0:00

You're listening to the

0:02

Judicial Watch weekly update

0:04

with Tom Fittin. Everyone

0:06

Judicial Watch President Tom Fittin

0:08

here with our weekly update

0:10

on social media. Thank you

0:12

as always for joining us

0:15

and during this incredibly busy

0:17

and exciting time period here

0:19

in Washington DC. So much

0:21

to talk about. The left

0:24

is literally screaming about President

0:26

Trump's... reforms to government. I'll

0:28

give you the updates there

0:31

and USAID. We've got confirmation

0:33

updates both good and bad.

0:36

Plus massive move by President

0:38

Trump to protect women and

0:40

children from the left-wing extremists

0:43

that want to just really

0:45

hurt them in my view.

0:47

We've got a new lawsuit about

0:49

Kamala. We have... new details

0:51

about a court order

0:54

about Jack Smith and

0:56

Fanny Willis corruption and

0:58

collusion. Plus an important

1:00

new brief we filed

1:03

about the pernicious use of

1:05

race to figure out who's

1:07

going to be in Congress.

1:09

You're not going to believe

1:11

what we are still fighting

1:14

about in our courts in

1:16

this day and age. First

1:18

up though is the hysteria.

1:20

I talked about a little bit

1:23

last week over President Trump's

1:25

efforts to curtail, rein in, audit,

1:27

and control the massive entity

1:29

known as USAID. Some people

1:31

call it USAID. I call

1:34

it USAID because that's what

1:36

I've always called it. The

1:38

United States Agency for International

1:41

Development. And monies from USAID

1:43

and frankly from the State

1:45

Department generally. are often used

1:48

and too often used not

1:50

for what people consider reasonable

1:53

uses and purposes. You

1:55

know truly charitable and

1:57

aid, charitable type aid.

2:00

that people might support, but

2:02

essentially to fund the left-wing

2:04

infrastructure abroad. An infrastructure that's

2:06

used to undermine American interest

2:08

in values in various countries,

2:10

and of course just generally

2:13

undermine what most Americans believe

2:15

should be taking place in

2:17

various countries. They should have

2:19

governments that are free and

2:21

respectful of democratic norms. but

2:24

not socialist and Marxist. And

2:26

USAID works with the left

2:28

to ensure the latter. And

2:30

Judicial Watch has been investigating

2:33

this issue for years and

2:35

years, and I'll talk more

2:37

about this, but I want

2:39

to talk about how the

2:41

big media and the left

2:44

has responded to this. You've

2:46

had Democratic politicians decide that

2:48

no government spending should be

2:50

looked at and controlled or

2:52

even paused so it could

2:55

be audited so it could

2:57

be audited. So it could

2:59

be audited. So under the

3:01

less perspective, the government can

3:03

never be controlled. And this

3:06

is at odds with the

3:08

very principles of our constitutional

3:10

republic. There's a famous book

3:12

written, I don't think it's

3:14

the title, but you should

3:17

look it up. I think

3:19

it may be free on

3:21

Amazon, if you have an

3:23

Amazon account. It is called

3:26

the political control of the

3:28

administrative state. And that's the

3:30

way the republic is supposed

3:32

to work. That when you

3:34

have a president, he's able

3:37

to exercise political control of

3:39

the administrative state. He's the

3:41

elected official across the nation.

3:43

And so within law, his

3:45

policies and guidelines and values

3:48

should be implemented. And that

3:50

means monies that unless they

3:52

are required to go out

3:54

should not go out. And

3:56

that funds and discretionary spending

3:59

should be made in accordance

4:01

with the values of the

4:03

president as endorsed. by the

4:05

voters in electing him. Now,

4:07

the left does not believe

4:10

that President Trump should be

4:12

able to exercise those presidential

4:14

prerogatives. And so they've gone

4:16

into inciting violence, encouraging insurrection,

4:19

and sedition by government employees.

4:21

And we've got a number

4:23

of clips talking about these

4:25

issues. Here's some left-wing Congresswoman.

4:27

who is completely out of

4:30

control and watch this video.

4:32

We will not take this.

4:34

We will fight back. And

4:36

as I close out, because

4:38

I know we've been out

4:41

here for a long time.

4:43

And God damn it, shut

4:45

down the city! The

4:51

person can pay $250 million

4:53

into a campaign and they

4:55

be given access for access

4:58

to the Department of Treasury

5:00

of the United States of

5:02

America. We are at war.

5:04

So we law mosque as

5:06

an employee of the government

5:08

of the United States working

5:11

for the president shouldn't be

5:13

able to access material or

5:15

resources or computer systems on

5:17

behalf of the president. Is

5:19

that how it works? Of

5:22

course, that's how it works.

5:24

And they're willing to incite

5:26

violence, shut down the city.

5:28

What does that mean? Riots?

5:30

We're at war? Why that

5:33

violent rhetoric? Now, to give

5:35

you up to date of

5:37

what Musk has been trying

5:39

to do, and with Marco

5:41

Rubio, working at the State

5:44

Department, our Secretary of State,

5:46

they are seeking to essentially

5:48

neuter USAID. as much as

5:50

they're able under law. Now,

5:52

as their debate, whether they

5:54

can close it entirely, but

5:57

in the least, Marco Rubio

5:59

can exercise significant control over

6:01

the agency. and it seems

6:03

to me either relief of

6:05

duty or move out or

6:08

fire, whatever the term is

6:10

or whatever the employee personnel

6:12

move would be, these US

6:14

AID bureaucrats and hangars on

6:16

that basically just spend our

6:19

money in irresponsible ways. There's

6:21

no doubt about it. Now

6:23

some of the courts have

6:25

intervened and some of the

6:27

moves Musk has tried to

6:29

make There's been some restriction

6:32

on his ability or the

6:34

ability of President's employees to

6:36

access information at Treasury which

6:38

seems to be an odd

6:40

legal position to have for

6:43

a court He's the chief

6:45

executive And then there's been

6:47

a delay in the deadline

6:49

set by President Trump's team

6:51

in terms of offering people

6:54

a way out of resignation

6:56

path by giving them several

6:58

months of severance. Now the

7:00

deadline for people to decide

7:02

whether to take it was

7:05

Friday, but that deadline was

7:07

extended. But nevertheless, 60,000 people

7:09

upwards of 60,000 people have

7:11

already said, hey, we'll resign,

7:13

we'll take the money and

7:15

go. So the federal employment

7:18

is at 2.3, 2.4 million.

7:20

We're broke. There's

7:22

got to be cuts. And

7:24

so this is all relatively

7:26

speaking quite modest in terms

7:29

of government spending, right? 60,000

7:31

employees out of a workforce

7:33

of 2.3 million, $40 billion,

7:35

whatever the bill is for

7:38

USAID, out of a 2,

7:40

what's the budget now, 4

7:42

trillion? I remember it was

7:44

1 trillion. It was 1

7:47

trillion. It was 1 trillion.

7:49

It was 1 trillion. So

7:52

really modest reforms and that's

7:54

the reaction threats of death

7:57

and violence from the left

7:59

and Here, Democratic leaders in

8:02

front, I believe, I think

8:04

they're at front of you,

8:07

they're in the front of

8:09

USAID, and they, again, more

8:11

mob-type violence from the Democratic

8:14

left here. As you probably

8:16

saw, Elon Musk and his

8:19

crew put a gag order

8:21

on AID employees, they disconnected

8:24

them from email, which is

8:26

putting lives at risk around

8:29

the world. So we are

8:31

here to enter the building

8:34

and so we can hear

8:36

firsthand from whoever is here

8:39

at AID or at least

8:41

witness firsthand what is happening

8:43

with this Elon Musk attempted

8:46

takeover which will not stand.

8:48

We will prevail. Let's go.

9:21

So how was that substantively

9:24

different than January 6th, what

9:26

you just saw there? The

9:28

president's team had closed. So

9:31

the building was closed. Yet

9:33

these public officials and whoever

9:35

they were, you know, their

9:38

left-wing allied activists were there

9:40

trying to get into a

9:43

closed building. Isn't that an

9:45

insurrection? And then Schumer. is

9:47

is making in my view

9:50

a full of himself at

9:52

least he wasn't at least

9:54

directly advocating for violence like

9:57

he has previously in targeting

9:59

supreme court justices and here

10:02

i had a a reaction

10:04

video kind of fun to

10:06

what he was saying we

10:09

will win we will win

10:11

we will win we will

10:13

win we will we will

10:16

rest we won't rest we

10:18

I still think that's pretty

10:20

funny I'm still laughing about

10:23

that But there he's

10:25

standing next to Maxine Waters

10:28

who has incited violence during

10:30

the first term of Trump

10:32

against cabinet officials Told them

10:35

to confront them every he

10:37

told she told activists to

10:40

confront them in a way

10:42

that was Guaranteed to incite

10:44

violence and endanger their lives

10:47

And then of course, you

10:49

know the what the left

10:51

does for any case a

10:54

reporter asked me about this

10:56

earlier today. And what happens

10:58

is the left obviously is

11:01

gravitated to the gravitates the

11:03

bureaucracies in government for many

11:05

reasons. The most obvious of

11:08

which is it's the easiest

11:10

way to exercise unaccountable power

11:13

and advance their agenda. And

11:15

what happens is when you

11:17

have reformers come in and

11:20

usually they oppose Republican appointees

11:22

generally the deep state does,

11:24

liberalocracies. And if it's a

11:27

conservative Republican, it's all the

11:29

more worse. And a conservative

11:31

reformer, worse, worse, worse. And

11:34

that's why Trump and his

11:36

appointees had such initial problems

11:39

in the first term. Well,

11:41

he's much more aggressive and

11:43

on point and in terms

11:46

of speed, shock and awe,

11:48

right? But you can see

11:50

that's what they're doing to

11:53

Elon Musk. Elon Musk is

11:55

a patriot. He is concerned

11:57

about the misuse and abuse

12:00

of taxpayer resources. He is

12:02

working on behalf of the

12:05

President of the United States,

12:07

asking questions that any normal

12:09

citizen would ask, how are

12:12

you spending the money that

12:14

we earned? How can we

12:16

save some money for taxpayers?

12:19

They're taking our money and

12:21

wasting it. Forget about the

12:23

policy. It's like, well, can

12:26

we get it done cheaper?

12:28

And they hate that idea.

12:31

the easiest way to curtail

12:33

government spending is stop defunding

12:35

the left in their radical

12:38

policy groups and so uh...

12:40

what the left does is

12:42

they try to isolate you

12:45

know they target first and

12:47

then they isolate harass meer

12:49

and try to frankly destroy

12:52

any reformers who take on

12:54

the deep state and and

12:57

you may think Well, you

12:59

know, who knows about USAID?

13:01

Well, they know about USAID.

13:04

Otherwise, they wouldn't be out

13:06

there being crazy about it

13:08

because they know. Once you

13:11

pull the plug on USAID,

13:13

it sets in motion a

13:15

whole series of events, hopefully,

13:18

to pull the plug on

13:20

other government funding of the

13:23

radical leftists on, in Congress,

13:25

AOC, attacking Elon Musk for,

13:27

quote, By the way, the

13:30

head of three successful companies,

13:32

the richest man in the

13:34

world, literally a rocket scientist,

13:37

and this is what AOC

13:39

says about him. First and

13:41

foremost, understand that there is

13:44

already in a federal agency

13:46

who is a watchdog on

13:49

waste in the United States.

