Summary
➡ The text discusses various ongoing legal and political issues, including the demand for federal funding of Marxist critical race theory, allegations against Trump officers in New York and Fulton county, the progress of appropriations bills in Congress, and the obstacles faced in releasing January 6 videos. It also criticizes Congressmen for obstructing transparency and accountability measures. Further, it discusses the alleged withholding of documents regarding Joe Biden’s alias email accounts and business dealings with Hunter, calling for impeachment procedures. Lastly, it mentions a lawsuit against the FBI for records related to the Hunter Biden gun scandal.
➡ The FBI is withholding information about potentially responsive records requested by Judicial Watch regarding incidents involving Hunter Biden due to an ongoing criminal investigation. Moreover, they cite a delay due to increased internal review by the Special Counsel, and refuse to disclose the number of records they are processing, thereby stalling the lawsuit. Judicial Watch contends that the FBI’s actions are stonewalling, using the Special Counsel investigation as concealment, significantly impacting public interest and delaying proceedings indefinitely.
➡ Summary: The text discusses the government’s methods such as FOIA in correlation with Congress and its shifting power dynamics. It also elaborates on perceived misuse of power, exemplified in instances like the handling of secret documents, contempt proceedings and issues related to the FBI and Special Counsel. There are contrasts drawn between the treatment of different protest groups, with a perceived bias against Trump supporters. Also touched upon is the death of Ashley Babbitt during the January 6 disturbance, its subsequent investigations and the implications of the Justice Department’s response. The document further expands on the concept of rapid indictments, pointing out the potentially biased and unfair treatment of the defendants involved.
➡ The text describes a governmental team who are using extensive technological sources, like cell phone data and social media accounts, to build a case against January 6 defendants. The speaker criticizes this use of resources, comparing it unfavorably to the investigation of 9/11. They also critique the lack of information shared with the public about the event, suggesting political bias in how certain individuals are treated by law enforcement and government. Judicial Watch’s attempts to get further information are mentioned, as well as the organization’s work on investigating the creation and management of the COVID-19 vaccines, during which they found a lack of thorough studies supporting the vaccines’ safety and efficiency.
➡ The text discusses a study about COVID-19 booster shots, focusing on effectiveness over time, breadth of protection, and demographics of study participants. Controversies arise concerning the need for booster shots, potentially leading to resignations at FDA due to White House interference, and aggressive booster shot rollout by the Biden administration. It hints at alleged corrupt practices and misinformation, and praises the watchdog role of Judicial Watch in revealing such issues. Lastly, it invites readers to support and share Judicial Watch’s work.
Transcript
Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton here with our update on social media. As always, thank you for joining us this week. I know we’re all prepping for the Labor Day holiday, but the heavy lifting never stops at Judicial Watch. A lot going on here. New documents being released on COVID, document battles over the FBI, documents concerning that Hunter gun scandal. And on top of that, we’re in a battle with the Justice Department, or we just uncovered Justice Department documents about their really over the top January 6 prosecutions and targeting.
And on top of that, obviously and I’ll open up with this is the current crisis as it relates to the prosecutions, the political prosecutions of President Trump by the Biden administration Democratic Party and its allies in New York City and in, most recently, Fulton County, Georgia. Developments in that case, or those cases include Judge Chutkin, who is the recent not that recent, actually. She’s an Obama appointee judge, no friend of President Trump, based on comments she’s made from the bench previously in January 6 cases that she’s handled, she set a trial for the sham prosecution of Trump for March 4 of 2024, which is a day before the Super Tuesday primaries.
And as I’ve highlighted to you, this is a case about alleged election interference by President Trump, right, that he wanted to, quote, overturn the election by disputing the election, which of course, is analysis in Wonderland, legal analysis run by political being put out there by these political prosecutors in the Biden Justice Department. And so on top of that, the judge, rather than rejecting the desperate effort by the Biden administration to jail Trump next year because they wanted this trial to begin in January, she said, oh, no, that’s too soon. It’s going to be two or three months later in March, actually, literally two months later.
And President Trump’s lawyers had asked for the trial to begin in 2026. So it’s clear that Judge Chuckin accepted the Biden administration’s and the Democratic Party’s invitation to have the judiciary interfere with the elections next year. And of course, this snap trial that I think is really an abomination in terms of the president’s rights to a fair trial is just on top of all the other abuses we’re seeing. It’s bad enough to have the prosecutors abuse their powers, but when you see the judges ratify it and play along or pretend it’s not happening, it’s really destabilizing, I think, to our system of justice. It undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice.
And for instance, in this case, you have tens of millions of documents, at least 12 million documents last I checked, that need to be reviewed by Trump’s lawyers to prepare for the trial. And of course, there are other witnesses and things like that. And of course, he has other indictments he’s facing from allied not only from the Justice Department, but from the prosecutors in New York and in Georgia. And Judge Shutkin actually said, well, you should have begun preparation when the grand jury was first called. So you’re not indicted, you’ve not been accused of a crime, and you’re supposed to be preparing for the defense.
