0:00

You're listening to the Judicial

0:02

Watch weekly update with Tom

0:04

Fittin. Hey everyone, Judicial Watch

0:07

President Tom Fittin here with

0:09

our weekly update on social media.

0:11

Thank you as always for joining

0:14

us this week. So much going

0:16

on. It's hard to keep up

0:18

with President Trump, but Judicial Watch

0:21

may actually be doing it. This

0:23

is going to be an action-packed

0:26

judicial watch weekly update with all

0:28

the litigation. and fighting for the

0:30

rule of law that judicial watch

0:33

is doing, getting documents out of

0:35

the crazed Biden HHS. You're not

0:38

going to believe, well,

0:40

probably you will believe,

0:42

but the extremism that

0:44

we've uncovered there, new

0:46

litigation potential over election

0:48

rolls, new outrageous demands

0:50

from the DC police

0:52

to turn over to judicial watch

0:55

under FOIA law. the body cam

0:57

videos from their police officers of

0:59

January 6th. Of course, we got

1:02

the president's speech to talk about so

1:04

much going on that I can't even

1:06

get into it. Plus, believe it or

1:08

not, we're battling the Trump administration

1:11

for documents about

1:13

abuse by the Biden administration,

1:16

specifically with USAID. So

1:18

let's begin at the beginning, which

1:20

is the president's speech and where

1:22

we are in the Trump presidency.

1:25

Now, I was not here last week, you

1:27

may recall, I was doing my update

1:29

from a secret location, but I

1:31

was running a meeting. In my

1:33

spare time, I'm the president of

1:35

the Council for National Policy. Here's

1:38

the tweet that described what we

1:40

were doing last week. I'm honored

1:42

to also be president of the Council

1:44

for National Policy. And we

1:46

just, and this was last week,

1:48

there was a tremendous private

1:50

meeting bringing together hundreds

1:52

of the countries. conservative

1:55

movement leaders and supporters.

1:57

I can report complete unity.

2:00

behind an excitement for the

2:02

record pace and substance of

2:04

real Donald Trump's reforms. Now

2:06

admittedly we're all conservatives right

2:08

there so maybe we're we're

2:10

not exactly representative of where

2:12

everyone is in the country

2:14

but we're pretty good selection

2:16

of regular Americans obviously conservative

2:18

movement leaders you know and

2:21

with Republicans sometimes we're all

2:23

not that happy with what

2:25

some Republicans are doing. But

2:27

people are completely astonished by

2:29

how quickly President Trump has

2:31

been able to move to

2:33

reform government and cut government

2:35

through his executive orders. We're

2:38

hopeful that Congress gets on

2:40

the ball and starts to

2:42

save money, cut government, and

2:45

further curtail inflationary pressures. Indeed,

2:47

President Trump's deregulatory efforts may

2:50

be as significant to curtailing

2:52

inflation as anything Congress is

2:54

able to do. Because when you

2:56

increase the cost of doing business

2:59

through needless and burdens in government

3:01

regulations, you increase inflation. So when

3:03

you have a major event like

3:05

the CMP event that I was

3:07

running last week of conservative movement

3:10

leaders, and you know, we have

3:12

public officials speak, it was really incredible.

3:15

And you have leaders who have been

3:17

around, some of whom have been around

3:19

for decades, well I've been around for

3:21

decades too, but decades longer than me.

3:24

talking about how Trump's

3:26

administration already is

3:28

the most significant

3:30

policy-wise in the modern

3:32

era. It's comparable to

3:35

Reagan in terms of its

3:37

impact on the government here

3:39

in Washington DC already and

3:41

he's only been in office

3:44

for what 40 or 50 days. And

3:46

so with that in mind, you

3:48

know, I get back to reality

3:50

a judicial watch after... running that

3:52

big meeting for the Council for

3:54

National Policy. And of course the

3:57

president has his major speech, his first

3:59

major national... speech before a joint

4:01

session of Congress the other

4:03

day. And what was the reaction

4:05

of the parties? Well, obviously

4:08

the Republicans are

4:10

supportive. And the Democrats

4:12

actually threatened him, at least

4:15

one Democrat threatened him.

4:17

Al Green, let's go to that.

4:19

We won the popular vote by

4:22

big numbers and won counties in

4:24

our country. in

4:52

our country, 2,700 to

4:55

525, but a map

4:58

that reads almost completely

5:00

read for Republican. Now

5:03

for the first time

5:05

in modern history, more

5:07

Americans believe that

5:10

our country is

5:12

headed in the

5:14

right direction than

5:16

the wrong direction.

5:19

In fact, it's

5:21

an astonishing record.

5:23

27 point swing

5:25

the most ever.

5:28

Likewise small

5:31

business optimism

5:34

so it's

5:37

single largest

5:40

one month

5:42

gain ever

5:45

recorded a

5:47

41 point

5:49

jump. to

5:56

uphold and maintain decorum in the

5:58

house and to cease. any further

6:01

disruptions. That's your warning. Members

6:03

are engaging in willful and

6:05

continuing breach of the quorum

6:07

and the chair is prepared

6:10

to direct the sergeant at

6:12

arms to restore order to

6:14

the joint session. Democratic caucus

6:16

there in the House, essentially

6:19

threatened the President of the

6:21

United States from the floor

6:23

of the House. He knows

6:25

what he's doing when he

6:28

brandishes his cane like a

6:30

weapon towards the President. That's

6:32

a threat. It's further incitement

6:34

as far as I'm concerned

6:37

for violence. He eventually was

6:39

removed by the Sergeant of

6:41

Arms, their security team. And

6:43

I'm tired of it. There's

6:46

got to be serious consequences

6:48

for this threatening behavior, this...

6:50

under current of violence, the

6:52

left is trying to format

6:55

with the targeting of Trump.

6:57

And that you would think

6:59

he'd be apologetic because the

7:01

Republicans and 10 Democrats actually

7:04

voted to censure him just

7:06

the other day. And this

7:08

is what the left-wing gang,

7:10

as I call them, the

7:13

Comis are going to Comi,

7:15

did. at the uh... during

7:17

the censorship reading where he

7:19

has supposedly well what happens

7:22

is he's supposed to come

7:24

down to the well of

7:26

the house up front and

7:28

be censured it's it's a

7:31

negative thing you know if

7:33

you remember congress you really

7:35

don't want it to happen

7:37

this is how they reacted

7:40

the house has resolved that

7:42

representative algreen be censured that

7:44

representative algreen forthwith present himself

7:46

in the well of the

7:49

house of representatives for the

7:51

pronouncement of censure and that

7:53

Representative Al Green be censured

7:55

with public reading of this

7:58

resolution by the Speaker. The

8:01

house had come to order. The

8:04

house had come to order. The

8:06

house had come to order. The

8:08

house had come to order. So

8:11

all these lefties got together with

8:13

him and started singing a civil

8:16

rights song. As again, he raises

8:18

what I consider something he's using.

8:20

as a substitute for a weapon,

8:23

his cane. When he walked down,

8:25

he wasn't using his cane to

8:27

walk. He was holding it. And

8:30

I'm not being fooled here, and

8:32

you shouldn't be fooled either. He

8:35

knows exactly what he's doing when

8:37

he brandishes that cane at the

8:39

president and then raises it up

8:42

as he's being punished for his

8:44

misconduct. As far as I'm concerned,

8:46

I know the Republicans now are

8:49

talking about stripping them of committee.

8:51

of any committee responsibilities taking them

8:54

off committees. But if you're threatening

8:56

the president from the floor, isn't

8:58

that worth being expelled over in

9:01

the House? Isn't that substantial enough

9:03

of violation of the rules of

9:05

the House to be thrown out

9:08

of the House of Representatives? I

9:10

think there should be debate about

9:13

that. Al Green should be subject

9:15

to a resolution for expulsion. and

9:17

let people come down on one

9:20

side or the other, whether it's

9:22

right to threaten a president of

9:25

the United States from the floor

9:27

of the House in such an

9:29

obviously, though coded, violent manner. And

9:32

it's time after time these leftist

9:34

congressmen are out there trying to

9:36

incite and target violence against President

9:39

Trump. A new, a relatively new

9:41

member of the House, Congressman Crockett,

9:44

I believe her last name is

9:46

Crockett, right? was on TV the

9:48

other day using inflammatory language to

9:51

again in sight and just to

9:53

justify violence against the president of

9:55

the United States. Let's play that.

9:58

Unfortunately, we have someone that is

10:00

occupying the White House, and as

10:03

far as I'm concerned, he is

10:05

an enemy to the United States.

10:07

He swore an oath just like

10:10

the rest of us. But right

10:12

now, when you are literally putting

10:14

us at risk, all because of

10:17

what? Because you want to convince

10:19

your followers that you should be

10:22

a dictator too, that you should

10:24

never leave the White House, because

10:26

you don't believe that elections should

10:29

take place. I don't really understand

10:31

what is going on, and

10:33

I don't know what

10:36

it's going to take

10:39

to get people to

10:41

wait. How would you

10:44

interpret what she said?

10:47

If someone is a

10:49

dictator and enemy of

10:52

the United States, all

10:54

bets are off, right,

10:57

and dealing with them.

11:00

They know what the

11:02

consequences that language is.

11:05

Again, President Trump was

11:08

nearly murdered twice. The

11:10

second time by a

11:13

crazed leftist, the first

11:15

time, it's amazing how

11:18

we're supposedly don't know

11:21

anything about the first

11:23

attempted assassin of President

11:26

Trump. And these leftists

11:29

are constantly out there

11:31

using language, as I

11:34

say to justify. violence

11:37

against him and his

11:39

supporters. You

11:46

know, of course they tried

11:48

to jail him. There's got

11:50

to be accountability for that.