13:51

That is known as the

13:53

government accountability office. So all

13:56

of these people acting like,

13:58

oh, we're going to set

14:00

up an agency to identify

14:03

waste. As though that's never

14:05

been an idea before, like,

14:07

you know, take a number.

14:10

These people... And I can

14:12

tell you, in my experience,

14:15

I have encountered many billionaires

14:17

in my career. You all

14:19

have seen many of those

14:22

encounters in hearings, in other,

14:24

you know, forms of questioning,

14:26

etc. I can tell you

14:29

that this dude is probably

14:31

one of the most unintelligent

14:33

billionaires I have ever met

14:36

or met or met or

14:38

seen or seen. are witnessed.

14:41

Can you believe that's a

14:43

congressman? She's met all these

14:45

billionaires and he's the stupidest

14:48

or one of the most

14:50

unintelligent. It's kind of a

14:52

desperate, desperate smear of mosque

14:55

in part. It's been going

14:57

on for years. And

15:00

at least that's better than

15:02

what you're going to see

15:04

next. The left is literally

15:07

resorted to just screaming. Rather

15:09

than talking or persuading, trying

15:11

to convince their fellow citizens,

15:13

this is what the left

15:16

is doing up in New

15:18

York. This

15:30

is disturbing behavior. This is

15:32

what free speech now is

15:34

for the left, an articulate

15:37

scream. You know, to me

15:39

that's the flip side of

15:42

violence. I'm not saying those

15:44

people are violent, but if

15:46

you're willing just to scream

15:49

in response to your political

15:51

opponents, it's not a force,

15:54

it's not a... It isn't

15:56

too far. removed I think

15:58

from pursuing violence against them.

16:01

Now I'm glad that USAID

16:03

is finally in the sites

16:05

of government reformers. Now to

16:08

be clear during the first

16:10

Trump administration there were attempts

16:13

to try to rein in

16:15

USAID that were largely missed

16:17

but they did try to

16:20

hit it. And USAID has

16:22

been in the sites of

16:25

anyone who's concerned about government

16:27

spending for years. And

16:29

ironically, the left at times doesn't

16:32

like USAID because it wasn't hardcore

16:34

enough in terms of advancing its

16:36

values and they would support governments

16:39

that they didn't like. Which are

16:41

fair criticisms. Americans don't want foreign

16:43

aid. They don't want it. And

16:46

we're always lectured by the left

16:48

and the media and frankly some

16:51

Republicans why foreign aid is useful.

16:53

Americans aren't persuaded. They've made the

16:55

arguments and Americans don't want it.

16:58

And Trump, of course, understands that

17:00

more directly. My personal view is,

17:02

I like foreign aid that, you

17:05

know, involves guns and bullets, basically

17:07

military aid. That's the only type

17:09

of foreign aid that I support.

17:12

And even then, it should be

17:14

loans and leases and things like

17:16

that so that we're not too

17:19

far out of pocket, too much

17:21

out of pocket. We defend the

17:24

free world. We're the

17:26

economic engine of the world.

17:28

That's all the foreign aid

17:30

that we have to worry

17:33

about. A vibrant economy, our

17:35

values, our culture, in the

17:37

traditional sense of the word,

17:39

our constitutional system, that will

17:42

save the rest of the

17:44

world. Not spending money on

17:46

corrupt politicians. or foreign policy

17:48

aid groups or foreign, you

17:51

know, excuse me, NGOs that

17:53

basically wander our money to

17:55

advance their rights. extremist agenda

17:57

and one of the folks

18:00

that judicial watch is focused

18:02

on and judicial watch has

18:04

been investigating USAID I mean

18:06

for as long as I

18:09

can remember I mean I

18:11

went and highlighted some of

18:13

our prior work on on

18:16

our tweet feed our X

18:18

feed I guess I'm supposed

18:20

to call it let's go

18:22

through these headlines from 2017.

18:26

U.S. gives Soros groups

18:28

millions to destabilize Macedonia's

18:30

conservative government. 2017, we

18:33

expose that. 2018. Judicial

18:35

Watch, new documents show

18:37

State Department and USAID

18:39

working with Soros group

18:42

to channel money to

18:44

a mercenary army of

18:46

far-left activists in Albania.

18:50

US subsidizes Soros's radical leftist

18:52

agenda worldwide, new judicial watch

18:55

report shows, and I'll link

18:57

to all of this below.

19:00

And so we've got some

19:02

videos of my talking about

19:04

these issues. Well, I don't

19:07

know, 2018, how long ago

19:09

was that? Seven years ago?

19:12

Six, seven years ago. Let's

19:14

run the first video. Judicial

19:16

Watch, as I discussed recently,

19:19

has numerous federal lawsuits trying

19:21

to figure out the extent

19:23

of taxpayer support, particularly under

19:26

the Obama administration, for the

19:28

Soros Open Society organizations, especially

19:31

their activities abroad. We've sued

19:33

the State Department and USAID,

19:35

which is a funder of

19:38

supposedly groups that better civil

19:40

society in other countries. and

19:43

of course they're giving money

19:45

to the Soros operations. We've

19:47

investigated Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Colombia,

19:50

and Guatemala, and we've filed

19:52

four lawsuits related to state

19:55

department funding for Soros's radical...

19:57

agenda and one of those

19:59

lawsuits struck pay dirt which

20:02

is the lawsuit over its

20:04

activities in Albania. Albania is

20:07

controlled by a left-wing communist

20:09

government, there's really no other

20:11

way to describe it, so

20:14

of course the Soros organizations

20:16

are supportive of this government.

20:19

and your tax dollars are

20:21

going to bolster its efforts

20:23

to consolidate power. Specifically, $9

20:26

million in taxpayer money are

20:28

documents that we uncovered as

20:31

a result of the lawsuit

20:33

show. We're sent to Soros

20:36

by the Obama administration in

20:38

2016. Specifically, the USAID funneled

20:41

money through the agency's civil

20:43

society project. to the foundations,

20:46

the Soros Foundation groups in

20:48

Albania. It's called a Justice

20:51

for All campaign, which was

20:53

overseen by Soros' East-West Management

20:56

Institute. So what was going

20:58

on is the judiciary was

21:01

a little too independent for

21:03

the leftists in power, and

21:06

they wanted to push an

21:08

effort to reform the judiciary,

21:11

meaning it. bringing it back

21:13

under control of the leftist

21:16

authoritarians running Albania. So Soros

21:18

was on the side, unfortunately,

21:20

of the authoritarians, and our

21:23

tax dollars were being used

21:25

to subsidize this effort. So

21:28

that's a much younger me, frighteningly

21:30

younger me, talking about the

21:32

subsidies for Soros. And

21:34

here's another clip shortly

21:37

thereafter, further explaining it. Because

21:39

we're worrying about what's going on

21:41

in the United States, the left,

21:44

often with your taxpayer resources, is

21:46

working its will all over the world.

21:48

We've uncovered how that was going

21:50

on in Macedonia. You see this

21:52

issue in Ukraine as well. These

21:55

Soros groups, supposedly, are anti-corruption,

21:57

but they're political players.

21:59

that come down on one

22:01

side of the political spectrum it

22:04

looks like. Yeah and as I

22:06

recall with what Soros was doing

22:09

with USAID and or the State

22:11

Department was that he was collaborating

22:13

or his people were collaborating in

22:16

helping direct the spending. So there'd

22:18

be a chunk of change that

22:21

Soros' people would provide advice on

22:23

as to who to give money

22:25

to. So not only were they

22:28

getting the money. but they were

22:30

also funneling it to favorite groups.

22:33

And I don't know about you.

22:35

I don't think George Soros should

22:37

get a dime of taxpayer money.

22:40

He doesn't, A, need it. Why

22:42

is he getting, forget about the

22:45

politics, it's like, would you want

22:47

to give Elon Musk millions of

22:49

dollars in taxpayer money to advance

22:52

his political ideas in other countries?

22:54

I don't know, maybe you would.

22:57

I don't think he needs it,

22:59

and he'll probably do it on

23:01

his own anyway. And I was

23:04

on Fox a few years ago

23:06

with Tucker when he was still

23:09

on there, talking about this as

23:11

well. Let's go to Fox. Tom

23:13

Fitness, the president of Judicial Watch,

23:16

and he joins us, and one

23:18

of the reasons I'm so glad

23:21

that you're here, Tom, is because

23:23

you kind of tie a bow

23:25

on stories. The Obama administration is

23:28

over, but there's a lot that

23:30

they did that we don't know

23:33

anything about because the president... But

23:35

I can't hear, so you can

23:37

have to tell me when. Tell

23:40

us this small piece of it.

23:42

What do they do in Albania

23:45

and why? Well, they're supporting the

23:47

socialist communist government there, the Soros

23:49

operations, and they're doing it with

23:52

taxpayer dollars. They were doing it

23:54

in 2016. and they were even

23:57

doing it for the Trump administration

23:59

in 2017, co-sponsoring surveys of the

24:01

population that generated 91% of the

24:04

support in favor of the pro-government,

24:06

pro-saurus operation that would have restricted

24:09

the independence of the judiciary. Like

24:11

all strong man governments, they don't

24:13

like independent... and judiciaries. So they

24:16

were trying to reform the judiciary

24:18

in a way that would have

24:20

brought it under control of the

24:23

socialist government there. And what's troubling

24:25

is that obviously Soros needs no

24:28

taxpayer money to do any of

24:30

this advocacy work. But the State

24:32

Department and USID is partnering with

24:35

Soros. and basically allowing Soros to

24:37

set our foreign policy agenda. And

24:40

then secondly Soros's operations according to

24:42

these documents were allowed to come

24:44

into the State Department and provide

24:47

technical reviews of other applications for

24:49

other government money in Albania. But

24:52

I mean, George... So there you

24:54

go. A little bit rare now,

24:56

but the issue hasn't changed. There's

24:59

still battles in town. There's still

25:01

battles in town. I don't know

25:04

specifically source, right? I haven't checked

25:06

the numbers recently. But USAID, it's

25:08

a nightmare when it comes to

25:11

transparency. Right this second, they are

25:13

still fighting us about, we sued,

25:16

and I told you about the

25:18

lawsuit a few weeks ago, prior

25:20

to I think most of this

25:23

coming down, USAID was giving money

25:25

to Gaza. Groups in Gaza and

25:28

we wanted the details. I think

25:30

it was 24 million. Was it

25:32

24 million dollars? I think it

25:35

was 24 million dollars guys feel

25:37

free to time in I'm And

25:41

there were recipients of that

25:43

money. And they don't want

25:45

to tell us who the

25:48

recipients are. How do you

25:50

like that? Now they're supposed

25:52

to get back to us

25:54

soon about this. It'll be

25:57

interesting to see if the

25:59

Trump administration is... going to

26:01

change their transparency views from

26:03

the Biden people. But you

26:06

know why they don't want

26:08

to give us the names

26:10

of or the entities they

26:13

were giving money to in

26:15

Gaza. I guarantee you they're

26:17

connected to Hamas and terrorism.