Well, that shows you that the grand jury process is corrupted if the judge thinks that you should just presume, you’re going to be indicted if a grand jury is called. But again, that’s more of an Alice in Wonderland legal analysis. You should be prepared for trial just because there’s been a grand jury, and you should prepare your defenses over cases that haven’t been filed against you, charges that haven’t been specified against you, and he’s punished for that with a snap trial.
So whether the trial takes place or not, I think, is still an open question, because part of this process, you go to trial, you start essentially on that day in March of next year, March 4. That’s when the trial begins. In a sense, the jury selection begins. But what happens is the court kind of backs away from that date. And there are a series of briefs that are due in preparation for the trial, right. And some of those briefs could delay the trial significantly if they are appealed, the president’s lawyers plan to assert immunity. Wade’s first Amendment issues, selective prosecution issues, and who knows what else. And they may even object directly to the court about the snap nature of this trial. And this is on top of the desperate effort by the Fulton County to have a snap trial again in Georgia.
So on top of that, they want a trial because one of the defendants of the I think 18 defendants, wants a quick trial in October. And the response of the Fulton County, georgia prosecutors say, well, everyone should be prosecuted or put on trial in October. Then, of course, President Trump doesn’t want to want to face trial that soon because he needs more time to prepare any defense or any challenges he has to the prosecution. So I want you to imagine a snap trial of 18 defendants on unprecedented charges related to daring to dispute under the First Amendment, under the other constitutional provisions governing elections under federal law, governing elections under your rights as a citizen and a candidate in the case of the president, a president. And they’re trying to jail nearly two dozen people in one fell swoop in one trial.
This shows you the contempt and the politicisation of the system of justice there in Fulton County. We see it happening up here in and, you know, I don’t know if they’re going to seek recusal of Judge Chuckin. I don’t know if there’s enough for recusal. I know just because people think, well, she’s appointed by Obama, therefore she has to recuse herself. Well, that’s not the way it works, necessarily, but she has said a few things from the bench that would make me think a recusal question should be raised, especially when she complained I don’t have the exact quote, but you can look it up. She essentially complained that Trump hadn’t been arrested.
She was sentencing or talking to another defendant or referencing a defendant in the January 6 prosecutions, and she basically bemoaned the fact that Trump wasn’t prosecuted. Now, that suggests a certain bias that I think should be explored by Trump’s lawyers, but we’ll see. So it’s a terrible time for the Republic still. I mean, it’s being buffeted day by day, week by week, by these out of control prosecutors, these rogue prosecutors, these road prosecutions. And the courts don’t seem terribly interested in reining it in too much, based at least on what’s happened thus far up here in Washington DC. And what is Congress doing about it? Don’t worry. They are still on vacation.
As I said to you before, they are on a seven week recess and they won’t be back till September twelveTH. So you get Labor Day off. I’m sure most of you will be getting Labor Day off, and those of you who are working, thank you for working, but Congress has a seven week recess. And if McCarthy, speaker McCarthy were serious about dealing with the current crisis, he would have called Congress back. He would have called the House back weeks ago.
I was in a meeting the other day and I said, well, how about calling Congress back, the House back just a day early? Just pretend you take these issues seriously. We’re running up on the by the way, there’s a September 30 deadline on this big spending fight, right? They’re supposed to have all their ducks in a row with regard to appropriations by September 30. Otherwise they got to pass a continuing resolution, that fiscal cliff supposedly, and they’re coming back on the twelveTH. And on top of that, we have these outrageous prosecutions and election interference and abuse of power by the Justice Department and Fulton County in New York, all of which can be stopped by congressional action in the context of that spending fight I just told you about.
And then we have the ongoing crisis with President Biden’s corruption, which McCarthy is trying to dance around. He keeps on saying, well, we’re getting close to an impeachment inquiry, but he doesn’t want an impeachment inquiry. Otherwise we’d have one by now, he’d call Congress back. So if you are interested in having Congress do the work and do the heavy lifting that’s necessary to stop this corruption because they know what’s know. So are they going to keep on funding it or not? Okay, this is where the rubber meets the road over the next six weeks.
Are they going to keep on funding it or not? Now, the establishment will say you can’t not fund the government, right? You have to fund the government. Doesn’t matter what you’re spending the money on. The spice must flow. To quote the great book Dune, we’ve got to keep the money flowing. So if you’ve got concerns about the FBI being funded to target Americans and harass Americans, you’ve got concerns about the Justice Department interfering in our elections or obstructing justice to help Hunter, if you’re concerned about agencies of the Biden administration censoring Americans, that has to be funded.