11:52

I mean, the good news

11:54

is he is doing what

11:56

he can within the law

11:58

to protect the nation from

12:00

those who abused him and

12:02

his civil rights. Perkins Coy,

12:04

who was the law firm

12:06

for the Clinton campaign, who

12:08

was notoriously connected to paying

12:10

for and pushing and disguising

12:12

the money for the steel

12:14

operation to smear and generate

12:16

false allegations of Russia, Russia,

12:18

against Trump. They paid for

12:20

the steel dossier. They partnered

12:23

with the Biden. to pay

12:25

Christopher Steele to write the

12:27

dossier, the sham dossier targeting

12:29

Trump. And Trump's view on

12:31

all this is like, what

12:33

are these people who did

12:35

this to me? Why isn't

12:37

there been any accountability? And

12:39

wait, why did they have

12:41

security clearances? How can they

12:43

be trusted if this is

12:45

what they do? And security

12:47

clearances really can only, can

12:49

quickly be removed by the

12:51

President of the United States.

12:53

certainly other officials too. And

12:55

so he's taken steps to

12:57

remove the security clearances this

12:59

week of anyone associated with

13:02

Perkins Coy and he talked

13:04

about it in an executive

13:06

order during the signing of

13:08

the related executive order. Sir

13:10

your administration has made it

13:12

a priority both to end

13:14

law fair and the weaponization

13:16

of government and also to

13:18

hold those who have engaged

13:20

in law fair accountable. One

13:22

of those, one of the

13:24

law firms that has been

13:26

involved in that is called

13:28

Perkins Coi. That's also a

13:30

law firm that has engaged

13:32

in unlawful DEA practices. This

13:34

executive order will suspend. And

13:36

I've watched it take place.

13:38

This executive order will suspend

13:40

security clearances and access to

13:43

certain federal resources for that

13:45

law firm and also launch

13:47

a holistic review of unlawful

13:49

DEA practices at some of

13:51

the nation's largest law firms.

13:54

This is an absolute

13:56

honor to say what

13:58

they've done is It's

14:00

just terrible. It's weaponization.

14:02

You could say weaponization

14:04

against a political opponent,

14:06

and it should never

14:08

be allowed to happen

14:11

again. And you're looking

14:13

at about 15 different

14:15

firms? That or more,

14:17

sir, yes. Okay. and

14:19

he was confronted at

14:21

a reporter for supposedly

14:23

targeting his political opponents

14:26

and he had an

14:28

excellent comeback. Let's watch

14:30

this video. So, don't

14:32

talk to me about

14:34

targeting. You know, and

14:36

he will be targeted

14:38

again. He's already being

14:41

targeted. They're just biting

14:43

their time, figuring out

14:45

how they can get

14:47

it done. They're not

14:49

going to stop. They're

14:51

going to target people

14:53

around him. They're going

14:55

to target Elon Musk.

14:58

They've already been targeting

15:00

Musk. As I say,

15:02

they've been threatening violence

15:04

against him. I mean,

15:06

you have lawfare and

15:08

then, practically speaking political

15:10

warfare. in the dangerous

15:13

sense of the word

15:15

against President Trump. So

15:17

I'm glad he's calling

15:19

him out and doing

15:21

what he can, and

15:23

I just hope the

15:25

Justice Department or other

15:28

federal law enforcement or

15:30

any other appropriate agency

15:32

at the state level

15:34

investigate this corruption, expose

15:36

it fully. We're going

15:38

to court to expose

15:40

it. We've been doing

15:42

it for years. Sometimes

15:45

we've been alone defending

15:47

Trump. And I'm only

15:49

slightly exaggerating. I mean,

15:51

there was a time

15:53

in this town where...

15:55

All of that law

15:57

fair was seen as

16:00

appropriate against Trump. Mueller

16:02

was appointed, remember? And

16:04

all the Republicans said,

16:06

well, Mueller is a

16:08

respectable man. We got

16:10

to trust everything he's

16:12

saying. Oh, the FBI,

16:15

we're just going to

16:17

let the investigation run

16:19

its course. And I

16:21

said no. And we

16:23

exposed it as corrupt.

16:25

We said there was

16:27

no basis for it.

16:29

The whole special counsel

16:32

operation was, we didn't

16:34

say law fair at

16:36

the time. abuse of

16:38

power, presidential harassment, a

16:40

coup. And now everyone

16:42

understands it, or most

16:44

anyone who's honest understands

16:47

it, heck, he was

16:49

elected despite being literally

16:51

convicted by these coasters

16:53

or the kukable. The

16:57

anti-Republicans, and I use Republican

16:59

with the small are, they

17:02

don't like constitutional republics, especially

17:04

ours in our constitution, so

17:06

they want to blow it

17:08

up by targeting their political

17:10

opposition through extra constitutional means

17:12

in a way never done

17:15

before in American history. Now

17:19

there's low intensely law

17:21

fair going on in

17:23

the courts as the

17:25

president exercises his constitutional

17:27

prerogatives as president to

17:29

try to curtail and

17:31

control government spending. One

17:33

of the more outrageous

17:35

restrictions on that effort

17:37

came from a judge

17:39

here in Washington DC

17:41

who essentially ordered the

17:43

president to spend $2

17:45

billion. or his administration

17:47

to spend $2 billion

17:49

on foreign nationals. Because

17:51

he said the president

17:53

can't restrict it or

17:55

even pause it, including

17:57

money for the United

17:59

Nations. And it was

18:01

a hijacking of presidential power in

18:03

a way. I've never really seen

18:06

before. I can't believe a judge,

18:08

a federal judge. I know they're

18:10

leftists and such, but you think

18:13

they got enough understanding of the

18:15

way our Constitution works and the

18:17

separation of powers work to not

18:19

to dare to do this, but

18:22

all bets are off when it

18:24

comes to Trump. So he was

18:26

forcing Trump to spend $2 billion

18:28

on corrupt foreign. operations

18:31

like the United Nations. And

18:33

the president went to the

18:36

Supreme Court and said, you

18:38

got to stop this. This

18:40

money goes out the door,

18:43

we'll never get it again.

18:45

And the Supreme Court in

18:47

a 5-4 decision said, no,

18:50

we're going to leave it

18:52

in place. And it was

18:55

a terrible decision in my

18:57

view, or at least the

18:59

result was terrible, because the

19:02

majority really didn't explain itself.

19:04

It was incoherent. And who

19:06

was in the majority, disappointingly,

19:09

to put it charitably and

19:11

mildly, Chief Justice Roberts, and

19:13

Justice Amy Coney Barrett? And

19:16

Justice Alito and the other

19:18

justices, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh,

19:21

and Justice Thomas, dissented. And

19:23

Alito wrote quite a powerful

19:25

dissent. And I think it's

19:28

worth sharing with you. You

19:30

can read the full. opinion,

19:32

it's only a few pages

19:35

online, we'll provide a link

19:37

to it at the Supreme

19:40

Court website, and Justice Alito

19:42

really ripped into the majority

19:44

and really highlighted the threat

19:47

to our constitutional republic caused

19:49

by these rogue left-wing activist

19:51

judges. Now Judge Ali is

19:54

the lower court judge who

19:56

ordered President Trump to spend

19:59

money, basically he's not only

20:01

taking over the executive branch

20:03

function of... spending money but

20:06

also foreign policy because this

20:08

is money that impacts foreign

20:10

policy. The President's Commander-in-Chief, he's

20:13

the number, he's the guy

20:15

who represents us on foreign

20:17

policy. And this is the

20:20

lead of Justice Alito's dissent,

20:22

a powerful dissent. Does a

20:25

single district court judge, a

20:27

district court judge as a

20:29

federal court judge at the

20:32

basic level, who likely lacks

20:34

jurisdiction? Have the unchecked, let

20:36

me start over again, does

20:39

a single district court judge

20:41

who likely lacks jurisdiction have

20:44

the unchecked power to compel

20:46

the government of the United

20:48

States to pay out and

20:51

probably lose forever $2 billion

20:53

taxpayer dollars? The answer to

20:55

that question should be an

20:58

emphatic no, but a majority

21:00

of this court apparently thinks

21:03

otherwise thinks otherwise. I am

21:05

stunned. And later, and I

21:07

encourage you to read the

21:10

full thing, because they couldn't

21:12

even be under the law.

21:14

They weren't even supposed to

21:17

be before this judge. They

21:19

were in the wrong, literally

21:21

in the wrong court. It's

21:24

essentially a contract dispute. You

21:26

owe us money we want

21:29

it. How is that it

21:31

resolved in any court of

21:33

law? forcing a party who

21:36

objects to pay the money

21:38

immediately. But that's what happened.

21:40

Money to foreign entities. There's

21:43

something else I wanted to

21:45

read here. And he talks

21:48

about what the administration, Judge

21:50

Alito, wrote about what the

21:52

administration, Judge Alito, wrote about

21:55

what the administration was forced

21:57

to do. when faced with

21:59

this hijacking its core constitutional

22:02

powers by this rogue judge.

22:04

With nowhere else to turn,

22:07

and the deadline fast approaching,

22:09

this is on page three,

22:11

the government asked this court

22:14

to intervene at the last

22:16

moment. The Chief Justice issued

22:18

an administrative stay. And I

22:21

talked about that yesterday. It

22:23

was last week. There was

22:25

a pause to the ruling

22:28

initially. Unfortunately,

22:31

a majority is now undone

22:33

that stay. As a result,

22:35

the government must apparently pay

22:37

the $2 billion post-haste, not

22:40

because the law requires it,

22:42

but simply because a district

22:44

court so ordered. As the

22:46

nation's highest court, we have

22:49

a duty to ensure that

22:51

the power entrusted to federal

22:53

judges by the Constitution is

22:56

not abused. Today the court

22:58

fails to carry out. that

23:00

responsibility. And he concludes as

23:02

follows. And he goes through

23:05

the various reasons under, and

23:07

you should read it, because

23:09

it would, I encourage you

23:11

to read the Alito dissent

23:14

because it describes the processes

23:16

by which the left is,

23:18

are challenging Trump's executive orders

23:21

and how the law is

23:23

supposed to. and the

23:25

process under law that's supposed to

23:27

take place in order for those

23:29

challenges to succeed. So when you

23:31

see, well, so-and-so sued and a

23:34

court issued an injunction or a

23:36

TRO or whatever the nature of

23:38

it, Justice Alito explains what's supposed

23:40

to be happening and what actually

23:42

is happening in many of these

23:44

cases. So by looking at what

23:47

happened in this case, you have

23:49

an idea of what's happening in

23:51

these other cases, and frankly, it

23:53

all further highlights the... audacity of

23:55

these other judges in their anti-

23:57

trump rulings. And

24:01

Justice Alito closes out.