26:19

I guarantee you. And so

26:22

by point being judicial watch

26:24

has been second to none

26:26

in trying to pursue. What

26:29

USAID has been up to?

26:31

Not just criticizing them because

26:33

someone started criticizing them here

26:36

in town finally, which is

26:38

great. I mean, it's just

26:40

great. But we've been in

26:42

court to try to get

26:44

information about USAID. Who else

26:46

has been in court trying

26:48

to do this? I'm not

26:50

aware of anyone else. Time

26:52

and time again, going back

26:54

years, because we've known for

26:56

years that USAID is a

26:58

money laundering operation for the

27:00

radical left, including. it looks

27:02

like George Soros. So I'm

27:04

hoping President Trump is able

27:06

to shut it down. You

27:08

know, and as I noted

27:10

in, you know, I've been

27:12

talking about this issue as

27:14

well on the media, I

27:16

was on, let's say, I

27:18

was on Newsmax early this

27:20

week, talking about how important

27:22

this issue is. President

27:24

of Judicial Watch Tom Fenton

27:27

joining me right now. Tom,

27:29

it's always a pleasure. You

27:31

know, it's telling to see

27:33

how angry these Democrats get

27:35

when you take away their

27:37

power to tell the rest

27:39

of us what to do

27:41

and how to run our

27:43

lives, yes? Well, it's even

27:46

more direct. You're taking away

27:48

their money. The left relies

27:50

on agencies like USAID to

27:52

launder tax money into their

27:54

groups, their related groups that

27:56

then spend it to advance

27:58

their agenda. abroad and in

28:00

certain circumstances where you get

28:02

government monies going to advance

28:05

their agenda at home. This

28:07

is a really I think

28:09

a indictment of the Democratic

28:11

Party and the left that

28:13

they're so crazed about the

28:15

president's desires to curb waste

28:17

fraud and abuse. President Trump.

28:19

and frankly all members of

28:21

the executive branch have a

28:24

positive constitutional obligation to take

28:26

reasonable steps to ensure our

28:28

money is being wasted. That

28:30

has not been done for

28:32

a generation here in Washington

28:34

D.C. and all the screaming

28:36

and yelling and catawalling about

28:38

all this suggests he's on

28:40

to something. And, uh, you

28:43

know, Moskis... And I was

28:45

on OANN. Our friends over

28:47

there with John Hines talking

28:49

about this issue as well.

28:51

President Donald Trump recently signed

28:53

an executive order suspending foreign

28:55

aid and placing an independent

28:57

agency known as the U.S.

28:59

Agency for International Development or

29:02

USAID under the purview of

29:04

the State Department. In the

29:06

past, the agency has had

29:08

close ties with one globalist

29:10

billionaire, at least George Soros,

29:12

and some of his foundations

29:14

for many decades, according to

29:16

reports by the Heritage Foundation.

29:18

With us is Tom Fitten

29:21

of Judicial Watch. Tom, what

29:23

do we know of George

29:25

Soros and his connections with

29:27

some of these foreign aid

29:29

disbursements from agencies like USAID?

29:31

Well, Judicial Watch uncovered how

29:33

George Soros linked groups and

29:35

his Open Society Foundation partnered

29:37

with USAID, received funding from

29:40

taxpayers as a result. And

29:42

I don't know about you,

29:44

but I don't think George

29:46

Soros needs the help of

29:48

the taxpayer. to do anything

29:50

he wants and what happens

29:52

is Soros is active in

29:54

a particular country USAID comes

29:56

and partners with him directly

29:59

or indirectly and and entities

30:01

controls or funds and the

30:03

advocacy resulting from that is

30:05

leftism and anti-Americanism and just

30:07

pushing the agenda that the

30:09

left pushes here they do

30:11

in other countries with taxpayer

30:13

support. So we're getting the

30:15

message out. It's so important

30:18

that we get a hold

30:20

as to what USAID is

30:22

doing because it's just the

30:24

tip of the iceberg. And

30:26

if we can't collectively, meaning

30:28

the American people, can't control

30:30

that, rein in that type

30:32

of spending, so that it's

30:34

in the least ideologically neutral

30:37

to a degree it occurs

30:39

at all, then we're not

30:41

going to get much else

30:43

done. And this is why

30:45

Congress needs to get its

30:47

act together. They haven't passed

30:49

the bill to cut one

30:51

dollar in spending. There's been

30:53

no talk other than through

30:56

Trump's leadership of cutting back

30:58

government agencies. I mean the

31:00

last we heard from Congress

31:02

on spending was they fully

31:04

funded the Biden administration's policies

31:06

several months ago. There's another

31:08

decision on that coming up

31:10

in March. Now they're coming

31:12

up with budget resolutions and

31:15

such. Now are they going

31:17

to curtail government spending in

31:19

USAID or they're going to

31:21

shut it down? Are they

31:23

going to shut down the

31:25

education department as President Trump

31:27

is calling for? He's trying

31:29

to curtail it as he's

31:31

able to do under law,

31:34

but in the end it

31:36

looks like Congress has to

31:38

kind of, has not kind

31:40

of, literally has to shut

31:42

it down. Where's the Republican

31:44

leadership in Congress on not

31:46

only spending, but ending government

31:48

agencies that are not advancing

31:50

the public interest in and

31:53

arguably... outside what the Constitution

31:55

allows for or what the

31:57

Republic demands in terms of

31:59

government here in the United

32:01

States. So there's a lot

32:03

going on and I appreciate

32:05

Trump really just I can't

32:07

keep up with it. Can

32:09

you keep up with it?

32:12

All the good things he's

32:14

doing? I can't. I mean

32:16

I go on the White

32:18

House website and pull up

32:20

all these executive orders, it's

32:22

just great order after great

32:24

order. Now, not all of

32:26

it can be fully implemented

32:28

without more help from Congress,

32:31

but he can do a

32:33

lot. You know, for every

32:35

step forward, Biden took, or

32:37

backwards, Biden took, depending on

32:39

your point of view. I

32:41

don't know which is the

32:43

easier way to describe the

32:45

metaphor. A Trump can take

32:47

an equal step to cancel

32:50

it. That's how I would

32:52

read it. So let's

32:54

see what happens. And the

32:56

only way he can get

32:58

a lot of that work

33:00

done is by having good

33:02

people around him. And he

33:04

got two new good people

33:06

around him this week, where

33:08

the Senate finally confirmed Pam

33:10

Bondi as Attorney General of

33:12

the United States. So she

33:14

now is at the Justice

33:16

Department, running the show. One

33:18

of her first acts as

33:21

Justice Department Attorney General, was

33:23

to organize working groups, or

33:25

that's what she called them.

33:27

of personnel to investigate the

33:29

law fair against Trump and

33:31

the abuses of American citizens,

33:33

either school boards going after

33:35

Catholics, going after pro-life protesters,

33:37

the January 6 abusers as

33:39

well, and see what went

33:41

on. Was there collusion with

33:43

the Justice Department and under

33:45

Biden and Alvin Bragg and...

33:47

Soros back prosecutor by the

33:49

way and Fanny Willis down

33:51

in Georgia. So that's a

33:53

good start. I would just

33:55

open up criminal investigations into

33:57

the violations evidently of people's

33:59

civil rights under the color

34:01

of law. But I guess,

34:03

you know, it suggests this

34:05

department, they just go slow

34:07

all the time. And as

34:09

I've said previously, I think

34:11

President Trump should just directly

34:13

appoint special counsels. Because the

34:15

Justice Department can't investigate itself.

34:18

I don't believe it they

34:20

can. Let me be clear,

34:22

I don't think they can

34:24

be trusted to investigate themselves,

34:26

especially the FBI. And the

34:28

other person who was appointed

34:30

and confirmed this week was

34:32

Russ Fote, who is now

34:34

the head of the Office

34:36

of Management and Budget, which

34:38

is the key bureaucratic agency

34:40

within an administration in terms

34:42

of setting policy budgets and

34:44

policies and procedures for other

34:46

federal agencies. So he's keeper

34:48

of the keys in many

34:50

ways to how policies are

34:52

promulgated within the government and

34:54

regulations are approved, etc. So

34:56

I don't think there's a

34:58

regulation that exists that doesn't

35:00

have to go through an

35:02

OMB process. Now Trump, I

35:04

mean, Trump obviously smart, but

35:06

Elon Musk, he quickly figured

35:08

out, and this is what

35:10

drives the left crazy, well

35:12

how do we pay our

35:15

bills in the government? Well,

35:17

the Treasury Department pays the

35:19

bills. Oh, so you mean

35:21

we don't have to be

35:23

at each specific agency trying

35:25

to figure out what goes

35:27

on? Well, that helps, but

35:29

all the bills get routed,

35:31

practically speaking, through the Treasury

35:33

Department. And that's why the

35:35

left is furious when Trump

35:37

and his people showed up

35:39

at the Treasury Department and

35:41

asked questions about how the

35:43

bills were paid. Because once

35:45

they figure out the centralized

35:47

billing, essentially, or accounts... What

35:51

do you call it

35:53

accounts payable where the

35:55

money's going out? Accounts

35:57

receivable depending on what's

35:59

happening. Who writes the

36:01

checks? Who signs the

36:03

checks? And Musk figured

36:05

out, well, Treasury does.

36:07

And if all these

36:09

decisions, all these government

36:11

spending is going through

36:13

essentially one group of

36:15

systems, well, let's get

36:17

a hold as to

36:19

how those systems operate.

36:21

Let's look at the

36:23

data. Let's analyze the

36:25

data to curtail waste

36:27

fraud and abuse. And

36:31

so everything you're hearing about

36:33

the left screaming about Musk,

36:36

you had some people defaming

36:38

Musk by saying he was

36:40

stealing money by trying to

36:43

figure out what Treasury was

36:45

spending. Lunacy. Lunacy. Just great

36:47

developments for reform. And I

36:50

know not all of it's

36:52

going to stick, but we've

36:54

made so much progress. We

36:57

typically would have made in

36:59

prior administrations. Just the

37:01

debate has changed in a

37:03

way that benefits the public

37:06

good because we're now talking

37:08

about the size of government.

37:10

How much it's spending? You

37:12

know, and from judicial watches

37:14

perspective, we know that when

37:16

government spends a lot of

37:18

money, it's usually for corrupt

37:21

purposes. They can't tie their

37:23

shoes without some waste-for-order abuse

37:25

happening. And

37:27

usually a lot of these

37:29

programs, especially the kind of

37:32

the big ones that have

37:34

all the hullabaloo around them,

37:37

are to take care of

37:39

their friends. Zero to do

37:41

with the public interest. Now,

37:44

who hasn't been confirmed? Cash

37:46

Patel. As I said, I

37:49

went to his confirmation hearing

37:51

last week. Democrats have delayed

37:53

it. or the

37:56

consideration of his confirmation before

37:58

the judiciary committee normally they

38:00

would have been voting on.