If you’re concerned about military academies telling their students, their cadets, their midshipmen that America is racist and weParagraph 1:
I have to support Marxist critical race theory, that has to be funded. If you support this craze prosecution in Fulton County or up in New York City against Trump, where they’re trying to jail him for doing his job as President, literally, that has to be funded. Federal monies have to flow to Fulton County. There can be no cutoff. They’re essentially going to be ratifying it unless they do something about it. Now, there are some Congressmen who are going to be submitting appropriations bills. I think Congressman Clyde and Congressman Biggs and a few others, Congressman Gates, they’ve talked about doing this. So these are all opportunities for accountability.
Paragraph 2:
And not only that, but it actually could fix some of the misconduct and stop it. So it’s all coming up. So you got to talk to your members of Congress and let them know what you think, because you know what the establishment media is going to say, what the left media is going to say, what the establishment Republicans are going to say. Mitch McConnell, I know, who has health issues, I disagree with him on a lot of stuff. I agree with him on other things. But he doesn’t want to do impeachment. That crowd over there doesn’t want to do impeachment or anything related to accountability. And as I said, if McCarthy wanted to do something on impeachment, he already would have done something on impeachment.
Paragraph 3:
And to keep you updated, as I told you a few weeks ago, we’re still trying to get the January 6 videos out of Congress, right? And we’ve sued the Capitol Hill Police Department. And I want to tell you how frustrating it was two weeks ago when we were in court on a hearing related to this case was this case’s hearing. We were seeking the so it’s me, our lawyer, Michael Bakesha. We’re in federal court before the judge, and at the other table are the attorneys for the Biden Justice Department, along with an attorney for the US. Capitol Hill Police.
Paragraph 4:
So essentially that’s the McCarthy Congress, right, being represented by the Biden administration’s Justice Department as they try to stop the January 6 videos from being designated public records and being widely released to the American people. So right now we are battling Speaker McCarthy’s, Congress, and the Biden administration on this core transparency issue about January 6. So I know sometimes McCarthy does the right thing, but I tell you, when you’re on the wrong side of transparency, when you’re on the wrong side of government accountability, Judicial Watch is going to call you out and we are nonpartisan.
Paragraph 5:
Republicans and Democrats both need to be held accountable to the rule of law and they just can’t let the corruption go by as if no one’s being impacted and our system isn’t being broken by it. So we’ve got litigation on all of these issues. As I said, for instance, this week, our friends at the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which is a conservative legal group that’s been around a long, long time, I know they were around before even Judicial Watchers created nearly 30 years ago. They just sued the National Archives for I don’t know exactly what, but essentially in that litigation, they’ve uncovered through their initial FOIA that they’ve got 5000, 5400 emails or so responsive to their request about what are they asking for the alias emails of, you know, Robin Ware and Peters and such.
Paragraph 6:
Right. So I think there are at least three email accounts, maybe as many as six. So they sued because they’ve been taking forever in a day to turn these documents over. They haven’t turned any of the documents over. It’s been 14 months. The Biden archives, which is colluding with the Justice Department to jail Trump over a documents dispute that had never been criminally prosecuted similarly by any Justice Department or pushed in any aggressive way by any prior against any other. Former president is right now hiding records about Joe Biden’s secret email accounts, his alias email accounts. And Judicial Watch has litigation against the archives as well.
Paragraph 7:
We filed back in May for Joe Biden’s documents about Joe Biden’s business arrangements with Hunter, et cetera, et cetera. So all the email communications and we made it clear to them this week that they better be searching these alias email accounts or searching those documents. But it shows you this gainsmanship that goes on because if no one knew about these email accounts, you wouldn’t know to kind of put the focus and the onus on the archives to get these records out because we wouldn’t know to search for this specific email account. Right?
Paragraph 8:
And now Congress is getting in on the game and they either have a subpoena or a letter out. I don’t know what they’re going to do, but all I can tell you is they need to do more because I know Congress, at least the House, they’ve been doing a lot. It’s necessary what they’ve done, but it’s not sufficient. We need to move into the impeachment phase on these very issues and move more quickly for accountability, as I call it, the punishment phase for the corruption that’s already been uncovered. And that’s just sitting there in plain sight. And so Judicial Watch is ratcheting up the pressure on the Biden archives for documents that they are hiding about Biden corruption.
Paragraph 9:
We’re doing it not only in that major lawsuit we filed for basically information on the whole Clinton, excuse me, the whole Biden family corruption issue. And that’s a Freudian slip because they’re kind of two p’s of the same pod, aren’t they? By the way, if you want to know why they didn’t want to do anything on Hillary Clinton’s secret email accounts, well, it’s because people like Joe Biden had three or four secret email accounts. It tells you something, doesn’t it? So we’re pushing hard on all of this. And more directly, we’re in litigation against the FBI for records on that Hunter Biden gun scandal. And we’ve talked about this before in the update. I hope you’ve seen my previous updates on this or at least looked at our material online.
