pratt EXPOSED LA’s Biggest Problem LIVE ON AIR… and The View Completely LOST IT! What was supposed to be another harmless celebrity interview on The View suddenly turned into one of the most uncomfortable political moments television has seen in months. Spencer Pratt walked onto the stage as a former reality TV star, but by the time the segment ended, viewers across the country were asking why he sounded more connected to everyday life in Los Angeles than the people challenging him. The conversation quickly shifted away from celebrity gossip and exploded into arguments about homelessness, drugs, crime, media narratives, and the visible collapse many residents say they experience daily in California cities. Then came the AI ad controversy, the viral comments about human waste in LA, and the moment even the hosts appeared caught off guard by how strongly audiences were reacting online. Now people are wondering whether this interview accidentally exposed something much bigger than one mayoral race. Read the full story below in the comments. - Trends.newsonline.biz
Spencer Pratt walked onto The View looking like exactly the kind of guest the hosts assumed they could easily handle.
A former reality television personality from The Hills running for mayor of Los Angeles sounded, on paper, like the perfect lighthearted daytime television segment.
A few jokes, some playful skepticism, maybe a quick conversation about celebrity culture, and then everybody moves on.
That was clearly the expectation. Instead, the interview spiraled into something completely different. Because within minutes, the atmosphere shifted from entertainment to genuine political discomfort.
The hosts initially approached Pratt with the familiar mixture of amusement and disbelief often reserved for celebrities entering politics.
Questions about his financial struggles, reality television fame, and lack of political experience came quickly.
But Pratt never tried to present himself as a polished politician. That changed the dynamic immediately.
Instead of sounding scripted, he sounded frustrated. Not celebrity frustrated. Citizen frustrated. And that emotional difference mattered far more than many people expected.
Pratt explained that he never intended to become politically active. For years, he largely avoided public political battles entirely.
According to him, the turning point came after wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles, including the loss of his own home.
That transformed the conversation emotionally. Because suddenly this was no longer a reality TV personality playing politics for attention.
This became someone speaking from personal anger after watching what he believed was catastrophic government failure.
And viewers connected with that instantly. Pratt repeatedly framed his campaign around what he described as “common sense” issues facing ordinary Los Angeles residents.
Crime, homelessness, drug addiction, public disorder, deteriorating infrastructure, and basic safety concerns became the focus of nearly everything he discussed.
Then the conversation intensified. Pratt began describing conditions throughout parts of Los Angeles in blunt detail.
Human waste on sidewalks. Fentanyl needles near parks. Drug addicts roaming around schools. Public disorder becoming normalized in neighborhoods where families once felt safe.
The room noticeably tightened. Because regardless of political ideology, millions of Americans have already seen similar footage circulating online for years.
Videos of open drug use, theft, homeless encampments, and collapsing public order have dominated social media discussions surrounding California cities.
Pratt simply described those realities directly on national television. And emotionally, that landed much harder than many expected.
The hosts attempted pushing back by questioning his qualifications and political experience. But Pratt immediately flipped the criticism back toward establishment leadership.
When questioned about lacking a law degree or city management experience, Pratt sarcastically joked about earning legal credentials online before pointing out that Karen Bass herself had never previously managed a city before becoming mayor.
The exchange resonated online because Pratt did not sound like a polished political strategist trying to win an argument.
He sounded authentic. Messy at times, certainly. But authentic. And in modern politics, authenticity often matters more emotionally than perfect credentials.
That became increasingly obvious as the interview continued. The biggest turning point may have come when Pratt discussed how ordinary residents are reacting to conditions in Los Angeles.
He described even lifelong Democrats becoming frustrated after personally experiencing the city’s visible decline. One story in particular exploded online afterward.
Pratt described his sister accidentally driving through human waste in Los Angeles and being unable to remove the smell from her car despite repeated cleanings.
The story sounded absurd enough to become instantly memorable. But that was exactly why it spread so rapidly.
Pratt communicated through vivid personal imagery rather than policy jargon. People could immediately picture the situation because many viewers had already experienced similar moments themselves or seen comparable footage online.
That emotional relatability made his comments far more powerful than traditional political talking points. Meanwhile, the hosts appeared increasingly uncomfortable as the audience reaction online grew stronger.
At several moments, the panel attempted balancing criticism of Pratt while simultaneously acknowledging public frustration with conditions in Los Angeles.
That contradiction became noticeable. One moment Pratt was dismissed as a reality TV celebrity lacking qualifications.
The next moment, hosts admitted many residents genuinely feel unsafe or frustrated with visible deterioration across parts of California cities.
Viewers immediately noticed the inconsistency. And that inconsistency fueled much of the viral reaction afterward.
The interview escalated even further once discussion turned toward artificial intelligence campaign advertisements Pratt had shared online.
The ads used AI-generated comic-book imagery featuring political figures and exaggerated dystopian themes criticizing California leadership.
Critics labeled the ads dangerous, misleading, and inflammatory. But many viewers reacted very differently. Online audiences began mocking what they perceived as establishment media becoming more emotionally disturbed by AI-generated memes than by actual urban decline visible across major cities.
That comparison quickly spiraled into broader criticism of media credibility itself. People began reposting old clips from 2020 showing reporters standing in front of burning buildings during riots while describing events as “mostly peaceful.”
Those comparisons intensified accusations of media double standards. To many viewers, establishment media figures appeared willing to minimize real-world disorder while simultaneously treating exaggerated political memes as major threats.
Whether fair or unfair, that perception deeply shaped online reaction to the interview. And perception matters enormously in modern politics.
Because once audiences begin believing media institutions selectively frame outrage depending on ideological convenience, trust erodes rapidly.
That erosion of trust became one of the central emotional themes surrounding Pratt’s appearance. At multiple points, even the hosts themselves seemed unsure how aggressively to challenge him without appearing disconnected from realities many viewers already believe exiSt.
That tension became visible. And the more visible it became, the stronger Pratt’s anti-establishment image grew online.
Ironically, attempts to portray him as unserious often strengthened his appeal instead. Especially among frustrated voters exhausted by carefully scripted political language and media narratives they no longer trust completely.
Pratt also benefited from sounding unusually direct compared to traditional politicians. He criticized leaders for prioritizing press conferences, rhetoric, and ideological branding while ordinary residents increasingly worry about basic quality-of-life issues.
His argument was simple. People want safe parks. Functioning streets. Clean neighborhoods. Responsive emergency services.
And many feel local governments have failed to provide those basics despite enormous tax burdens.
That message cuts across ideological lines more effectively than many traditional partisan arguments. Which explains why the interview spread far beyond normal celebrity gossip audiences.
This stopped being about Spencer Pratt specifically. Instead, he increasingly became a symbol for something much larger: frustration with political institutions, distrust toward media narratives, anger over visible urban decline, and exhaustion with ideological battles replacing practical governance.
That emotional undercurrent explains why the segment resonated so strongly online. Millions of viewers did not suddenly become passionate Spencer Pratt supporters overnight.
But many recognized something emotionally familiar in what he described. And perhaps most importantly, many viewers believed he was speaking honestly rather than strategically.
That distinction matters tremendously in modern political culture. Especially during a time when large portions of the public increasingly view politicians, media personalities, and institutions as scripted, artificial, or disconnected from ordinary life.
By the end of the interview, the original premise had completely collapsed. What was supposed to be a harmless celebrity segment accidentally became one of the most viral political media moments of the year.
Not because Spencer Pratt dominated through traditional political skill. But because millions of Americans quietly saw pieces of their own frustrations reflected in what he said.
And judging by the reaction afterward, establishment media figures may have underestimated just how powerful that frustration has become.