24:04

Today, the court makes

24:06

a most unfortunate misstep

24:08

that rewards an act

24:10

of judicial hubris and

24:12

imposes a $2 billion

24:14

penalty on American taxpayers.

24:17

The district court has

24:19

made plain its frustration

24:21

with the government and

24:23

respondents raised serious concerns

24:25

about nonpayment for completed

24:28

work. But the relief

24:30

ordered is quite simply

24:32

too broad. Let me

24:34

go the next page.

24:36

Two extreme a response.

24:38

A federal court has

24:41

many tools to address

24:43

a party's supposed nonfeasance.

24:45

Self-anggrandizement of its jurisdiction

24:47

is not one of

24:49

them. I would chart

24:52

a different path than

24:54

the court does today.

24:56

So I must respectfully

24:58

dissent. The judge

25:00

was exercising a power he

25:03

didn't have on a matter

25:05

over which he had no

25:07

jurisdiction. That's a pretty serious

25:09

point from a sitting Supreme

25:11

Court justice, even if he

25:13

is in dissent. Now does

25:16

this mean that Chief Justice

25:18

Roberts and Justice Amy Connie

25:20

Barrett are in the end

25:22

going to approve what happened

25:24

here? No. I

25:28

mean, the most charitable interpretation

25:30

is that they don't like

25:32

to have to make decisions

25:34

before the record below is

25:37

complete. But I'm not persuaded

25:39

that letting someone be forced

25:41

to spend $2 billion, you're

25:43

daylighting a dollar short in

25:45

terms of the abuse of

25:47

a lower court judge. So

25:49

you just can't let it

25:52

be fully complete, because essentially

25:54

hands of victory to the

25:56

other side. I

25:58

mean, oftentimes when Because

26:01

judicial watch can seek immediate

26:03

relief sometimes in matters, right?

26:05

Temporary restraining orders or preliminary

26:08

injunctions. The challenge with doing

26:10

that legally is that it

26:12

requires the court to almost

26:14

make an immediate ruling on

26:16

the merits. Now again, I'm

26:18

a non-lawyer, so take it

26:21

for what it's worth, but

26:23

this is my impression of

26:25

it. So you can go

26:27

in there, seek immediate relief,

26:29

and with the barest of

26:32

briefing, expect the court to

26:34

rule for you and you

26:36

could lose and if you

26:38

lose even if you pursue

26:40

the lawsuit further you're likely

26:42

to the court is largely

26:45

made the decision already. So

26:47

the mirror of that is

26:49

they rush into court ask

26:51

a court to order a

26:53

president of the United States

26:55

or his appointees to spend

26:58

money abroad. And

27:01

with zero briefing, practically speaking,

27:03

in a rush timeline, not

27:06

only does the district court

27:08

let it happen, the Supreme

27:10

Court lets it happen. And

27:12

so I'm sorry, even if

27:15

the conservative justices, Justice Roberts,

27:17

Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice

27:19

Barrett, come in later and

27:21

say, well, that was not

27:24

the way it was supposed

27:26

to go. Well,

27:29

a lot of good that is

27:32

a lot of good that is

27:34

because the damage is done. We've

27:36

lost the two billion dollars that

27:38

should have been spent. Do you

27:41

think we're going to be able

27:43

to clot back? Of course not.

27:45

So this was a miscarriage of

27:48

justice. And it's concerning because a

27:50

judge hijacked powers or took on

27:52

powers, stole powers that are not

27:54

available to him under the Constitution

27:57

of the United States. Self-government

28:00

means, consent of the government

28:02

means we elect the president,

28:05

we don't elect judges, to

28:07

make decisions on foreign policy,

28:10

including money, to make sure

28:12

it's being spent correctly and

28:15

not at odds with our

28:17

interests and not in a

28:20

fraudulent manner. And the idea

28:22

that someone can rush into

28:24

court and prevent that from

28:27

happening within minutes, but on

28:29

the other hand, he's winning

28:32

some and losing some. There's

28:34

like a hundred lawsuits now

28:37

against Trump. over his reform

28:39

efforts. A judge just today

28:42

ruled, you might think it's

28:44

an obvious decision, but it

28:46

required weeks of litigation, just

28:49

ruled that Treasury Department employees

28:51

of President Trump can access

28:54

Treasury Department data. That's right,

28:56

the left was going in

28:59

there to suggest an asking

29:01

a court, and in fact,

29:04

one court even broadly prevented

29:06

even the treasury secretary from

29:09

accessing treasury data. They had

29:11

to back down from that.

29:13

But this is where we

29:16

are, where a federal court

29:18

judge has to say, yes,

29:21

the president's officials can access

29:23

agency data at which they

29:26

work. So he's got to

29:28

keep on keeping on. And,

29:31

you know, let's hope the

29:33

judges, we get more judges

29:35

who state the obvious, presidents

29:38

can be president. That's the

29:40

argument here before the judges,

29:43

or many of the judges.

29:45

Can the president be president?

29:48

Can President Trump be president?

29:50

Meaning, exercise the powers and

29:53

responsibilities and obligations, duties. the

29:55

chief executive, the power of

29:57

the chief executive. executive function

30:00

resides with the President of

30:02

the United States. Not the

30:05

judiciary. Now does it mean

30:07

he's not subject to the

30:10

checks and balances of the

30:12

Article 3 courts? And Congress,

30:15

of course not. But here

30:17

you have people coming in

30:19

and trying to stop something

30:22

in a way that's outside

30:24

the law. And it's a

30:27

threat to our republic. It's

30:29

a threat to our self-government,

30:32

because it requires judges to

30:34

come in and substitute their

30:37

will, their sheer political will,

30:39

an exercise of raw judicial

30:42

power, and take away our

30:44

right to self-government. So we'll

30:46

keep on watching that. We'll

30:49

intervene where we'll intervene where

30:51

we'll intervene. monitor what's

30:54

happening. We've got our FOIA operations

30:56

up and running in ways that

30:58

we've never done before, just to

31:00

track everything that's been going on,

31:03

especially the left's attempts, to thwart

31:05

the rule of law. And of

31:07

course, we're not forgetting about the

31:10

law fair. And as I mentioned

31:12

last week, and I think it's

31:14

worth reiterating, we were in court

31:17

last week against Fanny Willis's lawyers,

31:19

and it was a really... yet

31:22

another extraordinary moment in terms

31:24

of forcing accountability on this

31:26

local district attorney Fulton County

31:28

of local Democrat elected there

31:30

who single-handedly has been trying

31:33

to jail and file the

31:35

case which is still over

31:37

you know is still hanging

31:39

over President Trump's head to

31:41

try to throw him in

31:43

jail. And I talked about

31:46

it in a quick video

31:48

I did earlier this week.

31:56

Hey, so judicial watch attorneys were

31:58

back in Footland County last. week

32:00

arguing against Fanny Willis's lawyers for

32:03

access to information about her collusion

32:05

with the Pelosi January 6th operation.

32:07

Remember, she first denied in our

32:10

lawsuit having any records. In fact,

32:12

she never showed up in court

32:14

to answer our lawsuit. That's why

32:16

she was ordered to pay $22,000

32:19

in attorney's fees and cost to

32:21

judicial watch recently. Last week, after

32:23

arguing they had no records, and

32:26

then later arguing they had some

32:28

records, they confirmed they had 212

32:30

pages of records showing what looks

32:33

to be collusion with the January

32:35

6th Committee. Of course, they don't

32:37

want to give any of those

32:39

records to the American people. The

32:42

court ordered her office to turn

32:44

the records over to him, so

32:46

he could make sure that being

32:49

withheld lawfully. But in the end,

32:51

they were caught, red-handed. providing false

32:53

information about their collusion with the

32:55

January 6th committee to get Trump.

32:58

They were forced to pay us

33:00

money and on top of that

33:02

they don't want to turn over

33:05

the underlying documents. So the scandal

33:07

continues and judicial watch is heavy

33:09

lifting will continue in court though

33:11

to try to get the full

33:14

truth about this awful abuse targeting

33:16

President Trump. So this is on

33:18

top of Fannie Willis being essentially

33:21

thrown off the case. because of

33:23

her conflicts of interest by it

33:25

because of her using tax money

33:27

to pay her boyfriend to go

33:30

after Trump. And then she follows

33:32

up with this misconduct related to

33:34

her handling of this simple FOIA

33:37

request. And the reason we now

33:39

know it's not simple is because

33:41

she didn't want to admit, her

33:43

office didn't want to admit to

33:46

coordinating their get-trap effort with the

33:48

Democrats in Congress up here in

33:50

Washington DC. The Pelosi gang... running

33:53

the january six committee Now there

33:55

are 212 pages of documents they

33:57

didn't tell us about for months

34:00

and months and months. And of

34:02

course they don't want to turn

34:04

over any of the records to

34:06

us. So thankfully the court said,

34:09

at least I'm going to look

34:11

at them to see if there's

34:13

any significant or legitimate privilege. And

34:16

here's a little snippet from the

34:18

court hearing in that regard. Have

34:22

I said things that leave either

34:24

side with a lack of clarity

34:26

as to what's happening next? Because

34:29

I don't mean for that. I

34:31

know it's a little bit amorphous

34:33

because you want some time Mr.

34:35

Monroe to consult with your client

34:37

and flesh out. Here's what I,

34:39

meaning plaintiff petitioner, would like to

34:41

see in this affidavit describing how

34:43

the search was conducted. I'll enter

34:45

an order that says I'm taking

34:47

this under the 212 pages. in

34:49

camera to review that. So that's

34:51

in the record. It's in the

34:54

transcript right now, but that ought

34:56

to be demarcated on this date.

34:58

County attorney, you got four days

35:00

to bring me the documents or

35:02

48 hours or whatever it is.