38:02

on it around now. So

38:05

there's a further delay. So

38:07

there's been no FBI director

38:09

for several weeks, which is

38:11

dangerous to be blind. It's

38:14

dangerous. Now, there's supposed the

38:16

left media is again crying

38:18

and the left Democrat policy

38:20

politicians are crying because there's

38:23

been accountability demanded from the

38:25

FBI. You had the acting

38:27

FBI director. Stalling and trying

38:29

to curtail efforts to figure

38:32

out who in the FBI

38:34

was working on January 6th

38:36

prosecutions. And the number that

38:38

was bandied about was 5,000.

38:41

I bet you it was

38:43

more than 5,000 by the

38:45

way. Early 38,000 people working

38:47

on January 6th. That doesn't

38:50

indict the January 6th prosecutions.

38:52

I don't know what does.

38:54

And what Trump's people are

38:56

trying to figure out is

38:59

who was involved, what was

39:01

the extent of their involvement,

39:03

and were the abuses inherent

39:05

in this process make them

39:08

culpable for the decisions they

39:10

made. And they don't want

39:12

you to do that. And

39:14

they don't want Cash Patel

39:17

there to help do that.

39:19

Now Cash wants to reform

39:21

the FBI. I don't think

39:23

it's reformable. But I

39:26

tell you I want the list

39:28

of those FBI agents. Why isn't

39:30

that public? It ought to be

39:33

and we're asking for it under

39:35

FOIA. So all these list DOJ

39:37

has been compiling of officials who

39:40

may have engaged in improper conduct

39:42

or conduct that deserves further scrutiny.

39:44

We want that information as well

39:47

and we hope the Trump administration

39:49

makes it publicly available. But we

39:51

as you know we're We may

39:54

sue if we don't get the

39:56

records. I

40:03

mean, I want justice.

40:06

I want justice. The

40:08

FBI came to my

40:10

house in a retaliatory

40:13

move by the Biden

40:15

administration to serve a

40:17

subpoena. Imagine getting a

40:19

knock on the door

40:22

for something like that.

40:24

I trust the FBI

40:26

as far as I

40:29

could throw them. And

40:33

so, Cash Patel is about

40:36

as good a pick as

40:38

a president could make for

40:41

FBI director. And I stand

40:43

strong behind Cash Patel. And

40:45

I had this video, I

40:48

did this video, promoting his

40:50

appointment after it was made,

40:53

I guess a few months

40:55

ago now. President Trump

40:58

made another inspired choice. He

41:00

announced over the weekend that

41:02

he is planning to appoint

41:04

Cash Patel, my friend, to

41:06

be the FBI director. Presumably

41:08

he's going to fire Ray

41:10

or Ray's going to resign.

41:13

The FBI is almost irredeemably

41:15

compromised and Cash Patel is

41:17

nearly the perfect choice to

41:19

go in there, bring transparency,

41:21

reform. and accountability. Now, Cash

41:23

is going to be attacked

41:25

by the usual suspects, but

41:28

he has a demonstrated record

41:30

of uncovering, exposing quite bravely

41:32

the corruption at the FBI

41:34

and in the deep state,

41:36

and he has vast experience

41:38

working the bureaucracies on behalf

41:40

of the American people. So

41:43

what do you think Cash

41:45

Patel should be investigating once

41:47

he becomes FBI director? I've

41:49

got a long list. But

41:51

one of the things I

41:53

think he certainly needs to

41:55

investigate is FBI corruption and

41:58

the targeting of Trump and

42:00

other innocent Americans for political

42:02

purposes by the corrupted Federal

42:04

Bureau of Investigation. President Trump.

42:06

Yeah, cash can't be put

42:08

in an FBI director soon

42:10

enough. And, you know, I

42:13

know John Thune, who's the

42:15

new majority leader for the

42:17

Senate, the Republican leader. You

42:19

know, they'll tell you they're

42:21

going as fast as they

42:23

can. I will tell you,

42:25

well, maybe they've gone faster

42:28

than previous Republican senators in

42:30

terms of handling nominations, but

42:32

they're not going as fast

42:34

as they can. They're always

42:36

ways to go faster in

42:38

the Senate. There's really no

42:40

good reason any of these

42:43

folks couldn't have been confirmed

42:45

by now. So I encourage

42:47

you, especially for Cash Patel.

42:49

to share your views with

42:51

your senators by calling 202,

42:53

225, and to use all

42:55

steps available to the mother

42:58

Senate rules to advance his

43:00

nomination because it's an emergency.

43:02

The FBI is out of

43:04

control. It's an emergency. We

43:06

need someone there who's honest

43:08

and willing to do the

43:10

heavy lifting to clean it

43:13

up. And Cass Patel fits

43:15

the bill. You can share

43:17

your views with your senators

43:19

by calling 202, 202, 225.

43:21

3121, 202, 225, 3121. And

43:23

by the way, ask your

43:25

senators. Call your congressman. Ask

43:28

them, are they going to

43:30

cut the FBI giving the

43:32

abuses that they engaged in?

43:34

Is anyone talking about that?

43:36

I doubt it. But ask

43:38

them anyway. Because I said

43:40

I've observed before, and I

43:43

will say it again. And

43:45

I say I'm half joking.

43:47

Maybe I'm a quarter joking

43:49

now. Cash Patel should be

43:51

the last FBI director. I

43:53

don't think the FBI is

43:55

worth saving at this point.

44:13

I know what they've done. I

44:16

mean, look what they did to

44:18

Trump. What they did to me,

44:21

they came to my house. I

44:23

guess it's not the end of

44:25

the world, relatively speaking, compared to

44:28

what they did to Trump. So

44:30

the crazed targeting of the January

44:32

sixers treating nonviolent offenders like they

44:35

were terrorists, trying to spy on

44:37

Catholics wanting to send spies into

44:40

the pews. targeting

44:43

parents who were concerned about

44:45

their children and going to

44:48

speak out at board school.

44:50

This is a, FBI is

44:52

a menace to our freedoms.

44:55

Time and time again has

44:57

been shown to be the

44:59

case. And that's why I

45:02

think it really needs, in

45:04

the least, a radical haircut

45:06

in funding and in terms

45:09

of its powers duties and

45:11

responsibilities. And I don't even

45:13

think that's enough, as I

45:16

said. So forgive me for

45:18

getting a little angry there.

45:20

Good news this week. The

45:23

president took steps to protect

45:25

the health, safety, and privacy

45:28

of women and children, or

45:30

women and girls, specifically with

45:32

an executive order that has

45:35

the effect of prohibiting men

45:37

identifying as women from participating

45:39

in organized... women's sports. The

45:42

NCAA has used the lack

45:44

of clarity allegedly by the

45:46

federal government or discordant views

45:49

by the federal government even

45:51

during the Biden administration to

45:53

allow men to participate in

45:56

female athletic events and of

45:58

course it's blood damage. down

46:00

to high schools and other,

46:03

well actually lower than high

46:05

schools in some circumstances. That's

46:07

what I meant to say.

46:10

And so President Trump issued

46:12

the following executive order. Let's

46:14

bring that up. Keeping men

46:17

at a women's sports. Let's

46:19

see what it says here.

46:23

In recent years, many educational

46:25

institutions and athletic associations have

46:27

allowed men to compete in

46:29

women sports. This is demeaning,

46:31

unfair, and dangerous to women

46:33

and girls the equal opportunity

46:35

to participate and excel in

46:37

competitive sports. Moreover, under Title

46:39

IX of the Education Amendments

46:41

Act of 1972, Title IX

46:43

is the famous law that

46:45

essentially requires equal opportunity for

46:47

women in sporting. for institutions

46:49

receiving federal funds, ignoring fundamental

46:51

biological truths, he quoting a

46:54

federal court, between the two

46:56

sexes, deprive women and girls

46:58

of meaningful access to educational

47:00

activities. Therefore, it is the

47:02

policy of the United States

47:04

to rescind all funds from

47:06

educational programs that deprive women

47:08

and girls of fair athletic

47:10

opportunities. which results in the

47:12

endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of

47:14

women and girls and deprives

47:16

them of privacy. It shall

47:18

also be the policy of

47:20

the United States to oppose

47:23

male competitive participation in women's

47:25

sports more broadly as a

47:27

matter of safety, fairness, dignity,

47:29

and truth. And so President

47:31

Trump had a wonderful signing,

47:33

a public signing of this

47:35

executive order. Let's go to

47:37

the video of that. Look

47:41

at all those little

47:43

kids around them, girls

47:45

who are now protected

47:47

and safer because of

47:49

this. Oh, I think

47:51

this is a big

47:53

one, right? Oh, I

47:55

think we have a

47:57

10. We have a

48:00

10! So isn't that

48:02

great? I did a

48:04

tweet, I did a

48:06

tweet, at least I

48:08

think I did a

48:10

tweet, at least I

48:12

think I did a

48:14

tweet, or I remember

48:16

making the observation somewhere,

48:18

that President Trump has

48:21

done more to protect

48:23

The health, safety, privacy,

48:25

and fundamental rights of

48:27

girls and women than

48:29

any present recent memory.

48:31

Just with those acts

48:33

protecting girls and women

48:35

from transgender extremism. I

48:37

mean, their safety, their

48:39

privacy, their dignity, their

48:41

health. Now you can

48:44

be sure there'll be

48:46

challenges to this. immediately

48:48

change their position on

48:50

participation and they change

48:52

the rules. Men can't

48:54

participate in women's sports.

48:56

Here's a statement by

48:58

the executive Charles Baker.

49:00

The NCAA is an

49:02

organization, blah blah blah.

49:04

The NC Board of

49:07

Governors is reviewing executive

49:09

order and will take

49:11

necessary steps to align

49:13

policy in the coming

49:15

days. There you go.

49:17

It's over. But the

49:19

lawsuit, it's over. So

49:21

now let the lawsuits

49:23

begin, right? But great

49:25

news. So other great

49:28

news this week for

49:30

our social media outreach

49:32

efforts, I hit 3

49:34

million followers on X.

49:36

But an incredible number.

49:38

Really exciting because I

49:40

used the X account.

49:42

to reach Americans about

49:44

judicial watches work and

49:46

the idea that I

49:48

can tweet. out hopefully

49:51

helpful tweets to three

49:53

million Americans is just

49:55

great and I I

49:57

highlighted it on Twitter

49:59

here let's go to

50:01

I'm gonna keep on

50:03

to asking questions about

50:05

it I'm sorry I'm

50:07

gonna keep on asking

50:09

questions about it yeah

50:11

and I do I

50:14

do I have three

50:16

million questions still three

50:18

million followers just just

50:20

great and I don't

50:22

know how many how

50:24

many Twitter followers is

50:26

judicial watch have I

50:29

think it's 2.5 million. Can

50:32

someone tell me? 2.2 million

50:34

followers of judicial watch. So

50:36

maybe there's a cross, you

50:39

know, there's a cross section

50:41

that follow us both. But

50:44

think of the reach as

50:46

a result of that. And

50:48

then of course we have

50:51

millions of followers on Facebook.