Paragraph 10:
And on that case, that case specifically was about this issue where Hunter was messing around with his dead brother’s widow and she got mad at him and took a gun and took his gun and threw it in a dumpster in Delaware near a school or a grocery place or something like that. And the reports by Politico and the Blaze was that the Secret Service leapt into action and that the FBI leapt into action to go, evidently, and vacuum up documents from the place where Hunter purchased the gun. So we sued for records of the Secret Service on that. They gave us some documents suggesting that the FBI was involved and the Secret Service may have been involved. So we expanded our lawsuit to include the FBI. We filed a new lawsuit, and I think we had filed the request in January, earlier this year, and then we filed the lawsuit a little bit later.
Paragraph 11:
And the FBI just told us that they’ve got a bunch of documents, but they can’t give them to us because they’re exempt because of an ongoing criminal investigation. And they cite the special counsel, the sham special counsel that was just instituted by the Garland Justice Department. That Special Counsel Weiss, who was caught with a shady plea deal trying to give Hunter a pass on a gun charge issue where he allegedly falsified a document in registering for the gun and filling out the federal background check form. Now, what is the ongoing investigation, is what I’d like to know. Are they investigating the FBI for intervening improperly in this case to help Hunter? Are they intervening? Are they investigating the Secret Service who was involved in helping Hunter here? Are they investigating Joe? No.
Paragraph 12:
This is all an excuse to hide records that are inconvenient, because these records we began asking for in January, long before there was a special counsel investigation. So what happens is we file a lawsuit and you begin talking to the government and say, look, can we get documents? And if you can’t agree on documents, you go to the court about the timeline and you file what they call a joint status report, where the plaintiff Judicial Watch, and the defendant in this case the Justice Department. When you sue the FBI, you sue the Justice Department, despite what the FBI would have you believe they actually are. Division of the Justice Department. And they report to the Justice Department. They’re not their own little kingdom. Director Ray, you still report to the Attorney General and to the President. And we had asked for all records, including investigative reports, telephone logs, witness statements, memoranda, and firearm purchase documentation related to the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of a firearm owned by Hunter Biden discarded in a Delaware trash receptacle circa October 2018. All records of communications with FBI officials regarding the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of the firearm.
Final blank line.To our request, but alleges an unspecified number. They don’t want to tell us the number are exempt from disclosure due to, quote, an ongoing criminal investigation. And this is what they say.
Specifically, FBI has completed a search for records responsive to Judicial Watchers requests and is currently processing those records. FBI’s position is that the number of potentially responsive records is exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption seven A, which is that the criminal case exemption, essentially ongoing law enforcement investigation allows them to withhold documents if the documents touch on that or part of that, as this case relates to an ongoing criminal investigation. And they cite the law that says void does not apply to information where disclosure, quote, could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. And they say, see also US attorney’s Office district of Delaware tax and firearms charges filed against Robert Hunter Biden. So they’re basically referring back to the sham charges that Weiss ginned up with the Biden gang to keep Hunter out of jail as an excuse not to give us the documents.
An ongoing investigation creates the need for increased internal review. So these documents we asked for in January oh, no, now there’s a Special Counsel. We need increased internal review, including in this case, review by the Special Counsel. So now the Special Counsel is officially part of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit for documents about an incident essentially from 2018 that we’ve already litigated and gotten documents separately from the Secret Service on. But now the FBI can’t give us much of anything because they’re using this sham special counsel investigation as an excuse. And in their defense, they say, well, this isn’t even a significant public case because Judicial Watch wasn’t asking for expedited consideration, which is just so silly. Legally, we don’t need to ask for, quote, invoke magic words of expedited consideration. When we file a FOIA, they’re supposed to respond within a certain period of time, essentially a month. It’s now ten months.
Judicial Watch argues the Biden FBI is withholding information about the number of documents, as I said, they are hiding and whether any records will ultimately be released. This case is indisputably of significant public interest. It is also time sensitive. Judicial watch has asked and defendant has refused to provide the number of potentially responsive records that need to be processed in this case. They don’t even want to tell us how many records they’re looking at. That’s how corrupted this is. Without this number, plaintiffs can’t evaluate, let alone agree to a processing time of 120 days. So they’re asking for months because this case could proceed down several different paths. Judicial watch believes this case may benefit from a status conference at this juncture. Well, thankfully, the court agrees and set a hearing for next week as September 6 here in DC. A status conference. My quote in the case was the FBI continues to stonewall on its reported cleanup operation to shield Hunter Biden from facing the criminal consequences of his gun scandal, this time using the compromised special counsel investigation of Hunter as a new excuse to hide records that we asked for back in January.