35:04

And then we'll all know where

35:06

those are because if I get

35:08

distracted by something else that maybe

35:10

happened in 2024 and there's someone

35:12

sitting in jail. then you'd be

35:14

able to say, judge, you've been

35:16

sitting on only 212 pages for

35:18

a month, that's, you know, 12

35:21

hours a page, let's go. And

35:23

I'll, so you're right, I gotta

35:25

turn back to that. But at

35:27

least there'll be that marker saying,

35:29

here's where we are in the

35:31

process. Well, I'm glad I saw

35:33

that again. I didn't realize he

35:35

had ordered her to turn him

35:37

over within four days. So right

35:39

now, that that court has the

35:41

records that we want, right. Right.

35:43

So we're going to have to

35:46

still litigate over whether we get

35:48

the records, whether the search was

35:50

appropriate. You know, this is now

35:52

the fifth search they conducted in

35:54

order to get records. And this

35:56

is why we've asked for a

35:58

special master, which would be a

36:00

court-appointed individual, who would oversee and

36:02

be in part... responsible for making

36:04

sure the search is appropriate, among

36:06

other issues. And we still don't

36:08

have a clue as to how

36:11

they searched or where they searched

36:13

and why they keep on finding

36:15

records every time they do a

36:17

new search. And plus, she didn't

36:19

show up in court to answer

36:21

our lawsuit. As far as I'm

36:23

concerned, she waived all these privileges.

36:25

You don't show up, you lose.

36:27

Literally, she's already lost. And

36:32

this is quite the scandal. And

36:34

of course, Congress has these emails,

36:36

or at least they ought to

36:38

have any communications. And there needs

36:40

to be an investigation as to

36:43

where those records are, and if

36:45

they are not there, meaning they've

36:47

been deleted, I hope there is

36:49

consequences. And that's up to Speaker

36:51

Johnson and his team to figure

36:53

that out. I

36:59

mean, right now we are

37:01

doing more than any other

37:03

entity and more successfully at

37:05

this point to whole finding

37:07

will us accountable to the

37:09

rule of law. Your judicial

37:12

watch. So our team of

37:14

lawyers, Mr. Monroe, our local

37:16

lawyer, Russ Nobiel, our team

37:18

Paul and everyone else, up

37:20

here in Washington, D.C., that

37:22

runs our legal department. I'm

37:27

honored to be represented

37:30

as President of Judicial

37:32

Watch, the corporate plaintiff

37:35

in this regard. We

37:37

want Georgia officials to

37:40

follow our lead, we

37:42

want Georgia officials to

37:45

follow our lead over

37:47

this cover up in

37:50

Fulton County. I mean

37:52

judicial watch is happy,

37:55

happy to do the

37:57

heavy lifting. It's

38:00

what we're here for, right?

38:02

But isn't it outrageous that

38:05

we're the ones doing it?

38:07

We're the ones figuring out

38:09

that they were hiding collusion

38:11

records? Congress has been asking

38:14

for these records. They've gotten

38:16

nowhere. They've literally gotten nowhere.

38:18

So more needs to be

38:20

done, and your judicial watch

38:23

will continue to hold not

38:25

only Fannie Willis, but the

38:27

other. Co-conspirators in her in

38:30

their plot the Democratic left-wing

38:32

plot to destroy our republic

38:34

by trying to jail Trump

38:36

and worse Man, there is

38:39

so much going on I'm

38:41

kind of hungry. So what's

38:43

one of the reasons I'm

38:46

a little bit angrier than

38:48

normal today It's not because

38:50

things are worse, it's just

38:52

because I'm hungry. But I

38:55

was in court, again, as

38:57

client for Judicial Watch, and

38:59

Jim Peterson was representing us

39:02

today. We're in federal court

39:04

before Judge Reggie Walton, here

39:06

in the District of Columbia.

39:08

And across the room from

39:11

us was a lawyer for

39:13

the Trump administration. A federal

39:15

government lawyer who came in.

39:17

and argued on behalf of

39:20

the United States Agency for

39:22

International Development, USAID, why Judicial

39:24

Watch and the American people

39:27

shouldn't gain access to the

39:29

details of a grant the

39:31

USAID made to an entity

39:33

in Gaza, to the tune

39:36

of $7 million and counting.

39:38

They don't want to tell

39:40

us the name, what the

39:43

grant was for, what they

39:45

were expected to do, who

39:47

they were expected to help,

39:49

none of those details. And

39:52

this is a position. first

39:54

generated or created under the

39:56

administration last year when we

39:59

first started asking for this

40:01

record and suing for these

40:03

records in court. And then

40:05

just recently, the Trump administration

40:08

ratifies it by saying, oh

40:10

yeah, this is our legal

40:12

position. We can't get information

40:14

about who they're helping in

40:17

Gaza. Now what

40:19

is our concern about that? It's

40:21

because USAID money and humanitarian money

40:24

generally from the West, it's notoriously

40:26

everyone who's been watching the situation

40:28

has any expertise in the area,

40:31

knows that that money goes to

40:33

help Hamas and terrorists generally. Now

40:36

does it mean it doesn't help

40:38

some people? Of course it helps

40:40

some people. They're spending so much

40:43

darn money. But it empowers and

40:45

ables and usually benefits the terrorists

40:47

as well. I guarantee you that's

40:50

the reason we can't get the

40:52

info. And they come up with

40:55

these new reasons. There's always a

40:57

new reason not to get information

40:59

out of this gang. And I'm

41:02

disappointed that Pam Bonny's Justice Department

41:04

and Marco Rubio's State Department has

41:07

a lawyer in court arguing against

41:09

us. I mean, come on. I

41:14

mean, it's one thing

41:16

to be arguing in

41:19

the Biden administration over

41:21

this. I can't believe

41:24

we're doing this now.

41:26

Man, I'm so angry

41:29

I can't even read

41:32

the paper I got.

41:34

X USAID official says

41:37

Biden ditched vetting reforms

41:39

as his administration steered

41:42

vetting reforms as his

41:44

administration steered That's from

41:47

the daily, excuse me,

41:49

the free beacon. Testified

41:52

to Congress. I

42:00

approve strong vetting policies for

42:02

humanitarian assistance in countries swarming

42:05

with terrorists. That too was

42:07

ignored by the Biden administration,

42:09

said this former USAID official.

42:11

He added that vast sums

42:14

of U.S. money have been

42:16

diverted to fund terrorists in

42:18

Gaza, Yemen, and Afghanistan and

42:20

NGOs have been hit with

42:23

heavy fines for violating our

42:25

anti-terrorism financing laws. And

42:28

so they come up with new

42:30

excuses to cover up what I

42:33

believe is likely what happened is

42:35

that they gave a $7 million

42:37

grant plus upwards of $20 million,

42:40

$24 million, depending on your count

42:42

the numbers, to these Gaza recipients

42:44

with little or no check as

42:46

to what they were doing with

42:49

it. Heck, the reason they don't

42:51

want to tell us, oh, here's

42:53

the press release. Judicial

42:57

Watch, USAID won't, USAID

42:59

won't reveal aid recipients

43:02

in Gaza. Marco Rubio,

43:04

what's going on? You're

43:06

now running USAID. Why

43:09

are you allowing this

43:11

to take place? Pam

43:13

Bondi, you're running FOIA.

43:16

You set to foil

43:18

legal positions for the

43:20

federal government. Your attorneys

43:23

in the Justice Department,

43:25

US Attorney for DC.

43:28

They're defending the indefensible,

43:30

coming up with new

43:32

arguments to keep the

43:35

American people from finding

43:37

out what Biden was

43:39

doing in Gaza. So

43:42

they produce the records,

43:44

USAID, but they just

43:46

don't want to tell

43:49

us any detail about.

43:51

What what where the

43:53

money went to or

43:56

who it went to?

44:03

Go to

44:06

the first

44:08

batch, as

44:10

you can

44:12

see it

44:14

better, maybe

44:17

in the

44:19

first batch.

44:21

Go to

44:23

page... Go

44:25

to page

44:28

2. Go

44:30

to page

44:32

2. You

44:37

see this? Acknowledge,

44:39

that's the person

44:42

who signed it.

44:44

B6, privacy. See

44:47

what else we

44:50

got here. Go

44:52

to page 21

44:55

and 99 in

44:57

the PDF. Overhead

45:12

management, they don't even

45:14

want to tell us what

45:16

the cost were for

45:19

overhead. Okay, now go back

45:21

to, go down further

45:23

to page 35, 34 of

45:26

the document. This is

45:28

where the rubber reads the

45:30

road in terms of

45:32

information. All of this is

45:35

basic information about who's

45:37

being helped. Who's the money

45:39

being directed to? What's

45:41

it being directed for? Let's

45:44

go down one page.

45:46

All of that. All of

45:48

this is blacked out.

45:50

Now the government's very smart.

45:53

There's $7 million. That's

45:55

the initial outlay. They don't

45:57

want to tell us

45:59

anything. Total number of people

46:02

affected in the target

46:04

area. Before. targeted before. How

46:06

is that a secret?

46:08

B4 is commercial secrets. These

46:11

are non-profits receiving money.

46:13

What's the commercially protected information

46:15

in a grant for

46:17

charitable activity in a war

46:20

zone? And this is

46:22

the excuse they're using. They

46:27

gave us what's known as

46:29

a Vaughan Index. A Vaughan

46:31

Index is a name given

46:34

to what's called a privilege

46:36

log, which lists the documents

46:38

or lists the reasons. And

46:41

it's designed to provide information

46:43

to a requester for information

46:45

as to what records they're

46:48

withholding and why. So

46:50

because we can't, you know, they

46:52

obviously, if they want to withhold

46:55

records, they can't give us the

46:57

records and then say you can't,

46:59

you can't read them, that's not

47:01

going to happen. So they have

47:04

to give us some information and

47:06

so we can argue about it.

47:08

And this is what they say.