50:53

YouTube, Instagram, Rumble, Through Social,

50:55

all the media companies, all

50:58

the social media platforms. And

51:00

this is why the Left

51:03

is one of the curtail,

51:05

the internet, because not because

51:07

they're winning on the internet,

51:10

it's because they were losing

51:12

on the internet. It tries

51:14

them crazy that I'm able

51:17

to say what I'm able

51:19

to say on my tweet

51:21

feed. It drives them crazy

51:24

that Judicial Watch is able

51:26

to promote our great work

51:29

and educate countless Americans on

51:31

our Twitter feed. You know,

51:33

it used to be if

51:36

someone saw me on the

51:38

street and they recognized me,

51:40

it was because they saw

51:43

me on media, right? Now,

51:45

I would say eight times

51:48

out of ten, it's I

51:50

follow you on social media.

51:52

So social media has really...

51:56

has really pushed out legacy

51:58

media tradition. media in terms

52:01

of where people go to

52:03

for news and information. And

52:05

so I'm really, I'm proud to

52:07

have three million followers in the

52:10

sense that it's such a phenomenal

52:12

support, a sign of such

52:14

phenomenal support for the

52:17

work I do at judicial

52:19

watch and of course judicial

52:21

watches, great work generally. And

52:23

so I encourage you to

52:25

follow judicial watch. And

52:27

so I encourage you to

52:29

show watch. Follow me, follow

52:31

this channel, wherever you're watching

52:33

this video, follow it, but

52:35

not only follow it, comment

52:38

and share, this algorithms

52:40

are key to getting the information

52:42

out right these days,

52:44

right? Now Facebook is

52:46

unlocking its algorithms. So

52:48

Facebook isn't going to

52:50

be suppressing judicial watch

52:52

and me the way they used to.

52:54

Twitter is a much more

52:57

free platform. because of Elon

52:59

Musk. And frankly Elon's Musk

53:01

is leading to freedom on

53:03

these other platforms as

53:06

well, like Facebook and

53:08

Instagram. Even Google is

53:10

pushing back against their

53:12

censorship hounds on the

53:14

left. They've been somewhat

53:16

terrible on YouTube, by the

53:18

way. And we're also on TikTok.

53:21

We're careful. But there are

53:23

tons of people on TikTok. I

53:25

do know who runs TikTok. But

53:27

I think if the Chinese

53:30

communists are going to let

53:32

us come on and tell the

53:34

world about our values and

53:37

why we need honest government,

53:39

I'm going to be there. And

53:42

the Chinese TikTok Company

53:44

is, you know, they've censored

53:47

us, but no more or no

53:49

less so than American companies.

53:51

So I tell you. It's

53:53

a very strange situation.

53:56

But great news about Judicial

53:58

Watch having so many social

54:01

media followers. And it makes

54:03

us a powerful force. I mean,

54:05

if I send out a tweet

54:07

telling people to call senators,

54:09

senators hear from people. If judicial

54:11

watch sends out an email to,

54:13

we have millions of people on

54:15

our email list. You wouldn't

54:18

believe the numbers. I think I

54:20

know what the number is, but I

54:22

think I may be off significantly, so

54:24

I don't want to share it

54:26

directly. But it's a massive email

54:29

list. And

54:31

so we don't rely on the media

54:33

to get the word out. We use

54:35

the media to get the word out,

54:38

but it's not the only way. We

54:40

can get the word out on Twitter.

54:42

We can get the word out on

54:44

True Social, on Facebook, on YouTube.

54:47

And what I love about my

54:49

Twitter account, or X account, I

54:51

keep on calling, is that there

54:53

are lots of people I'm always

54:56

excited to share. They're

54:58

tweets, because it's like...

55:00

Obviously I focus on a lot

55:02

of what Judicial Watch does, but when

55:04

I see something we're sharing, I'm happy

55:07

to share it. If I see another

55:09

conservative group sharing, you know, putting

55:11

out great information, I push it

55:14

out. Heritage, media research center,

55:16

members of Congress doing the

55:18

right thing. I push it out. I encourage

55:20

my friends and allies in the

55:22

movement and who are doing

55:25

investigations and journalists and stuff.

55:27

If they have interesting information,

55:29

Let me know, and I

55:31

will share it if I

55:33

can. Sometimes I'm like, oh, this isn't

55:35

worth sharing. But if it's

55:37

interesting, I'll share it. So I encourage

55:39

you to follow Judicial Watch.

55:42

Follow me, obviously. But really

55:44

follow Judicial Watch's work on

55:47

social media. Because for

55:49

every, you know, when you

55:51

subscribe to us on YouTube

55:53

or subscribe to us on

55:55

Facebook, it's difficult to overstate

55:57

the value of that to

55:59

Judicial Watch. makes our work

56:01

easier. It ensures that more

56:03

people are likely to see

56:05

our work because the more

56:07

subscribers helps us build viewership

56:09

among the platforms because the

56:11

platforms reward engagement, reward large

56:13

followers with more eyeballs that

56:15

the information shared with. So

56:18

that's my non-technical understanding. of

56:20

the algorithms on internet but

56:22

i want to thank you

56:24

all those of you who

56:26

follow me on twitter or

56:28

on acts i keep on

56:30

saying twitter but i'm sorry

56:32

i'm sorry elan i can't

56:34

get it out of my

56:36

head so great stuff i

56:39

encourage you to follow judicial

56:41

watches website too go to

56:43

judicial watch.org because that's where

56:45

the documents are and you

56:47

can share your email with

56:49

us and we'll keep you

56:51

updated so if

56:54

the commies finally shut

56:57

down the internet, at

56:59

least we can send

57:01

you an email or

57:03

two. So great news

57:06

there. But wait, there's

57:08

more. So we had

57:10

a nice little victory

57:12

in court the other

57:15

day against the Biden

57:17

gang over their refusal.

57:20

to give us information about

57:22

their communications with Fanny Willis.

57:24

You remember Fanny Willis, right?

57:26

I'll try to find the

57:29

press release here. Forgive me,

57:31

oh, here it is. So

57:33

Fanny Willis, you may recall.

57:35

was found to be in

57:37

default in a judicial watch

57:39

lawsuit for records about our

57:42

collusion that we thought was

57:44

happening with the Justice Department

57:46

and the January 6th Committee.

57:48

She didn't answer the lawsuit

57:50

and the court found her

57:52

in default. show up in

57:55

answer. And one of the

57:57

sanctions, as a result of

57:59

that, is that she had

58:01

to pay us attorney's fees.

58:03

Well, we finally got the

58:05

money. It was 10 days

58:08

late, but she did send

58:10

us the attorney's fees. It

58:12

was nearly $22,000. Don't ask

58:14

me if we cash to

58:16

Shack. I'm sure we will

58:18

or have. And she was

58:21

ordered to search for and

58:23

release documents. her collusion or

58:25

in response to our request

58:27

for communications with the Pelosi

58:29

January 6th gang and Jack

58:31

Smith, the OJ, etc. She

58:34

said she had no documents

58:36

with Jack Smith, but she

58:38

said she had documents showing

58:40

communications with Pelosi for confirming

58:42

the collusion in the efforts

58:44

to get Donald Trump. But

58:47

of course judicial watch being

58:49

as, I don't know if

58:51

it's savvy, it would make

58:53

sense that we would ask

58:55

both parties for records, right?

58:57

Now Congress typically isn't subject

59:00

to FOIA requests, or open

59:02

records request. But the Justice

59:04

Department is. And so what

59:06

we did was we asked

59:08

for, and when we got

59:10

the hand to the face,

59:13

we sued the Justice Department

59:15

for records on their, any

59:17

documents they had. Let

59:22

me see, let me read

59:24

the exact request. We sued

59:27

in October 2023 after the

59:29

Department of Justice failed to

59:31

comply with an August 2023

59:33

Freedom of Information Act request

59:36

for records detailing, quote, the

59:38

Fulton County District Attorney's Office

59:40

requesting and receiving federal funds

59:42

or other federal assistance regarding

59:45

the investigations of Donald Trump

59:47

and others. Pretty simple request.

59:50

On December 18th, 2023,

59:53

the Justice Department issued

59:55

his final request to

59:57

this request, its final

59:59

response to this request,

1:00:01

refusing to confirm or

1:00:03

deny the existence of

1:00:05

responsive records. It argued

1:00:07

that releasing the records

1:00:09

could reasonably be expected

1:00:11

to interfere with law

1:00:13

enforcement proceedings. So that

1:00:15

can be a hurdle,

1:00:17

right? And I think

1:00:19

it's garbage, but sometimes

1:00:21

the courts defer to

1:00:23

the Justice Department of

1:00:25

matters like that. But

1:00:27

what happened since. Was

1:00:29

the Trump stuff, the

1:00:31

Trump stuff was shut

1:00:33

down? There were no

1:00:35

federal court proceedings involving

1:00:37

Trump. Did they tell

1:00:39

the court that? No.

1:00:41

Because they wanted to

1:00:43

cover something up. That's

1:00:45

my view. But the

1:00:47

court said, huh, no.

1:00:49

I see what you

1:00:51

did there. And the

1:00:53

court essentially ordered. The

1:00:57

Justice Department to provide information

1:00:59

on Special Counsel Jack Smith's

1:01:02

communications with Fanny Willis. Judge

1:01:04

Dabney Friedrich of the U.S.

1:01:06

District Court for the District

1:01:09

of Columbia, so she's a

1:01:11

judge in the federal court

1:01:13

here in DC, ruled that

1:01:15

because the cases against Trump

1:01:18

were closed, the Justice Department

1:01:20

arguments against disclosure were no

1:01:22

longer applicable. Since DOJ filed

1:01:25

its motion for summary judgment,

1:01:27

and supporting declaration on March

1:01:29

in March 2024, the Special

1:01:32

Counsel's criminal enforcement actions have

1:01:34

been terminated, the court wrote.

1:01:36

The cases are closed, not

1:01:39

pending or contemplated, and therefore

1:01:41

are not proceeding with which

1:01:43

disclosure may interfere. Thus, the

1:01:45

agency's sole justification for invoking

1:01:48

the Glomar exemption. You can

1:01:50

look up Glomar. It's a

1:01:52

fun story. GLOMAR. That's the

1:01:55

legal case. that justifies the

1:01:57

I can't confirm or deny.

1:02:00

exception that the government sometimes

1:02:02

uses. Now what do they

1:02:04

use it? What's it designed

1:02:06

to be used for? What

1:02:09

is it typically used for?

1:02:11

Let's say the CIA is

1:02:13

asked for, give me a

1:02:15

list of spies that you

1:02:17

have sitting in the Kremlin.

1:02:19

Well the CIA is going

1:02:22

to come back, I can't

1:02:24

confirm or deny whether there

1:02:26

are any spies there, because

1:02:28

one way or the other

1:02:30

it's going to be helpful

1:02:32

to our enemies. Why on

1:02:35

earth that would apply to

1:02:37

communications with a district attorney

1:02:39

in Georgia? Trying to jail

1:02:41

a former president of the

1:02:43

United States? Obviously it doesn't,

1:02:46

but that's what the argument

1:02:48

was. And the court wrote

1:02:50

accordingly, because there are no

1:02:52

cases, the court will deny

1:02:54

DOJ's motion for summary judgment.

1:02:56

So the Justice Department. lost

1:02:59

against judicial watch in their

1:03:01

efforts to squelch our requests

1:03:03

for information on any collusion

1:03:05

they had with Fannie Willis.

1:03:07

And grant the plaintiff's cross-motion.