So in February of 2023, we had gotten records or released records from the secret service, as I said earlier, that showed that when Politico was asking questions of the secret service, were you involved in vacuum up documents? As our sources are reporting, the secret service was a suggesting they didn’t know if that was the case. And then when they were seeking clarification, the Politico reporter was seeking clarification from the secret service. They basically ignored the follow up questions, which means they had more to tell. And they didn’t want to tell the reporter about their role with Hunter Biden. And I don’t even think Hunter Biden was being protected by the secret service when he had this gun taken from him by his then girlfriend or I don’t know what she was. This is what Politico reported actually in October 2020.
The Blaze reported that in October 2018, hunter Biden’s handgun was taken by Haley Biden, the widow of then presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Beau. In 2021, Politico reported Haley took Hunter’s gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, only to return later to find it gone. Delaware police began investigating, concerned that the trash can was across from a high school and that the missing gun could be used in a crime, according to law enforcement officials and a copy of the police report obtained by Politico. But a curious thing happened at the time. Secret service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a circuit service agent after the fact. So the other document shows that the secret service had the reporter said the FBI also had some involvement in the investigation. So that’s why we want the FBI’s knowledge of what went on here and documents about it.
Judicial Watch has at least ten federal lawsuits on Biden family corruption. At least ten. And that’s kind of a narrow definition of Biden family corruption. I would argue it’s probably double that. We just sued you may recall the CIA about its role in election interference in 2020, in approving quickly and then asking people to sign that false letter alleging that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russia disinformation. We’ve just sued for records about the obstructed IRS investigation of Hunter Biden as detailed by IRS whistleblowers. We sued for that infamous FBI document that was buried in 2020 showing that the Burima CEO told a key FBI source that he gave $5 million in bribes to Hunter, $5 million in bribes to Joe, 10 million total as part of a bribery extortion scheme that protect Barisma and so on and so forth. And I told you about the National Archives cases we have. We have case against the State Department that we’ve pursued. Just great stuff.
So despite all the work that Congress is doing, dare I say it, judicial Watch is doing more. And in some cases, we’re likely to get documents. And this has been the case in the past before Congress does, and we want Congress to keep on asking for documents. But members of Congress ask me this. They say, Tom, why is it Judicial Watch can get documents? Congress can’t. And it’s because it’s a political process when Congress asks an administration for documents. Now, I know the law applies to the handling of those documents, and Congress has its prerogatives in going to court to get documents, but that rarely happens. And when it does, it’s kind of a big rigor Morole because of the political nature of the litigation, the courts don’t like to and are careful about adjudicating fights between the Executive branch and Congress because sometimes it’s more political than legal. But under FOIA, it’s more of a straightforward legal process, the Freedom of Information Act. If the agencies don’t respond within a certain period of time, or they don’t give you the documents you think you deserve, under law, you can go to federal court. And the clock starts ticking. Now, it never moves as quickly as we would like, but the process just it’s like a train. It leaves the station and it’s difficult to derail unless either the documents are produced or they explain to the court why it is they are withholding whatever they are seeking to withhold. And so we end up just getting documents that Congress is still fighting about, or as importantly, and this is kind of a more interesting take side of it, it depends on who you ask and when you ask.
So I could ask or Judicial Watch could ask, give us all documents about Hunter Biden’s. Talks with Joe Biden at the state department, right? And there’s an office at the State Department, the FOIA office, that looks for the documents and sends out a request to agency of personnel. Do a search. At least that’s the way it often happens or supposed to happen. So when Congress asks for records from the State Department, the same request, it goes to a different office, the Office of Legislative Affairs. Now I’m exaggerating know there are obviously some permutations there I’m not getting into, but essentially it’s a different group of people who handle the requests, a different group of people who conduct the search and manage the response so that we may get a document that Congress doesn’t get and Congress may get a document we don’t get. And that’s why you need in addition to Congress asking questions, judicial Watch asking questions and of course I love it when the media asks questions and like Southeastern Legal Foundation is asking questions about Hunter’s emails or Joe’s Secret email accounts, the more the better. When it comes to government transparency. This government is gargantuan. Judicial Watch is America’s leading government watchdog when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act. We have thousands and thousands of FOIA requests, probably at least a thousand FOIA lawsuits by this time, certainly in the high hundreds. And that only scratches the surface of everything that can and should be asked for about what the
government’s up to. So the more the better. So that’s my educational take on FOIA and how it intersects with Congress.
But Congress can get these documents if they chose to, using political power or constitutional prerogatives right with spending power and other threats. Under Know, it used to be back in the day that Congress could find someone in contempt and the Congress could hold the person in contempt and put them in a jail up on Capitol Hill. They don’t do that anymore. Instead they’ve outsourced all that to Justice Department, which means the Justice Department controlled by a party that’s hostile to their interests or maybe even the same party that’s hostile to their know isn’t going to pursue civil contempt proceedings or criminal contempt proceedings against individuals, certainly in an administration that withhold documents. So that’s another thing that Congress can do but they don’t want to do. So there you go.