47:10

Parties to the conflict in Gaza

47:13

have specifically targeted and killed aid

47:15

workers, targeted relief agency operations that

47:17

targeted and destroyed health facilities and

47:19

other civilian targets and other civilian

47:22

targets. due to highly challenging and

47:24

unpredictable operating environments for humanitarian operations,

47:26

the exemption is required to protect

47:29

the employees and beneficiaries of the

47:31

NGOs working in Gaza from the

47:33

harassment and violence. Disclosure of the

47:35

name of the NGO would allow

47:38

third parties to determine the identities

47:40

employees and beneficiaries. So they could

47:42

give a trillion dollars to Gaza

47:44

and under that new rule, which

47:47

has never been imposed on any

47:49

FOIA, requester as best we can

47:51

understand it. We've got a lot

47:53

of experience 30 plus years of

47:56

doing for it. There's no one

47:58

with more experience in this town

48:00

than your judicial watch. USAID is

48:02

saying we can't find out who

48:05

they're giving money to in Gaza.

48:07

Now, if that makes no sense

48:09

to you, I'll explain to you

48:12

what the reason is. When something

48:14

doesn't make any sense in a

48:16

government situation, it's almost always politics.

48:18

So the Biden administration realized, oh

48:21

my gosh, this is what I'm

48:23

speculating based on my experience. The

48:27

Biden administration realized, oh, we're

48:29

going to get caught giving

48:32

money to terrorist-related groups. So

48:34

let's come up with a

48:36

reason to hide the recipient.

48:38

And for whatever the Trump

48:40

administration took the argument and

48:42

is running with it and

48:44

was arguing for that position

48:47

in federal court today. So

48:49

forgive me for being a

48:51

little upset when... The

48:58

Trump Justice Department and State

49:00

Department come in and argue

49:02

for this outrageous secrecy. And

49:04

I guarantee you, President Trump,

49:06

if he knew he'd be

49:08

outraged, he'd be as outraged

49:10

as I am. Rubio, would

49:12

he be as outraged as

49:15

I am? I think so.

49:17

Pam Bodi would probably agree

49:19

with me. And as far

49:21

as I could, you know,

49:23

but people say, well, how

49:25

can they know that? Well,

49:27

they're supposed to know what's

49:29

happening. or should know what's

49:31

happening. Secretary Rubio is now,

49:33

I think the acting head

49:35

of USAID, practically speaking, and

49:37

FOIA is a big deal.

49:39

Certainly Pam Boni knows FOIA.

49:41

She's been involved in a

49:43

FOIA controversy over Epstein. And

49:45

it's not like we're not

49:47

talking about it. I mean,

49:49

I've been talking about this

49:51

on social media, and judicial

49:53

watch has, for weeks. If

49:55

not months. We

50:00

go to the social media

50:03

feed, look at our tweets

50:05

on Gaza and such, and

50:08

people are upset that judicial

50:10

watches having to fight, still

50:13

fight for this basic information.

50:15

Now, Judge Walton, he said

50:18

he was perplexed by the

50:20

government's position. Citing commercial secrecy.

50:22

and privacy to hide information

50:25

about who's getting money in

50:27

Gaza. Never before used to

50:30

keep this type of information

50:32

from the American people as

50:35

I say as best we

50:37

can tell. And then of

50:39

course you know then then

50:42

you have to fight about

50:44

how much longer we want

50:47

to fight about it. The

50:49

government wanted to fight about

50:52

it for two extra months

50:54

and we said come on

50:57

we've been fighting about it

50:59

for months you wouldn't even...

51:01

come to an agreement with

51:04

us about getting a schedule

51:06

in place that allows us

51:09

to vet these issues before

51:11

the court. And now you

51:14

come in and now you

51:16

say you want an extra

51:18

two months. So the court

51:21

paired back the request. So

51:23

it's going to be at

51:26

least two more months before

51:28

the litigation. These issues are

51:31

fully briefed. But of course,

51:33

what can happen in the

51:36

meantime is that they can

51:38

just release the information. Who

51:40

are you giving money to?

51:43

What are they doing with

51:45

it? What's it for? It's

51:48

not a state secret. So

51:50

we get all these documents,

51:53

right? Look at all these

51:55

documents. And no information. Unexpected.

51:57

So I'll keep you updated.

52:00

Trump administration changes its mind

52:02

and releases his information and

52:05

stops wasting our time, our

52:07

resources, and the government's time

52:10

and resources defending the indefensible.

52:12

And if not, we'll just

52:15

keep on battling in court

52:17

to get the transparency about

52:19

a Biden administration scandal that

52:22

is now being defended by

52:24

the Trump administration. I

52:29

found some more

52:32

USAID money, grants.

52:34

Another Biden administration

52:37

scandal was the

52:39

hijacking of virtually

52:41

every government entity

52:44

on behalf of

52:46

extremist agendas on

52:48

cultural issues during

52:51

the Biden administration.

52:53

I mean they

52:55

were obsessed with

52:58

abortion, obsessed with

53:00

transgender. extremism and

53:02

mutilation of children.

53:05

It was really

53:07

a crazy period.

53:10

And it's one

53:12

of the reasons

53:14

the successor to

53:17

the Biden administration,

53:19

the Harris campaign,

53:21

was rejected. The

53:24

American people were

53:26

uncomfortable about this.

53:28

And there was

53:31

this like fanatic

53:33

interest in the

53:35

mutilation of children.

53:38

through transgender extremists.

53:40

And so this

53:42

person was obsessed

53:45

with. getting kids

53:47

mutilated through operation.

53:50

that were largely

53:52

irreversible. Terrible, terrible

53:54

activity. And so

53:57

Judicial Watch filed

53:59

a foil request

54:01

and then lawsuit

54:04

for records about

54:06

what Admiral Levine

54:08

was up to.

54:11

And it goes

54:13

beyond the transgender

54:15

extremism to something

54:18

much more or

54:20

something as egregious.

54:23

We've asked for

54:25

the following information.

54:32

We ask for the

54:34

records of Levine and

54:36

other officials regarding the

54:38

removal of the minimum

54:40

age for the treatment

54:42

of children in the

54:44

World Professional Association for

54:46

Transgender Health Standards of

54:48

Care. And that's a

54:50

radical left-wing group that

54:52

promotes transgender extremist mutilation

54:54

of children and frankly

54:56

adults. I mean that

54:58

that process So

55:01

radical, so experimental, there's no

55:03

way anyone can give informed

55:05

consent for it. And the

55:08

fact that any child or

55:10

adult can engage in, well,

55:12

maybe not any child, given

55:14

the states, trying to clamp

55:17

down on it, and thankfully

55:19

the Trump administration is trying

55:21

to clamp down on it,

55:23

but the fact that it's

55:25

legal or ethical to do

55:28

in anywhere in this world.

55:30

is a legal problem that

55:32

needs to be solved in

55:34

my view. But of course

55:36

with the transgender extremism, it

55:39

goes hand in hand with

55:41

the other cultural extremism, especially

55:43

on abortion. Now I believe

55:45

life begins at conception, it's

55:48

not I believe, it's I

55:50

acknowledge the biological reality, and

55:52

I believe it deserves protection

55:54

from conception on. Others don't.

55:57

But I tell you

55:59

most Americans want some

56:01

restraint restrictions on abortion.

56:03

Most Americans want some

56:05

restrictions on abortion and

56:07

they reject the extremist

56:10

view of abortion on

56:12

demand for any reason.

56:14

If you can get

56:16

a doctor to do

56:18

it, you can get

56:20

an abortion up till

56:22

the moment of birth.

56:24

And the debating issue

56:26

is they even support

56:28

abortion. Of course, it's

56:30

not really abortion. after

56:33

birth, but that's another

56:35

matter. And we see

56:37

this abortion extremism in

56:39

these documents tied up

56:41

with this advocacy that

56:43

Levine was involved in.

56:45

We've got 115 pages

56:47

of records. It was

56:49

just the first production,

56:51

so more may be

56:54

coming. As a result

56:56

of our lawsuit against

56:58

HHS. Shows the Biden

57:00

administration. following the Dobbs

57:02

decision which overturned Roe

57:04

versus Wade considered declaring

57:06

a public health emergency

57:08

so women could kill

57:10

their unborn babies and

57:12

using federal lands to

57:14

provide abortion services. So

57:17

you thought federal lands

57:19

were to provide mineral

57:21

and energy wealth and

57:23

for the American people.

57:25

You thought federal lands

57:27

were used to provide

57:29

rest relaxation and protection

57:31

of wildlife and the

57:33

environment? No, the left

57:35

wanted to use federal

57:38

lands to kill the

57:40

next generation of Americans

57:42

through abortion. That's according

57:44

to the documents we

57:46

were able to uncover.

57:48

Here are the 115

57:50

pages. The

58:00

record. Years include a

58:02

briefing memo to Levine

58:04

which contains talking points

58:07

for a meeting she

58:09

was having with another

58:12

left-wing extremist, Patty Murray

58:14

who's a Democratic Senator

58:16

from, where is she

58:19

from, Patty Murray's Washington

58:21

State, Office of the

58:24

Assistant Secretary of Health,

58:26

her work, or Levine's

58:31

Long COVID, LGBTI, plus. I

58:33

don't know what the plus

58:35

means. What does the plus

58:37

mean? Anyone know? Reproductive health

58:40

access. A section of the

58:42

briefing memo entitled Public Health

58:44

Emergency asks an official public

58:46

health emergency if an official

58:49

public health emergency will be

58:51

declared. A prepared answer says.

58:53

The Biden Harris administration is

58:55

never going to fight to

58:57

stop to protect to stop

59:00

fighting to protect access to

59:02

abortion care. So maybe, right?

59:04

The following question is, then

59:06

says, what did the president

59:09

mean when he said he

59:11

directed his team to look

59:13

into whether he is the

59:15

authority to declare public health

59:17

emergency? and you said everything

59:20

is on the table what

59:22

is that what about federal

59:24

lands the prepared answer is

59:26

the team has been evaluating

59:28

every option including a public

59:31

health emergency when we looked

59:33

at declaring a public health

59:35

emergency we learned a couple

59:37

of things one is it

59:40

doesn't free very many resources

59:42

for example what's in public

59:44

health emergency fund there's very

59:46

little money tens of dollars

59:48

of tens of thousands of

59:51

dollars in it so yes

59:53

but they were they were

59:55

to be able to do

59:57

much with it And as

59:59

it relates to federal lands,

1:00:02

the answer says, this is

1:00:04

again a prepared answer by

1:00:06

the government of Joe Biden.