1:03:09

DOJ is directed to process

1:03:12

plaintiff judicial watch's request and

1:03:14

either quote disclose any responsive

1:03:16

records or establish both that

1:03:18

their contents are exempt from

1:03:20

disclosure and that such exemption

1:03:22

has not. also been waived.

1:03:25

President Trump truly needs to

1:03:27

overhaul, I was going to

1:03:29

say over hell, a Freudian

1:03:31

slip. It doesn't mean it's

1:03:33

not really a word, but

1:03:35

it still sounds funny. President

1:03:38

Trump truly needs to overhaul

1:03:40

the Justice Department from top

1:03:42

to bottom. It is a

1:03:44

scandal that a federal court

1:03:46

had to order the Justice

1:03:48

Department to admit the truth

1:03:51

that their objections to producing

1:03:53

records about collusion with Fannie

1:03:55

Willis no longer had any

1:03:57

basis in reality. So

1:04:02

we have many FOIA lawsuits

1:04:04

still pending on the Jacksmith

1:04:06

investigations. For example, he has

1:04:08

been, and the Justice Department

1:04:10

still is, hiding the names

1:04:12

of the top prosecutors that

1:04:14

were working for him in

1:04:16

the efforts to try to

1:04:18

jail Trump. That case is,

1:04:20

I think, before the appeals

1:04:22

court. Hey, Pam Bondi, Madam

1:04:24

Attorney General, call your office.

1:04:27

What's going on there? Give

1:04:29

us the documents. But

1:04:32

this is another victory against

1:04:34

the abusers targeting Trump, not

1:04:36

only in the Justice Department,

1:04:38

but down there in Fulton

1:04:40

County. And again, this is

1:04:42

what I love about judicial

1:04:44

watch. I love a lot

1:04:47

of things about judicial watch.

1:04:49

Is that we just don't

1:04:51

give up. Now, there are

1:04:53

times when we have to

1:04:55

stop, because the court says

1:04:57

you're lost. But these cases,

1:04:59

in this case, it took

1:05:01

nearly two years. We're coming

1:05:03

on two years. before we're

1:05:05

going to even fully litigate

1:05:07

the issue of what documents

1:05:09

they have or don't have.

1:05:11

Because for nearly a year

1:05:13

and a half they told

1:05:15

us we can't even tell

1:05:17

you whether we were colluding

1:05:19

with Fannie Willis. Again, that

1:05:22

was the position of this

1:05:24

Justice Department. We can't even

1:05:26

tell you if we talk

1:05:28

to Fannie. When I say

1:05:30

overhaul the Justice Department, I

1:05:32

think that's being charitable. That's

1:05:34

the sort of corruption and

1:05:36

secrecy and scandal that we

1:05:38

were facing. And we've had

1:05:40

the fight in federal court.

1:05:42

So we're thankful for the

1:05:44

court for, I guess, stating

1:05:46

the obvious, right? There's no

1:05:48

cases. So what's the issue?

1:05:50

What were you doing? So

1:05:52

this is part of the

1:05:54

reckoning and the accountability. for

1:05:57

the worst corruption in American

1:05:59

history, the misuse of federal,

1:06:01

state, law enforcement, or the

1:06:03

power to jail in order

1:06:05

to retaliate and violate the

1:06:07

civil rights of President Trump

1:06:09

and other American citizens. Fannie

1:06:11

Willis lost and now the

1:06:13

Justice Department is lost on

1:06:15

the issue of any potential

1:06:17

collusion issues related to Trump.

1:06:19

Judicial Watch is heavy lifting,

1:06:21

gets results. And it's only

1:06:23

because of the persistence and

1:06:25

really expert lawyering by our

1:06:27

team that we're able to

1:06:29

get the results we are

1:06:32

able to get. And I

1:06:34

would say, and I would

1:06:36

be remiss if I did

1:06:38

not say, without your support,

1:06:40

we wouldn't be able to

1:06:42

do any of this. So

1:06:44

I encourage you to continue

1:06:46

to support Judicial Watch.org if

1:06:48

you're having supported us before

1:06:50

or if you have. go

1:06:52

on over there and give

1:06:54

us another donation, because you

1:06:56

kind of see the work

1:06:58

we're able to do as

1:07:00

a result. So we filed

1:07:02

an important on moving to

1:07:04

the issue of elections. We

1:07:07

still got a lot of

1:07:09

election cases going. You know

1:07:11

that? We've got cases in

1:07:13

California, Illinois, Oregon, Mississippi, to

1:07:15

clean up the voter rolls,

1:07:17

to vindicate the rule of

1:07:19

law that you can't count

1:07:21

ballots that arrive after election

1:07:23

day. As

1:07:26

I've previously noted, our

1:07:28

work in this area

1:07:30

is cleaned up just

1:07:32

in the last few

1:07:34

years. Four million names

1:07:37

from the voter rolls.

1:07:39

Colorado, Pennsylvania, DC, New

1:07:41

York City, California, Kentucky,

1:07:43

North Carolina. I'm sure

1:07:45

I'm missing a few,

1:07:48

but huge. But

1:07:52

there's another area of law that we've

1:07:54

been involved in, which is the issue

1:07:56

of gerrymandering. And what is gerrymandering? Funny,

1:07:58

I was writing... or editing our release.

1:08:01

And we used the word Jerry Manor,

1:08:03

and I thought, you know, I wonder

1:08:05

if people know what that literally means.

1:08:07

I mean, we use it a lot

1:08:10

here in DC. And Jerry Mandarin, for

1:08:12

those of you who don't know exactly

1:08:14

what it means, you may have heard

1:08:16

the phrase, but what does it really

1:08:18

mean? It means basically, when it comes

1:08:21

time to figure out what congressional districts

1:08:23

look like, they move people around and

1:08:25

create districts that look ridiculous. in

1:08:28

order to guarantee certain results.

1:08:30

So, and both parties do

1:08:32

this to a certain extent.

1:08:35

We had a big case

1:08:37

in Maryland, for instance, where

1:08:39

they had a political gerrymander

1:08:42

to guarantee that Republicans would

1:08:44

only win in one district,

1:08:46

I think. And we weren't

1:08:48

looking for a specific electoral

1:08:51

result. We were looking for

1:08:53

an abuse in order to

1:08:55

get that electoral result, which

1:08:58

is... moving people into districts

1:09:00

that were not compact in

1:09:02

any sensible way and in

1:09:05

a way that basically erased

1:09:07

their vote. So imagine being,

1:09:09

for instance, in California and

1:09:11

being a resident of, I

1:09:14

don't know, Sonoma County. And

1:09:16

being in a district that

1:09:18

went down the middle of

1:09:21

the state into Los Angeles.

1:09:25

I mean, do you think that's

1:09:27

appropriate or proper? No. That's gerrymandering.

1:09:30

It was named after Eldridge Jerry,

1:09:32

or Gary, I think. Ronald Reagan

1:09:34

used to call it gerrymandering. He

1:09:37

hated Gary Mandarin, as he called

1:09:39

it. So it's been around for

1:09:42

as long as the Republic virtually.

1:09:44

So there's always going to be

1:09:46

a certain amount of... when a

1:09:49

political party controls the legislature that

1:09:51

has control over the apportionment process,

1:09:53

which sets the districts, there's always

1:09:56

going to be a certain amount

1:09:58

of gerrymandering. And

1:10:00

in many ways it's appropriate

1:10:02

in the sense that, well,

1:10:04

the majority party reflects the

1:10:06

votes of the citizens of

1:10:08

the state, and so the

1:10:11

citizens of the state are

1:10:13

going to get more members

1:10:15

of Congress that can accord

1:10:17

with the majority party currently

1:10:19

control the legislature. So I

1:10:21

understand the political nature of

1:10:23

it. You can't control it

1:10:25

completely, but you can mitigate

1:10:27

the worst aspects of it

1:10:29

in terms of the corruption

1:10:31

in a way that violates

1:10:33

the rule of law. But

1:10:35

it gets worse than just

1:10:37

the political side of it.

1:10:39

The left has decided, and

1:10:41

unfortunately the Supreme Court has

1:10:43

interpreted the law to allow

1:10:45

political gerrymandering based on the

1:10:47

color of your skin. And

1:10:49

what happens is they move

1:10:51

and essentially segregate voters by

1:10:53

race. to ensure what is

1:10:56

called majority minority districts in

1:10:58

order to ensure that Democrats

1:11:00

get elected and left-wing Democrats

1:11:02

get elected. And the Constitution,

1:11:04

I don't think, allows it.

1:11:06

And what the Supreme Court

1:11:08

has said was, well, you

1:11:10

can do it for gerrymandering,

1:11:12

but you can't for redistricting,

1:11:14

they called it. A race-conscious

1:11:16

decision-making, for instance in Harvard

1:11:18

admissions, is illegal. Well, how

1:11:20

does that work? It doesn't.

1:11:22

And that's why we filed

1:11:24

an amicus brief with the

1:11:26

Supreme Court as they're being

1:11:28

asked to reconsider this issue.

1:11:30

We filed an amicus curi

1:11:32

brief with our friends at

1:11:34

the Allied Educational Foundation that

1:11:36

often partners with us on

1:11:39

amicus curi briefs. These are

1:11:41

friend of court briefs that

1:11:43

judicial watch files, or attorneys

1:11:45

file, with courts, to help

1:11:47

them. or point out specific

1:11:49

legal issues in cases that

1:11:51

they're considering. Parties obviously are

1:11:53

doing the big heavy lifting

1:11:55

in the fights. Amicus briefs

1:11:57

and friend of court briefs

1:11:59

can provide extra oomf on

1:12:01

issues one way or the

1:12:03

other or even sometimes just

1:12:05

provide... factual issues or expert

1:12:07

advice or analysis to the

1:12:09

courts that the courts value

1:12:11

as they consider the cases.

1:12:13

So we're essentially asking the

1:12:15

Supreme Court to affirm a

1:12:17

lower court ruling that found

1:12:19

that using race to set

1:12:21

up congressional districts is an

1:12:24

abomination. And it was in

1:12:26

a Louisiana redistricting fight. from

1:12:28

just a few years ago.

1:12:30

In their amicus brief, as

1:12:32

are a meek eye brief,

1:12:34

because it's now more than

1:12:36

one person filing, or more

1:12:38

than one group, the court

1:12:40

has compared race-based districting to

1:12:42

segregation of public parks, buses,

1:12:44

and schools, and warned that

1:12:46

we should not be carving

1:12:48

electorates interracial blocks. There should

1:12:50

be no question that the

1:12:52

race-based division of citizens for

1:12:54

purposes of redistricting. is a

1:12:56

violation of the Equal Protection

1:12:58

Clause. The central purpose of

1:13:00

which is to prevent the

1:13:02

states from purposefully discriminating between

1:13:04

individuals on a base to

1:13:06

race. Racial gerrymandering, like all

1:13:09

racial classifications of any sort,

1:13:11

cause lasting harm to our

1:13:13

society because they reinforce the

1:13:15

belief held by too many

1:13:17

for too much of our

1:13:19

history that individuals should be

1:13:21

judged by the color of

1:13:23

their skin. We're

1:13:28

asking the Supreme Court to

1:13:30

put an end to race-based

1:13:32

congressional districting. The Biden administration,

1:13:34

by the way, jumped into

1:13:36

the case at the last

1:13:38

minute because they wanted to

1:13:40

help continue this monstrosity under

1:13:42

law. Seeking to maintain the

1:13:44

race-based status quo requiring separating

1:13:47

and segregating voters by race

1:13:49

for congressional elections. Now we're

1:13:51

hoping the Trump Justice Department

1:13:53

does, and we think it

1:13:55

should, Instead urged the court

1:13:57

to restore non-discrimination as the

1:13:59

foundation. of voting rights again.