So this hearing is next week, September 6 on this FBI case. We’ve got the special counsel involved. They’re being used as an excuse to hide documents, which was predicted by the way, because remember Garland resisted and refused corruptly to appoint a special counsel. And there was an issue about whether Weiss wanted to be a special counsel, whether he was denied. And then he came up with this sweetheart plea deal and they said, oh we’ll just make Weiss a special counsel and pretend all the corruption involved there, that he’s been implicated in his office has been implicated in, that will all be washed away. And many people on the Hill said, well now it’s going to be harder to get him to testify and they’re going to use the fact that there’s ongoing investigations to justify withholding documents. Sure enough. That’s just exactly what they did in this key judicial watch case about the FBI and the secret service rushing to protect hunter biden from the consequences of his crazed actions up in Delaware with that crazy gun issue with his wife not his wife, his girlfriend or friend throwing the gun in the trash. And I don’t even know if there was like a criminal aspect to that know, I don’t know, someone mishandled a gun. Is there a crime there? I don’t know. But certainly the secret service got nervous, or the FBI got nervous. Politico got word that something happened, the blaze got word something happened, and certainly we know something happened, or we can fairly conclude something happened because the FBI is contrary to law and good sense and ethics withholding information about the case out of control.
So many have highlighted the disparate treatment between BLM rioters and antifa rioters in 2020, where they tried to kill president trump. Victimized cities across America, targeted federal officials for killing and assault, tried to burn buildings with people in them down. Little federal 200 prosecutions, I think last I checked, there were 300 prosecutions of those BLM riots in 2020 that tore the country apart. Compare and contrast with the justice department’s, biden justice department’s political prosecutions of the January 6 disturbance. I think it’s now 1101, 300 doesn’t matter. It’s well over 1000 prosecutions, some of which have these outlandish, in my view, over the top charges. When you compare and contrast other political riots that have taken place in the past. For instance, when I went to the kavanaugh hearings, there was all sorts of violence and intimidation. Certainly by their definition, the left’s definition, insurrection, an effort to overturn democracy, and trying to stop the kavanaugh nomination by the left. Certainly nothing similar was done against the groups involved there. They’re not facing jail for 15, 1718 years like some of these other individuals are.
And in the course of our investigation and lawsuit for documents about the needless shooting death of Ashley babbitt by lieutenant bird, who’s now going to be promoted to a captain. Outrageously. Ashley babbitt, lieutenant bird essentially popped out from behind a column, shot into a crowd, and killed Ashley babbitt. No good reason for that shooting, given a free pass and special protection by both the capitol police, the district of columbia police, and the justice department. So we’ve had a lot of litigation to get documents about what happened there, exposed a lot what went on. But in the course of that litigation, we received documents about how the justice department responded to the January 6 disturbance. And you can see in the documents it was an unprecedented apparatus that was set up as part of what looks to me like a political purge of trump supporters.
So this was a lawsuit that we filed against the justice department and the FBI for records related to the death of Ashley babbitt. And we got back a bunch of documents, 90 pages of records from the office of united states attorneys. And there’s a chart there dated January 25, 2021. So shortly after bush came into office and a few weeks after the riots. And this is what their tasks are. This is the kind of the orientation of what they were supposed to be doing to identify and prosecute the individuals and organizations responsible for planting pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC. We still don’t know what happened there. To identify and prosecute rioting activity in the speaker’s lobby and in particular, determine whether there is civilian criminal culpability for the death of ashley babbitt. So they weren’t looking at well, they were looking at the police involvement in that death, but they were also interested in trying to prosecute other people around ashley babbitt for bird shooting her to identify and prosecute riders responsible for the death of us. Capitol police officer brian sicknick. Of course the riders weren’t responsible for his death. It was readily apparent at the time. They all knew it at the time, based on information we have or should have known it, but that’s what they were trying to do because he died the day after of natural causes to review force allegations against u. S. Capitol police and metropolitan police department officers, including the officer involved shooting of ashley babbitt. So they were supposed to be looking at all of those issues, right?