1:00:08

As I've continued to say,

1:00:11

we're exploring many options. However,

1:00:13

we at HHS are not

1:00:15

expert experts on public lands.

1:00:17

So that's a big maybe.

1:00:19

And then they talk about

1:00:22

all the great work they're

1:00:24

doing. And they talk about

1:00:26

decarbonization of, oh, this is

1:00:28

classic. Yeah,

1:00:32

they wanted to decarbonize

1:00:34

health care. I'm not

1:00:36

going to try to

1:00:38

explain it to you.

1:00:40

You can look it

1:00:43

up. But that's insanity.

1:00:45

That's how extreme, you

1:00:47

know, it's this transgenderism,

1:00:49

craze support for abortion

1:00:51

on demand and decarbonization.

1:00:53

These leftists, it's like,

1:00:56

you know, it's, they

1:00:58

talk about, you know,

1:01:00

knee-jerk left-wing reactions. I

1:01:02

mean, it's pro-abortion means

1:01:04

being pro-transgender extremism, means

1:01:07

destroying our civilization through

1:01:09

decarbonization. I've got 115

1:01:11

pages. I'm not going

1:01:13

to go through them

1:01:15

all, but I want

1:01:18

you to read them

1:01:20

to see what the

1:01:22

Biden administration was up

1:01:24

to last year or

1:01:26

the last few years.

1:01:29

The records contain an

1:01:31

agenda for a trip

1:01:33

by Admiral Levine to

1:01:35

Florida. This is what

1:01:37

she was doing in

1:01:40

Florida, or he. A

1:01:42

trans and non-binary youth

1:01:44

event. So what the

1:01:46

heck does that mean?

1:01:48

Why is an adult

1:01:51

going down to talk

1:01:53

about sex with youth?

1:01:55

A government official. at

1:01:57

the federal level. An

1:01:59

appearance of photo up

1:02:02

at the Pulse Night

1:02:04

Club Memorial site in

1:02:06

Orlando, that was an

1:02:08

area of a terrorist

1:02:10

attack, which we are,

1:02:13

which I, well actually

1:02:15

that's good. I'm glad

1:02:17

Levine went over there

1:02:19

because that terrorist attack

1:02:21

has been buried because

1:02:24

it was an Islamic

1:02:26

extremist who did it

1:02:28

and the FBI could

1:02:30

have stopped it but

1:02:32

didn't. A meeting at

1:02:35

the at a health

1:02:37

care center in Miami

1:02:39

to advocate for children

1:02:41

under five to receive

1:02:43

the COVID vaccine. So

1:02:46

Admiral Levine, who is

1:02:48

an extremist, is trying

1:02:50

to give the COVID

1:02:52

vaccine to kids under

1:02:54

five. Need I repeat

1:02:57

the arguments over why

1:02:59

that's a bad idea

1:03:01

and controversial? who the

1:03:03

agenda describes as the

1:03:05

first position like it

1:03:08

in the world to

1:03:10

coordinate heat protection efforts

1:03:12

for vulnerable communities. Now,

1:03:14

hey, did you know

1:03:16

by the way that

1:03:18

cold kills more people

1:03:21

than heat? There you

1:03:23

go. A gender affirming

1:03:25

care, trans health roundtable.

1:03:27

Code for extremist transgender

1:03:29

mutilation mutilation. a meeting

1:03:32

in lunch with officers

1:03:34

of take VA pride

1:03:36

event, an event hosted

1:03:38

by the Department of

1:03:40

Veterans Affairs, specifically designed

1:03:43

to celebrate and support

1:03:45

LGBT plus veterans. And

1:03:47

this is a classic.

1:03:49

There's another event she

1:03:51

attended down in Miami,

1:03:54

it looks like. And

1:03:57

this is what, this is

1:04:00

the briefing. HHS under Biden

1:04:02

is committed to using every

1:04:04

tool or toolbox to ensure

1:04:07

health equity for all, that's

1:04:09

communism, Marxism. This includes actions

1:04:12

like NIH, National Institute of

1:04:14

Health, increasing funding on gender

1:04:17

affirming procedures, promoting extremist mutilation

1:04:19

of children and adults, to

1:04:22

further develop the evidence based

1:04:24

for improved standards of care.

1:04:32

It's an essential health benefit

1:04:34

they want transgender extremist mutilations

1:04:36

to be. As I say

1:04:39

in our release, Admiral Levine

1:04:41

and the Biden administration were

1:04:44

quite simply obsessed with promoting

1:04:46

the transgender extremist mutilation of

1:04:48

children. The Department of Government

1:04:51

Efficiency doge, and quite frankly

1:04:53

law enforcement, should do a

1:04:55

thorough scan of what Levine

1:04:58

was up to. Misusing

1:05:01

government money to promote

1:05:04

dangerous procedures for children?

1:05:06

That's to be subject

1:05:09

to investigation. So

1:05:30

I told you about the

1:05:32

January 6th lawsuit we have

1:05:34

against the DC Police. We

1:05:37

are asking for the body

1:05:39

cam videos of police officers

1:05:41

from the District of Columbia,

1:05:44

the Metropolitan Police Department here,

1:05:46

from the January 6th incident.

1:05:48

And they for months have

1:05:51

told us, you can't have.

1:05:53

You can't have. You can't

1:05:55

have. You can't have. You

1:05:58

can't have. You can't have.

1:06:00

You can't have. You can't

1:06:02

have. You can't have. because

1:06:04

they're subject or they can

1:06:07

be used and their release

1:06:09

could impact ongoing criminal investigations

1:06:11

or law enforcement proceedings, which

1:06:14

is bunk. Videos of police

1:06:16

officers involved in doing police

1:06:18

work are released all the

1:06:21

time long before enforcement proceedings

1:06:23

are commenced or even contemplated

1:06:25

or even engaged in. So

1:06:28

they're hiding the records from us.

1:06:31

Now when they insert law enforcement

1:06:33

proceedings, it's kind of difficult to

1:06:35

get over it, but we've been

1:06:38

litigating it and it had been

1:06:40

resolved that we sued in the

1:06:43

local court here in Washington DC,

1:06:45

the Superior Court. So we went

1:06:47

back to them after President

1:06:49

Trump pardoned the January 6th defendants

1:06:52

and those who were prosecuted. Basically

1:06:54

shut down the January 6th jihad

1:06:57

against Trump supporters. run by the

1:06:59

Biden gang and a corrupt justice

1:07:01

department and other government officials. And

1:07:04

so in light of that, there's

1:07:06

no ongoing criminal investigation. So we

1:07:09

said to the DC Police Department,

1:07:11

our lawyer Michael Pekesha did, well,

1:07:13

do you have a change in

1:07:16

position? So they come back to

1:07:18

us and say, oh yeah. No

1:07:21

more law enforcement proceeding, but we're

1:07:23

worried about the privacy of people

1:07:25

in these videos taken in a

1:07:28

public space. And so we

1:07:30

want to pixelate them, essentially just,

1:07:32

you know, blur out the faces.

1:07:35

And you can't know who the

1:07:37

police officers were who were involved.

1:07:39

Why? I don't know. There's no

1:07:42

privacy interest there that I think

1:07:44

is legitimate. And not only that,

1:07:47

but they wanted to charge us

1:07:49

of $1.5 million for doing it.

1:07:51

Now, many people noted that that

1:07:54

sounds like extortion. That's like saying

1:07:56

no. Do you think judicial watch

1:07:59

to spend $1.5 million to get

1:08:01

videos that don't show face- that

1:08:03

are public records of an event

1:08:06

that happened five years ago. The

1:08:08

biggest event we are told

1:08:10

in the history of the nation

1:08:13

and this DC police government, this

1:08:15

DC police department and the DC

1:08:17

government refuses to turn it over

1:08:20

to us unless we fork over

1:08:22

$1.5 billion in non-profit funds. That's

1:08:25

where we stand. I did a

1:08:27

quick video on it. a

1:08:30

little less angrily earlier this week.

1:08:32

So judicial watched soon for the

1:08:35

DC police body cam videos from

1:08:37

January 6th. They didn't want to

1:08:39

give us one video practically speaking

1:08:42

because supposedly they were ongoing criminal

1:08:44

investigations which was a excuse as

1:08:46

opposed to a reason. Then President

1:08:48

Trump, of course, pardoned all the

1:08:51

January 6 defendants and targets. So

1:08:53

that excuse were thrown out the

1:08:55

window. But then the DC government

1:08:58

came back to us and told

1:09:00

us we had to pay them

1:09:02

$1.5 million to get access to

1:09:04

the body cam footage from January

1:09:07

6, which is an outrageous and

1:09:09

exorbitant fee that's designed to prevent

1:09:11

public access. to videos that should

1:09:13

have been released years ago. So

1:09:16

we're going to keep on doing

1:09:18

the heavy lifting, fighting in court.

1:09:20

But clearly, the DC police has

1:09:23

body clam videos on January 6.

1:09:25

They don't want you to see.

1:09:27

So Judicial Watch has been suing

1:09:29

in court for all sorts of

1:09:32

January 6 material. We sued the

1:09:34

DC. I mean,

1:09:36

we sued the Congress for

1:09:38

access to the videos as

1:09:40

a result of our litigation

1:09:42

and public pressure. They released

1:09:44

the videos. We're still hiding

1:09:46

emails from that day, though.

1:09:48

We've sued and obtained records

1:09:50

about National Park Police. Other

1:09:53

responses to January 6, we

1:09:55

just sued over Mark Millie's

1:09:57

involvement in January 6. January

1:09:59

6th, did you know CIA

1:10:01

was there on January 6th,

1:10:03

to provide response support? How

1:10:05

did that work? And so

1:10:07

now we have the basic

1:10:09

body cam video of DC

1:10:11

police officers there that day.

1:10:13

You know, DC police provided

1:10:15

significant support during the disturbance.

1:10:17

So there's a lot of

1:10:19

video to be reviewed. and

1:10:21

disclosed to the American people.