1:14:01

So the court has, there's

1:14:03

this weird disconnect between court

1:14:05

rulings on using race to

1:14:07

put people in congressional districts

1:14:10

while disallowing race to put

1:14:12

people in schools. As a

1:14:14

basis to put people in

1:14:16

schools. Now, the left will

1:14:18

have you believe, well this

1:14:20

helps minorities. Does it help

1:14:22

minorities to be put in

1:14:24

the equivalent of a congressional

1:14:26

ghetto so some Democrats can

1:14:28

get elected? Where

1:14:32

does it help minorities to

1:14:35

have their political power separated

1:14:37

among various districts and where

1:14:40

they're given more of a

1:14:42

political oomph in, let's say,

1:14:45

Republican-leading districts? I mean, if

1:14:47

a Republican has a district

1:14:50

that has no minorities in

1:14:52

it, practically speaking, right? Because

1:14:55

Democrats have moved them all

1:14:57

to ensure they get elected

1:15:00

in their districts. Well,

1:15:03

why would a Republican pay

1:15:05

attention to the views of

1:15:07

minority groups in their voter

1:15:10

in terms of their voting

1:15:12

issues? Plus, it's illegal. We

1:15:14

shouldn't put people in congressional

1:15:16

districts on the basis of

1:15:19

race. The Constitution prohibits it.

1:15:21

You can't be denied equal

1:15:23

protection of law on the

1:15:26

basis of race. Does it

1:15:28

get any simpler than that?

1:15:30

Does it? Supreme Court? There

1:15:33

are some things only a

1:15:35

lawyer could do. Or only

1:15:37

a judge would allow with

1:15:40

all due respect. And we're

1:15:42

hoping the Supreme Court follows

1:15:44

judicial watches lead and the

1:15:47

lead of many other observers

1:15:49

who really want to end

1:15:51

the racial strife and division

1:15:54

here in the United States

1:15:56

that's furthered by encouraging politicians

1:15:58

in the states in the

1:16:01

states to segregate and separate

1:16:03

voters by race into congressional

1:16:05

districts. I just can't believe

1:16:08

that I even have to,

1:16:10

that we even have to

1:16:12

make the point to the

1:16:15

Supreme Court in this day

1:16:17

and age. By the way,

1:16:19

Judicial Watch is a leading

1:16:22

civil rights organization. The civil

1:16:24

rights organizations of the left

1:16:26

have now agreed that racism

1:16:29

is OK and discrimination is

1:16:31

OK. They've abandoned the field.

1:16:33

So it's up to groups

1:16:36

like Judicial Watch to take

1:16:38

the lead to enforce the

1:16:40

traditional understanding and interpretation of

1:16:43

the Constitution and civil rights

1:16:45

laws. The Constitution says equal

1:16:47

protection of the law based

1:16:50

on race, despite real race.

1:16:52

The left does not believe

1:16:54

that. In Evanston, Illinois, they're

1:16:57

giving out reparations, supposedly for

1:16:59

housing discrimination in the past.

1:17:01

And you don't have to

1:17:04

prove housing discrimination, but you

1:17:06

do have to identify as

1:17:08

an African-American or black. Whites

1:17:11

need not apply. Other races

1:17:13

need not apply. It's blatant

1:17:15

racism. That's why we filed

1:17:18

a federal civil rights lawsuit.

1:17:20

And we published this week.

1:17:22

in a formative educational new

1:17:25

video on the reparations fight

1:17:27

which the left is obsessed

1:17:29

with pursuing. The left is

1:17:32

obsessed with race-based reparations. Leftists

1:17:34

use reparations and other handouts

1:17:36

to redistribute wealth to favored

1:17:39

groups, purportedly to remedy systemic

1:17:41

racism and historical inequalities. The

1:17:43

nation's first race-based reparations program

1:17:46

was created by the city

1:17:48

of Evanston, Illinois. In 2021,

1:17:50

the Chicago suburb began earmarking

1:17:53

what would become $20 million

1:17:55

to pay $25,000 to persons

1:17:57

who identify as black or

1:18:00

African-American. It began approving cash

1:18:02

payments two years later. Called

1:18:04

the City of Evanston Local

1:18:07

Reparations Restorative Housing Program, the

1:18:09

scheme purports to remedy housing

1:18:11

discrimination in Evanston and explicitly

1:18:14

conditions eligibility eligibility on race.

1:18:16

Applicants need only show that

1:18:18

they identify as black or

1:18:21

African-American and that they or

1:18:23

a black or African-American ancestor

1:18:25

lived in Evanston at any

1:18:28

time between 1919 and 1969

1:18:30

and were at least 18

1:18:32

years old at the time.

1:18:35

Applicants need not prove that

1:18:37

they or their ancestors suffered

1:18:39

any actual discrimination by Evanston.

1:18:42

The children, grandchildren, and even

1:18:44

the great-grandchildren of persons who

1:18:46

lived in Evanston as many

1:18:49

as 106 years ago can

1:18:51

receive a payment. Whites, Hispanics,

1:18:53

Asians, or anyone identifying as

1:18:56

anything other than black or

1:18:58

African-American, need not apply. Renowned

1:19:00

economist Dr. Thomas Seoul describes

1:19:03

demands for reparations as a

1:19:05

stroke of genius to keep

1:19:07

blacks separated from other Americans

1:19:10

and an aggrieved constituency to

1:19:12

support black leaders in politics

1:19:14

organizations and movements. In 2024

1:19:17

judicial watch filed a federal

1:19:19

civil rights lawsuit challenging the

1:19:21

program on behalf of individuals

1:19:24

who would be eligible to

1:19:26

receive a $25,000 payment but

1:19:28

for their race. The lawsuit

1:19:31

argues that the program violates

1:19:33

the Equal Protection Clause of

1:19:35

the 14th Amendment to the

1:19:38

U.S. Constitution. This provision makes

1:19:40

treating people differently based on

1:19:42

their race presumptively unconstitutional. Judicial

1:19:45

Watch filed its lawsuit as

1:19:47

a class action because it

1:19:49

estimates that there are tens

1:19:52

of thousands of persons who,

1:19:54

like our clients, would be

1:19:56

eligible. to participate in the

1:19:59

program but for their race.

1:20:01

As US Supreme Court Chief

1:20:03

Justice John Roberts wrote in

1:20:06

a 2007 case, the way

1:20:08

to stop discrimination on the

1:20:10

basis of race is to

1:20:13

stop discriminating based on race.

1:20:15

Evanston's program discriminates on the

1:20:17

basis of race and is

1:20:20

unconstitutional as a result. Judicial

1:20:22

watches historic lawsuit not only

1:20:24

seeks to stop Evanston's unconstitutional

1:20:26

program, but also puts other

1:20:29

cities, counties, and states considering

1:20:31

reparations programs on notice that

1:20:33

race-based programs will not go

1:20:36

unchallenged in the courts. Because

1:20:38

no one is above the

1:20:40

law. That was a good

1:20:43

little video, huh? I encourage

1:20:45

you to share it with

1:20:47

your friends and your family.

1:20:50

your church, etc. We'll have

1:20:52

a link to it separately

1:20:54

below, but this is an

1:20:57

essential lawsuit. The left has

1:20:59

been watching us very carefully.

1:21:01

I talked to a reporter

1:21:04

from the Boston Globe the

1:21:06

other day. What's going on

1:21:08

is these other left-wing states

1:21:11

and cities are running commissions

1:21:13

to figure out if they

1:21:15

can do reparations. Well, they've

1:21:18

kind of been in a

1:21:20

holding pattern. Many observe not

1:21:22

just I'm not saying this

1:21:25

the left is saying this

1:21:27

practically speaking to the media

1:21:29

They're kind of waiting to

1:21:32

see how this case turns

1:21:34

out now hopefully the Biden

1:21:36

Well, I should it's not

1:21:39

longer. It's no longer the

1:21:41

Biden Justice Department. It's the

1:21:43

Trump Justice Department will take

1:21:46

some action here as well

1:21:48

But this is important. Do

1:21:50

you think that we should

1:21:53

begin? through these reparations programs

1:21:55

that are inherently antagonistic and

1:21:57

full of pernicious racial favoritism

1:22:00

and punishment? I don't. I

1:22:02

mean, not only is it

1:22:04

awful policy, but it's illegal

1:22:07

on its face. and that's

1:22:09

why we're in court right

1:22:11

now. So racial gerrymandering, no,

1:22:14

reparations, no, DEA, no. All

1:22:16

of those policies, CRT, no,

1:22:18

are designed to destroy America

1:22:21

and our way of life

1:22:23

by cleaving a vicious separation.

1:22:25

between the races. And that's

1:22:28

not the American way. So

1:22:30

what's Kamala Harris doing? You

1:22:32

may wonder. I don't know

1:22:35

what she's doing. I think

1:22:37

I saw her. She was

1:22:39

at a sports event. Did

1:22:42

I see a video over

1:22:44

at a sports event? I

1:22:46

guess the last video over

1:22:49

was she was out shopping.

1:22:51

So she's retired. I don't

1:22:53

blame her for trying to

1:22:56

take it easy. After her

1:22:58

coup. But

1:23:00

we're still interested in what

1:23:03

she was doing when she

1:23:05

was working at the Biden

1:23:07

White House as vice president.

1:23:10

That's why we sued the

1:23:12

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

1:23:15

and the Defense Department for

1:23:17

details about her travels. How

1:23:19

much, Kamala, did you spend

1:23:22

traveling around the world doing

1:23:24

what? People will debate. We

1:23:31

filed the FOIA lawsuit after

1:23:33

the Secret Service and the

1:23:35

Air Force failed to respond

1:23:38

to August 2024 requests for

1:23:40

all records concerning the use

1:23:42

of government funds to provide

1:23:44

security and or services to

1:23:46

Vice President Kamala Harris and

1:23:49

any companions while traveling. The

1:23:51

Biden White House website reports

1:23:53

that during her term as

1:23:55

Vice President Kamala Harris made

1:23:57

17 foreign trips traveling to

1:24:00

21 countries a meeting with

1:24:02

over 150 world leaders. But

1:24:04

there are no publicly available

1:24:06

flight logs or other records

1:24:08

that provide details about who

1:24:11

accompanied her on these trips.

1:24:13

Like remember when Joe Biden

1:24:15

went to China and Judicial

1:24:17

Watch figured out the details

1:24:19

about Hunter going along and

1:24:22

meeting with his... Chinese business

1:24:24

partners and Chinese leaders while

1:24:26

with Joe hanging around in

1:24:28

a way to advance their

1:24:30

business interests. Just before Vice

1:24:32

President Harris's last official trip

1:24:35

in early 2025 AP reported

1:24:37

that her husband Doug Emoff

1:24:39

was expected to accompany her

1:24:41

to Singapore Bahrain and Germany.