There was a riot. They are looking at prosecuting people involved in the rioting, but they were also supposed to be looking at the police if they committed misconduct. And an honest evaluation of January 6 would lead to a much more, dare I say it, nuanced analysis of what happened that day. You had lack of security that, in my view, encouraged and allowed violence to take place. You had ill trained and ill prepared and not a big enough police force to deal with the crowd. That led to an overreaction by the police department in terms of anti crowd control measures that incited the crowd. In part. Does it resolve everyone in that crowd from engaging in violence and assault? No, of course not. But an aspect of the January 6 riot was that the US. Capitol police and other law enforcement personnel who were stuck up there trying to protect the capitol helped incite the crowd because they were throwing gas into the crowd and doing all the sorts of things that really didn’t do anything other than rile the crowd up. Now, again, the left would like to make you think if well, tom fitton says that he’s justifying the riot. No, I’m not justifying the riot. I’m just calling it as I see it. And adults need to analyze how it is that riot, and instead, it’s been politicized. And they all just want to blame trump, and they just want to put trump supporters in jail and in an unprecedented fashion, start applying federal law to this disturbance in a way that’s seeing people go to jail and be in jail in a way that’s never happened before in American history. And it’s all political, or much of it is political, and it’s so politicized, you can’t even tell which is what would have been a normal prosecution and an appropriate prosecution versus an inappropriate prosecution. That’s how bad it is.
And then they talk about rapid indictments of January 6 defendants. Does that sound fair to you? Rapid indictments? That sounds like an MSNBC way of approaching indictments, not a law enforcement department of justice fair application of the law way. Phase One Command Center cole this is part of the Rapid Indictment Chart section co located prosecutors and law enforcement agents in the command center screen. Referrals and assign them to phase two. Refer them. Push up intelligence to branches one and two. Phase Two complaints cases referred from Phase One are assigned to AUSAs, a civil Trial Section attorney, and a Washington Field office team who would work in coordination with the Assistant U. S. Attorney FBI field offices throughout the country to obtain criminal complaints in appropriate process. Phase Three rapid Indictment cases charged out of Branch Three are funneled to this unit, which will rapidly indict them ah. And then indicted cases are returned assigned for prosecution. Cases essentially track with ticklers for speedy trial act discovery. Intelligence Gathering this is another disturbing part. Branch Four has both litigation and technological responsibilities. Mass data Collection this team will coordinate and handle sensitive search warrants and other process directed at collecting large scale data. Geofence ad Tech so Geofencing is basically getting all the phone
Note: I am unable to add a blank line after the last paragraph due to platform limitations.Data for a certain area. Media issues. The team will coordinate evidence collection from the media under the Justice Manual and develop litigation strategy for media related defenses. So they’re going to target the media, First Amendment issues, et cetera. There’s a litigation and technology support apparatus. Lays out the array of technological sources to be used against the January 6 defendants. The chart list categories of data which include cell phone records, device location data, cell phone data dumps, and ad tech company location data, financial locational data, social media accounts, email accounts, cloud storage accounts, financial records, flight travel records, and others.
Judicial Watch was second to none in uncovering what was happening with the investigations of 911. And I want to tell you something. The FBI still wasn’t able to figure out who helped pay and how the 911 hijackers were funded prior to that attack. And when we highlighted that this was the issue, the FBI kind of admitted it to the media. Yeah, we still don’t know all the details. And I tell you, if they had devoted the resources that they devoted to January 6 to 911, there’d be dozens of more people arrested and terrorist networks rolled up. And I’m quite confident, because we work with people who investigated terrorism at the time, that if they had these resources available to them about known terrorist operators at the time, 911 would never have happened. But this is a decision by the Justice Department to deploy resources that have never been deployed against American citizens over a political riot, right? And it treats citizens as terrorists.
These documents detail a troubling and unprecedented deployment of federal resources to prosecute Americans caught up in the January 6 disturbance. The documents seem to describe a massive political and spy operation masquerading as a law enforcement operation. So don’t take my word for it. Go to the US attorney sites, go to the Justice Department’s website, google what Garland has said, what Ray has said, what the Biden administration has said about the depth and breadth of their investigation of January 6. And I dare you to find anything comparable in American history in terms of deployment of resources. They say there is nothing like it in history. They don’t have anything bigger than this. And it’s scary because what it means is that people who committed, quote, misdemeanors are being treated like terrorists. But the left can do whatever they want in terms of civil disturbances, breaking the law, burning buildings down, and there’s no similar response by the deep state.
In the meantime, we can’t get a second of video from this Congress about what happened that day. As I said earlier, because the Pelosi Congress, excuse me, it’s the McCarthy Congress now refuses to turn over 1 second of the videos. They want to designate them all as security videos and no one can see them. Not 1 second. Yeah, I know they’ve made videos available separately to journalists and others, but that doesn’t make all the videos available or all the videos that should be available under law. That’s just stuff that is being made available under the discretion of the speaker. But the legal position in court is none of it can be made available and you have no avenue in court to make them available. It’s unbridled secrecy. At the same time, they’re prosecuting people like it’s, as they say, the worst day in American history. So they want to have it both ways, right? Deploy resources never seen before in American history while hiding key information about what happened that day, not only videos, but emails about why there wasn’t security. Where was the security? Who was responsible for that? Unbelievable.