1:10:23

They say there's a thousand

1:10:25

hours. The government does. And

1:10:27

so they told us they

1:10:29

want 1.5 million dollars. Now

1:10:32

we have to figure out

1:10:34

what to do to negotiate

1:10:36

for the money, you know,

1:10:38

negotiate it down. How much

1:10:40

would we be willing to

1:10:42

spend? Is there process to

1:10:44

protect the so-called privacy of

1:10:46

people that don't have really

1:10:48

any privacy, any fair expectation

1:10:50

of privacy? Do we challenge

1:10:52

that we challenge that? Those

1:10:54

are all the issues that

1:10:56

we have to kind of

1:10:58

think through. But in the

1:11:00

meantime, obviously, always the DC

1:11:02

government can release the videos

1:11:04

at any time. But this

1:11:06

is what Judicial Watch, you

1:11:08

know, it's one thing to

1:11:11

say, oh, release the videos.

1:11:13

It's one thing to say,

1:11:15

release the records, release the

1:11:17

email. It's a lot of

1:11:19

heavy lifting to get, literally,

1:11:21

the time of day from

1:11:23

the government. Nothing is easy

1:11:25

in this regard. And it's

1:11:27

a remarkable testament to judicial

1:11:29

watches, perseverance, persistence, expertise, and

1:11:31

wide public support that allows

1:11:33

us to do all this

1:11:35

work, that we are able

1:11:37

to get accountability, get these

1:11:39

documents out there, get a

1:11:41

hold of the fact that

1:11:43

there are documents to be

1:11:45

gotten, and at least fight

1:11:47

about them in court in

1:11:50

a way that results either

1:11:52

in their release. or an

1:11:54

adjudication of what's withheld versus

1:11:56

what isn't withheld. So then

1:11:58

Congress has been able to

1:12:00

accomplish, you ask a member

1:12:02

of Congress, they admire judicial

1:12:04

watch, both the left and

1:12:06

the right, for our ability

1:12:08

to get this information. Here,

1:12:10

this key January 6 information.

1:12:12

If we want to pony

1:12:14

up the money, we might

1:12:16

be able to get some

1:12:18

big videos out there in

1:12:20

terms of what happened that

1:12:22

day. We are in the

1:12:24

lead again on this important

1:12:26

issue, which is January 6.

1:12:29

an event which the left

1:12:31

is used to try to

1:12:33

destroy our constitutional republic by

1:12:35

jailing their political opponents, including

1:12:37

President Trump. So yeah, it's

1:12:39

a big deal. It's not

1:12:41

the big deal they think

1:12:43

it is. It's a big

1:12:45

deal because of their abuse

1:12:47

and misuse of the event

1:12:49

that day to abuse the

1:12:51

civil rights of millions of

1:12:53

Americans. And we're seeing that

1:12:55

the January 6th videos, all

1:12:57

of which could be released,

1:12:59

there's clearly something there that

1:13:01

the government doesn't want release.

1:13:03

Otherwise, they wouldn't be trying

1:13:05

to charge this abusive amount

1:13:08

of money, $1.5 million, to

1:13:10

judicial watch to get the

1:13:12

records. So I'll keep you

1:13:14

updated as we proceed, but

1:13:16

DC, by the way, is

1:13:18

a creature of Congress, constitutionally

1:13:20

speaking. So it's fair to

1:13:22

ask Congress, what are they

1:13:24

going to do about this

1:13:26

as well? And what I

1:13:28

love about judicial watches, like

1:13:30

there are these scandals that

1:13:32

pop up, and we just

1:13:34

don't give up on them.

1:13:36

We're like, well, that's interesting.

1:13:38

The media may move on.

1:13:40

Sometimes the public may forget

1:13:42

about it because other issues

1:13:44

pop up, but they're still

1:13:47

interested in it. And we're

1:13:49

like a dog with a

1:13:51

bone. And accordingly, or to

1:13:53

that end, we just sued

1:13:55

the Department of Homeland Security

1:13:57

for information. on any communist

1:13:59

party of China connections. to

1:14:01

Governor Tim Wals, who was

1:14:03

the vice presidential nominee for

1:14:05

the Democratic Party. You may recall

1:14:07

he was a big fan of China.

1:14:09

He went there repeatedly, all

1:14:12

sorts of visits, and there were

1:14:14

concerns that he was a

1:14:16

target of Chinese intelligence. And so

1:14:19

we asked the Department

1:14:21

of Homeland Security because there was

1:14:23

a whistleblower who said there was

1:14:25

a there there. in terms of

1:14:27

concerns about this. So we wanted

1:14:29

the details. He's a governor of

1:14:32

Minnesota. He was a vice presidential

1:14:34

candidate. The issue popped up because

1:14:36

it's in the middle of the

1:14:38

political campaign. No one thinks that,

1:14:40

you know, obviously the Biden

1:14:42

administration is going to protect him.

1:14:44

But we still have a right to know.

1:14:46

And he's still a major political

1:14:49

figure. He may run for president

1:14:51

again. That was the news this week. Or

1:14:53

run for president the first time. I

1:14:55

don't know if he's run before. So

1:14:59

we sued back in October, or

1:15:01

excuse me, requested back in

1:15:03

October, the following records. All

1:15:06

documents and communications, and the

1:15:08

Department of Homeland Security, Microsoft

1:15:10

Teams Group chat, and we

1:15:12

provide some detail, referring or relating

1:15:15

to Minnesota Governor, Tim Walsh,

1:15:17

all intelligence information reports

1:15:19

and regional intelligence

1:15:21

notes, and regional intelligence

1:15:23

information reports and regional

1:15:26

intelligence notes, related

1:15:29

to Minnesota Governor Tim

1:15:31

Walsh, and all requests for

1:15:34

assistance or referrals to

1:15:37

other federal agencies regarding

1:15:39

Minnesota Governor Tim Walsh. So

1:15:42

this is about his China

1:15:44

connections. That's what the references.

1:15:47

On October 29th, same day

1:15:49

of the request, so we saw it

1:15:51

and we went, oh, we want

1:15:54

these records. House Oversight Committee

1:15:56

Chairman James Comer. said a

1:15:58

Homeland Security whistleblower

1:16:00

told his committee that Walsh was

1:16:02

a target of the Chinese Communist

1:16:04

Party as someone they can get

1:16:06

to DC. The whistleblower also

1:16:09

disclosed that officials from the

1:16:11

DHS's Office of Intelligence and

1:16:13

Analysis and Homeland Security Investigations

1:16:16

have been involved in the

1:16:18

department's investigative and or intelligence

1:16:21

work connected with the CCP,

1:16:23

the state of Minnesota, and

1:16:25

Governor Walsh. So there's

1:16:27

a whistleblower saying

1:16:30

HHS has stuff

1:16:32

was investigating CCP

1:16:34

connections, Communist Chinese connections

1:16:36

to Tim Walsh. So we

1:16:38

asked for the records. And

1:16:41

we've got the Heisman, right?

1:16:43

And that's why we sued. Quite

1:16:45

simply, there's a massive

1:16:47

cover-up of what the deep

1:16:50

state knows about Tim Walsh's

1:16:52

connections. to

1:16:55

the Chinese Communist Party.

1:16:57

Secretary Noam, who is

1:16:59

now the head of Homeland

1:17:01

Security under President Trump, should

1:17:03

quickly release any records in

1:17:06

response to Digital Watch's

1:17:08

lawsuit. So do the search, anything

1:17:10

you find, respond to Judicial

1:17:12

Watch, and disclose it. Simple.

1:17:15

Let us know what records there are.

1:17:17

If you've got to hide them

1:17:19

for whatever reason, there are exceptions

1:17:21

under law, I guess they can

1:17:24

invoke. but answer our

1:17:26

request. And

1:17:28

last but

1:17:30

not least,

1:17:33

election integrity.

1:17:36

As I've explained

1:17:40

to you before,

1:17:42

election integrity.

1:17:46

As I've explained

1:17:49

to you before,

1:17:52

Judicial Watch is the national

1:17:55

leader in using the National

1:17:57

Voter Registration Act to require...

1:18:00

states and localities to clean

1:18:02

up the voter rolls. We've

1:18:05

done it in California to

1:18:07

the tune of 1.2 million

1:18:09

names, nearly 450,000 names here

1:18:12

in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, North

1:18:14

Carolina, Kentucky, Colorado, Colorado. We

1:18:17

have a lawsuit in California,

1:18:19

ongoing, a lawsuit in Illinois,

1:18:22

ongoing, a lawsuit in Oregon,

1:18:24

ongoing. So the

1:18:26

states are supposed to be cleaning

1:18:29

up the rolls in a regular

1:18:31

way, and they're not doing it.

1:18:33

And it's not a high bar.

1:18:35

They just have to take basic

1:18:37

steps. And judicial watch's litigation has

1:18:39

led to the removal, just in

1:18:41

the last two years or so,

1:18:43

of four million-plus names from the

1:18:45

voter rolls, dirty names that should

1:18:47

have been there, should have been

1:18:49

removed, were only removed as a

1:18:51

result of judicial watch's litigation and

1:18:54

other legal action. And another

1:18:56

aspect of our work is being

1:18:58

sure that the law is followed

1:19:00

with respect to gaining access to

1:19:02

the voter registration list. That means

1:19:05

when we ask for the list

1:19:07

and to find out what the

1:19:09

agent, what the states have been

1:19:11

doing or the localities have been

1:19:13

doing in terms of maintaining the

1:19:15

files to make sure they're taking

1:19:17

out old names, people who die,

1:19:20

people who move away, other ineligible

1:19:22

names, that we're not denied. And

1:19:24

what happens is certain states have

1:19:26

passed laws to make it difficult

1:19:28

to gain access to this information.