1:24:43

However, this is the only

1:24:46

non-governmental person specifically mentioned as

1:24:48

accompanying her on any official

1:24:50

trip. So not

1:24:52

only the flight log has been

1:24:54

hidden, but we don't know what

1:24:56

the costs are. And those costs

1:24:59

can be easily described to us

1:25:01

and reported. So it's what's going

1:25:03

on here. But let me take

1:25:05

a step back. During the Obama

1:25:07

administration, this is how we got

1:25:09

into this. I'll tell you the

1:25:11

story. President Obama came into the

1:25:13

Oval Office. And one of the

1:25:15

first things he did was he

1:25:17

made a big, it was a

1:25:19

big hullabaloo, of taking his wife

1:25:21

on a date night to New

1:25:24

York City. And I'm like, well,

1:25:26

that's cute, but how much did

1:25:28

it cost to bring him up

1:25:30

to New York City? Oh, well,

1:25:32

we know how to ask that

1:25:34

question. And so that's what generated

1:25:36

our interest in the cost of

1:25:38

presidential travel. Obama's date night up

1:25:40

to New York City. And by

1:25:42

the way, he didn't take Air

1:25:44

Force One, we found out. It

1:25:46

was a smaller airplane. And it

1:25:49

cost $29,000. So just so you

1:25:51

know. I think I'm going by

1:25:53

memory. It's now. I don't want

1:25:55

to. to know how long ago

1:25:57

2008 was. And so we followed

1:25:59

up with a series of FOIA

1:26:01

requests tracking his travel is basically

1:26:03

his unnecessary travel. We didn't track

1:26:05

official travel. And it just drove

1:26:07

the Obama people crazy because the

1:26:09

numbers didn't lie. We put him

1:26:12

out. It was straightforward analysis. And

1:26:14

they got attention every time we

1:26:16

put him out. And of course,

1:26:18

the big media wasn't interested in

1:26:20

it. And so when Trump came

1:26:22

in, you know, we have been

1:26:24

doing our basic travel voyage and

1:26:26

such, but the media all of

1:26:28

a sudden became interested in presidential

1:26:30

travel. And so we had a

1:26:32

few numbers out on Trump, and

1:26:34

I appeared on every, on the

1:26:37

three major networks talking about Trump

1:26:39

travel in the beginning of his

1:26:41

administration, you know, encouraging transparency and

1:26:43

he should take steps to, uh,

1:26:45

basically cut the cost of presidential

1:26:47

travel because it still costs too

1:26:49

much. He would be the first

1:26:51

to tell you that. In fact,

1:26:53

he did try to do that.

1:26:55

And of course, the media got

1:26:57

into the business of trying to

1:26:59

track presidential travel, started not only

1:27:02

foying the Secret Service, but the

1:27:04

Coast Guard and providing security, all

1:27:06

sorts of insane level of detail,

1:27:08

just to make it controversial for

1:27:10

Trump to engage in travel. Now,

1:27:12

of course, you know, he went

1:27:14

down to Maralago a lot or

1:27:16

up to New Jersey. during the

1:27:18

summer months, but as you know,

1:27:20

he was working all the time,

1:27:22

so we didn't think it was

1:27:25

the big as a deal, and

1:27:27

we didn't do as much because

1:27:29

all the media was doing it.

1:27:31

And of course, Biden comes along,

1:27:33

and what happens is the Secret

1:27:35

Service and specifically the Air Force,

1:27:37

they simply stop answering their requests.

1:27:39

So, you know... There was like

1:27:41

a series of 10 or 12

1:27:43

requests they completely ignored. We had

1:27:45

to sue over them, and they

1:27:47

promised they would respond in the

1:27:50

future to us after we got

1:27:52

the court involved. Well, here we

1:27:54

are again. We still can't get

1:27:56

a straight response. This is straightforward

1:27:58

information. Oh, press... Vice President Kamal

1:28:00

Harris took plane X, it costs

1:28:02

literally, they have hourly rates, the

1:28:04

hourly costs of aircraft, and it

1:28:06

changes over time. And you can

1:28:08

figure out what the cost of

1:28:10

the travel is. Secret service, we've

1:28:12

gotten, we know what the numbers

1:28:15

are for Secret Service costs because

1:28:17

they track the personal expenses of

1:28:19

the agents. So, you know, the

1:28:21

hotel bills, we get the hotel

1:28:23

bills. So this is not secret

1:28:25

material we're asking for. We've gotten

1:28:27

this material in the past and

1:28:29

they don't want to turn it

1:28:31

over and they haven't wanted to

1:28:33

turn it over for Kamala Harris.

1:28:35

Why do I think they were

1:28:37

covering up the cost of her

1:28:40

travel? Because the benefit the political

1:28:42

campaign of Joe Biden and then

1:28:44

Kamala Harris. Of course Harris was

1:28:46

on the ticket no matter what?

1:28:48

Hence we're in court. In

1:28:58

2021, Judicial Watch uncovered White

1:29:00

House travel records from the

1:29:02

Secret Service in response to

1:29:05

our FOIA requests. For all

1:29:07

records concerning the use of

1:29:09

government funds to provide security

1:29:12

and or other services to

1:29:14

Biden and any companions, the

1:29:16

records detail Secret Service travel

1:29:18

costs of $2.2 million for

1:29:21

Joe Biden through only August

1:29:23

8th of 2021, just the

1:29:25

first few eight months. And

1:29:28

then of course we received

1:29:30

records showing President, excuse not

1:29:32

President Biden. Hunter Biden, he

1:29:35

became president later when Joe

1:29:37

completely came out of it.

1:29:39

I'm just joking. I know

1:29:41

he literally wasn't president. Hunter

1:29:44

Biden traveled extensively while receiving

1:29:46

a Secret Service detail and

1:29:48

in that lawsuit, we uncovered

1:29:51

that Biden took 411 separate

1:29:53

domestic and international flights, including

1:29:55

29 different foreign countries. He

1:29:58

visited China five times. And

1:30:00

he dropped the Secret Service

1:30:02

Protection. shortly before the end

1:30:04

of the Obama term. And

1:30:07

of course, during the last

1:30:09

year and a half of

1:30:11

the Obama administration, when he

1:30:14

wasn't getting Secret Service protection

1:30:16

anymore, guess where he was

1:30:18

working? Orisma, Ukraine. We've gotten

1:30:21

records about Trump's travels, three

1:30:23

million dollars. and

1:30:26

$17 million for travel related to

1:30:29

President Trump. So we've been tracking

1:30:31

to travel no matter who the

1:30:33

president is. And I kind of

1:30:35

see it as a, you know,

1:30:38

we talk about the Department of

1:30:40

Government efficiency. The travel, the security

1:30:42

around the president is required. Right?

1:30:44

And the military, he's the commander-in-chief,

1:30:47

so the military has a lot

1:30:49

to do with the travel. You

1:30:51

know, they're responsible for it. So

1:30:53

the question is, how cheaply can

1:30:56

they do it in a way

1:30:58

that provides him the national security,

1:31:00

the typical security? He probably needs

1:31:03

Air Force One to travel, for

1:31:05

instance, to Florida. Does he need

1:31:07

it to travel to New York?

1:31:09

Maybe not. He may want it,

1:31:12

but he may not need it.

1:31:14

And we're just trying to get

1:31:16

people to be more sensitive to

1:31:18

be more sensitive to the costs.

1:31:22

And you know, we're not

1:31:24

just looking at presidential travel,

1:31:26

we've looked at congressional travel.

1:31:28

Ask your members of Congress,

1:31:31

this is a fun little

1:31:33

project, call your local member

1:31:35

of Congress, 202-225.3121. Ask for

1:31:37

your member of Congress and

1:31:39

say, I'd like to know

1:31:41

how many co-dales you have

1:31:43

gone on. And what is

1:31:45

a co-dale? That's short for

1:31:47

congressional delegations, which are typically,

1:31:49

co-dales are trips, congressional delegation

1:31:52

trips to... foreign countries. And

1:31:54

I'll let you decide whether

1:31:56

that's a value to the

1:31:58

American taxpayer. But ask how

1:32:00

many they go on. And

1:32:02

we had investigated Nancy Pelosi's

1:32:04

use of Air Force jets

1:32:06

to travel back and forth

1:32:08

through her home district. Remember

1:32:11

that controversy? It cost a

1:32:13

liquor on it. And just

1:32:15

how unpleasant people were in

1:32:17

Pelosi's office about dealing with

1:32:19

the Air Force. They were

1:32:21

gritting their teeth in dealing

1:32:23

with Pelosi's office. They were

1:32:25

so unpleasant. Like for

1:32:28

instance they were in a crisis

1:32:30

as I recall for the documents

1:32:32

like you get don't quote me

1:32:34

on this I know I'm saying

1:32:36

it on the internet, but you

1:32:38

can go look it up So

1:32:40

they needed a last-minute plane for

1:32:43

some sort of jaunt and Pelosi's

1:32:45

people were calling saying we need

1:32:47

this plane and they said well

1:32:49

we don't have that plane we

1:32:51

have this other plane. Oh, no.

1:32:53

They said they can fly commercial

1:32:56

instead You know obviously they can

1:32:58

turn in the ticket or get

1:33:00

the government to pay for it

1:33:02

outright. And you know what Pelosi's

1:33:04

people said? Well, yeah, we know

1:33:06

that's true, but you know how

1:33:08

it gets with the spouses. They

1:33:11

wanted the Air Force One type

1:33:13

plane for Congress, so the spouses

1:33:15

could go on the trip for

1:33:17

free. So I don't know, we

1:33:19

should start, I mean, we have

1:33:21

tracked, the co-dales have been less...

1:33:24

less in recent years, but they still run

1:33:26

them. But that's an area where Congress can

1:33:28

save money as well. So this is, I

1:33:31

think, an interesting part of judicial watches work.

1:33:33

Is it the most important thing that happens?

1:33:35

Well, maybe. I mean, look what covered with

1:33:37

Hunter Biden. I mean, we're just doing a

1:33:39

straightforward FOIA request about what's going on with

1:33:41

Hunter. And we found out he went to

1:33:44

China five times, and then you ditch secret

1:33:46

service service protection. No one knew that prior

1:33:48

to our FOIA. So it's going to be

1:33:50

interesting to find out what we can

1:33:52

out out about Harris. Harris. So

1:33:55

that, I wish you

1:33:57

the best, have a

1:33:59

great week, great week, much

1:34:01

going on here on here at

1:34:03

Judicial Watch. I'm surprised surprised we're

1:34:05

able to cover it

1:34:08

all tonight. tonight. I

1:34:10

wish you a wonderful

1:34:12

weekend and and I'll see

1:34:14

you here next time

1:34:16

on the Judicial Watch

1:34:19

Judicial Watch Weekly Update. for listening

1:34:21

to the Judicial Watch

1:34:23

Weekly Update with Tom

1:34:25

update For more Fitton. For

1:34:27

www visit www.

1:34:29

Judicial no one is

1:34:31

above the law. the law.