1:19:30

And we've fought back in one

1:19:33

in various states, such as Illinois

1:19:35

and Maryland. Well, the problem in

1:19:37

Utah is they still have a

1:19:39

law in the books, Utah state

1:19:41

law, make it difficult to gain

1:19:43

access to records or even use

1:19:46

them to get election integrity measures

1:19:48

in place such as cleaning up

1:19:50

the rolls. And we sent a

1:19:52

notice letter. to the state of

1:19:54

Utah saying this law is outside

1:19:56

the four corners or what is

1:19:58

allowed under the federal law the

1:20:01

National Voter Registration Act because your

1:20:03

voting list are nearly impossible to

1:20:05

get to for the reasons that

1:20:07

I've highlighted here. Not only that,

1:20:09

in Utah, they allow voters to

1:20:11

keep their names off the voter

1:20:14

registration list for alleged privacy issues.

1:20:16

So we don't even know who's

1:20:18

registered to vote in large measure

1:20:20

as a result of that rule.

1:20:23

And so Judicial Watch sent

1:20:25

what is called a notice

1:20:27

of violation letter under the

1:20:29

National Voter Registration Act pursuant

1:20:31

to the rules that allow

1:20:33

us to gain access to

1:20:35

this information. And we ask

1:20:37

Utah, take a look at

1:20:39

your law, it's not appropriate

1:20:41

under federal law, and if

1:20:44

you don't fix it or

1:20:46

take steps to resolve this

1:20:48

issue, we can sue in

1:20:50

90 days. And

1:20:53

we don't make idle threats.

1:20:55

I mean, this is what

1:20:57

we do under law to

1:20:59

initiate the lawsuits I talked

1:21:01

about already that have broken

1:21:03

through the stone walls to

1:21:05

gain access to voter registration

1:21:07

data and to not only

1:21:09

that clean up the voter

1:21:12

registration list. Judicial Watch explains

1:21:14

in our letter that the

1:21:16

National Voter Registration Act was

1:21:18

intended both to increase the

1:21:20

number of eligible citizens who

1:21:22

register and to protect the

1:21:24

integrity of the electoral process

1:21:26

and ensure that accurate and

1:21:28

current voter registrations, registration rolls

1:21:30

are maintained. It requires states

1:21:33

to maintain for at least

1:21:35

two years and make available

1:21:37

for public inspection all records

1:21:39

concerning the implementation of programs

1:21:41

conducted for ensuring the accuracy

1:21:43

of voting rolls. So

1:21:47

our expert lawyers, we've got

1:21:49

expert election law lawyers that

1:21:52

top in the nation, looked

1:21:54

at voters, looked at Utah's

1:21:56

registration law, and found that

1:21:59

it fails to ensure compliance

1:22:01

with federal record maintenance and

1:22:03

public disclosure requirements and limits

1:22:06

the public's ability to conduct

1:22:08

reasonable election integrity analysis. The

1:22:11

absence of necessary provisions in

1:22:13

Utah's voter registration law directly

1:22:15

contravenes the federal mandate under

1:22:18

MVRA. We warned Utah in

1:22:20

our letter. And here's the

1:22:22

letter. We can pop the

1:22:25

letter up on screen. You

1:22:28

can't see it from here,

1:22:30

but you can see it.

1:22:32

There it is. So it

1:22:34

was dated March 3rd. So

1:22:36

they got three months from

1:22:38

March 3rd to get their

1:22:40

act together. In July of

1:22:42

2022, we settled a federal

1:22:44

election integrity lawsuit against Illinois,

1:22:47

requiring it to grant access

1:22:49

to its centralized statewide list

1:22:51

of registered voters. State officials

1:22:53

had refused to allow the

1:22:55

non-profit Illinois conservative union and

1:22:57

three lawfully registered Illinois voters

1:22:59

to attain a copy of

1:23:01

the state's voter registration list

1:23:03

and despite their lawful request

1:23:05

for those records, despite their

1:23:07

lawful request for those records,

1:23:09

despite their lawful request for

1:23:11

those records under federal law.

1:23:13

And so in essence we

1:23:15

won. We settled and got

1:23:17

access to the list. I

1:23:19

think if I recall correctly

1:23:22

in Illinois they said, well

1:23:24

you can look at the

1:23:26

list but you have to

1:23:28

go down to a computer

1:23:30

terminal and Springfield going on

1:23:32

memory here but I'm close

1:23:34

enough for the... for government

1:23:36

work, but you had to

1:23:38

come down, you could look

1:23:40

at each registration one at

1:23:42

a time, which obviously is

1:23:44

absurd if you're trying to

1:23:46

figure out whether the lists

1:23:48

are being maintained accurately and

1:23:50

properly under federal law. In

1:23:52

short, Utah law makes it

1:23:54

impossible and even legal to

1:23:57

use voter registration lists to

1:23:59

monitor for fraud and accuracy.

1:24:01

This is at odds with

1:24:03

federal law. and undermines election

1:24:05

integrity. Now Utah is a

1:24:07

Republican state, right? The left

1:24:09

likes to think, oh well

1:24:11

judicial watch, you're only doing

1:24:13

this to help Republicans. No,

1:24:15

we're doing this to enforce

1:24:17

the law. So we go

1:24:19

into Republican red states, Democrat

1:24:21

blue states to enforce the

1:24:23

rule of law on election

1:24:25

integrity. And Utah is making

1:24:27

it more difficult because of

1:24:29

their law to ensure that

1:24:32

the lists are being cleaned

1:24:34

and as the law requires,

1:24:36

which obviously mitigates against election

1:24:38

fraud. I mean the temptation

1:24:40

of steel elections isn't just

1:24:42

for Democrats. Kate to tell

1:24:44

you this. Republicans sometimes steal

1:24:46

elections too. There was an

1:24:48

infamous case in North Carolina

1:24:50

where a Republican consultant essentially

1:24:52

messed with the election process

1:24:54

in such a judge called

1:24:56

for, had actually ordered a

1:24:58

new election. This is the

1:25:00

Judicial Watch's big Maryland victory.

1:25:02

A federal court noted and

1:25:04

gave credit to Judicial Watch,

1:25:07

we have the resources and

1:25:09

expertise that few individuals can

1:25:11

marshal by excluding these organizations

1:25:13

from access to voter registration

1:25:15

lists. The purpose of the

1:25:17

federal law is undermined. The

1:25:19

court ordered Maryland to produce

1:25:21

complete voter registration records as

1:25:23

requested to judicial watch. So

1:25:27

this is an important election integrity

1:25:29

measure. I hope the Justice Department

1:25:32

gets on the ball with this.

1:25:34

I don't think Harmeet Dillon, who

1:25:36

is the appointee for President Trump

1:25:38

to run the Civil Rights Division

1:25:41

that would be running election integrity

1:25:43

or a key place to have

1:25:45

election integrity lawsuits run out of.

1:25:47

I don't think she's been confirmed

1:25:50

yet. She had her hearing a

1:25:52

few weeks ago. And

1:25:55

she was attacked over judicial watches

1:25:57

election integrity work, ironically, during that

1:25:59

Senate hearing. But Hermite is a

1:26:01

great pick for us to run

1:26:04

the Civil Rights Division because she's

1:26:06

truly committed to civil rights in

1:26:08

a way the left isn't. And

1:26:10

I know she's an election integrity

1:26:12

expert and understands the rule of

1:26:15

law is key to ensuring the

1:26:17

American people have confidence in elections.

1:26:19

So we're hoping that she comes

1:26:21

on board and starts doing more

1:26:24

election integrity work through the Justice

1:26:26

Department because they've got the ability

1:26:28

to do work that we can't

1:26:30

do. But in the meantime, we'll

1:26:32

do the heavy lifting, right? Like

1:26:35

we're doing in Utah, like we're

1:26:37

aimed to do in Colorado, I

1:26:39

mean in Oregon and California and

1:26:41

Illinois. And we have another lawsuit,

1:26:44

another big lawsuit coming as it

1:26:46

relates to the counting of ballots

1:26:48

that arrive after election day. We've

1:26:50

got a lawsuit in Illinois about

1:26:52

that. In Mississippi, we are a

1:26:55

lawsuit there led to a Fifth

1:26:57

Circuit ruling that... counting ballots after

1:26:59

election day is contrary to federal

1:27:01

law, which sets an election day,

1:27:03

not an election week. So there's

1:27:06

another state we're going to sue

1:27:08

over that within a few days.

1:27:10

So when it comes to election

1:27:12

integrity, Judicial Watch takes a back

1:27:15

seat to no one on behalf

1:27:17

of the American people who want

1:27:19

elections to be as clean and

1:27:21

honest under law as possible. If

1:27:24

you're aware of any other group

1:27:26

in Washington DC or nationally doing

1:27:28

the work that I just told

1:27:31

you about, tell me about them

1:27:33

because I want to work with

1:27:35

them. And you should support them

1:27:37

too. But in the meantime though,

1:27:39

unless you find that group and

1:27:41

I don't think it's out there,

1:27:43

you should support Judicial Watch. Go

1:27:45

to our website at Judicial Watch.org.

1:27:47

Help us do the heavy lifting

1:27:50

for clean elections for... upholding the

1:27:52

rule of law, protecting the rule

1:27:54

of law from the predations of

1:27:56

the radical left, corrupt politicians and...

1:27:58

bureaucrats, exposing what

1:28:00

the the up

1:28:02

to. Go to to

1:28:05

.org, support us now.

1:28:07

If you're already supporting us, I'll

1:28:09

thank you. us, I'll Thank you. Thank

1:28:11

you. But But we need your

1:28:13

help again, I can tell tell you.

1:28:15

We We can't stop. has The

1:28:17

left has unlimited resources, practically speaking.

1:28:19

speaking. we we we're not just

1:28:21

suing some local, some individual some individual

1:28:24

who we can just roll over.

1:28:26

No, we're suing the government.

1:28:28

They can roll over us. over us.

1:28:30

And the only way we stand

1:28:32

strong is with your support. support.

1:28:34

Go to judicialwatch .org and

1:28:36

join our movement, join our

1:28:38

cause. God God bless you, God

1:28:40

bless America, and I'll see you

1:28:43

here next time on here next time

1:28:45

on the Judicial Watch Weekly for listening to

1:28:47

the Judicial Watch Weekly Update

1:28:49

with Tom Fitton. For more information,

1:28:51

visit www visit

1:28:53

.org because no one is

1:28:56

above the law. above the law.