So I encourage you to look at those documents because the media, they’re not going to tell you about what the FBI was up to and how they were spying on Americans to try to get them indicted. But Judicial Watch separately had been trying to get the FBI to give us documents about them getting the banking data on everyone who was in Washington DC. And of course the courts here who have enabled the Justice Department’s crazed prosecutions and investigations of January 6 individuals, they’ve given them pass on having to give us this basic information. So in my view, this is a failure. Both of the courts and of our justice department this January 6 prosecution. The whole mania around it is going to be seen as a black mark on the history of justice in America in the least. This chair is creaking. I don’t know if you can hear it, but I can hear it, and it’s driving me crazy. I think I got to lose some weight. I think I broke the chair.
What I love about traditional watch is if there’s a major issue, we almost always are second to none in trying to figure out the truth about it. And that obviously goes for the COVID scandal. And the COVID scandal is so broad and has been so damaging to America and to other places in the world, I think we can’t do enough to investigate it. And one of the things we’ve done is investigated the creation and the management and the promotion of the COVID vaccines, which, as you know, are controversial. And one of the things we found is that they didn’t want to tell us basic information about adverse events and issues they were finding when they were testing the vaccines. We got information about that out and other things that I think Americans would have been very interested in knowing before they were forced in too many instances to take the vaccines. And on top of all of that, then, even once it became clear the vaccines weren’t doing what everyone was told they were going to be doing, they started pushing boosters, a third booster, a fourth booster, a fifth booster. Now I think they’re was this the 6th booster they’re going to be planning and pushing for this fall and winter, I don’t know.
And so you would think when we have this important medical development with these vaccines, even giving them the benefit of the doubt they don’t deserve, there would be substantial studies behind them showing their safety and efficacy. And judicial watch has shown that’s really not the case. And specifically, we have new records that show that there was only a 23 person study done of a COVID vaccine safety in a COVID vaccine safety study before it was approved by the Biden administration. We got 58 pages of records. These are what the records look like. So we get the documents to come in. We investigational new drug application, right? And you get, you know, it’s filled out, letters are sent and the studies are attached. And here’s the study. I don’t know if you can see it, but anyway, we’ll pop it up. They’ve got all the charts and everything. It’s all based on 23 people. They gave the booster to 23 people? Well, they wanted to give it to 24, but one of the people said, I’m not taking a third shot. Thank you. Now, I don’t know about you. Does a study of 23 people and analyzing how they handled the vaccine booster over a month, is that enough to reassure you? The booster was safe and effective and useful to take. I don’t know, maybe it is enough for you, but wouldn’t you have liked to know that it was a 23 person study that was key behind the recommendation to provide the booster to I think within a few months, 8.6 million people got it? I don’t think so, but people have different views.
What I love about also about Judicial Watch, we put the documents out there, I’ll give you my take on them, but you can look at them and have your own take. But the best thing is that you can look at them and you wouldn’t be able to look for Adam, but for Judicial Watch. So we had sued for records submitted by Pfizer and BioNTech to the FDA, including BARDA, related to booster vaccinations for the SARS COVID Two virus. So this law, BARDA, is the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and it’s been heavily involved in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. The authority provides an integrated, systematic approach to the development of necessary vaccines, drugs and therapy, drug therapy, drugs, therapies and diagnostic tools for public health medical emergencies such as chemical, biological, radiological, neurological and nuclear accidents, incidents and attacks, pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases. And BioNTech is the German pharmaceutical company that partnered with Pfizer in developing their original vaccine. So the documents we obtained include a July study I guess it was a July must have been July 2021. Yeah, a July 2021 study titled Phase One Booster safety and Immunogenesicity Data up to one month post dose three of the study, and they give us all the numbers related to the study. The submission includes, and this is a quote it’s a group of people that had received two vaccine shots and seven to nine months later the third booster shot. So they’re testing the safety and efficacy of the third booster. And as you can see there on the screen, the submission includes preliminary findings from a subset of younger 18 to 55 years of age and older.Participants in the Phase One part study were aged 65 to 85 years. They received the initial two dose series of the COVID vaccine, with the doses given approximately three weeks apart. After that, they received a third dose booster of the vaccine, which was administered approximately seven to nine months after the second dose. The data collected for the study was up until May 2021, indicating that the study was conducted in the spring of 2021. The participants were monitored for symptoms for up to one month after receiving the booster shot. The immunogenicity of the booster, which is how well the vaccine works over time, was evaluated seven days and one month after the booster. The study included 11 participants aged 15 to 55 and 12 participants aged 65 to 85. Of the younger group, there were nine females and two males, with eight of them being white, one black, and two Asian. In the older group, there were six females and six males, all of whom were white. The study concluded that a booster dose increases the breadth of the neutralizing response against SARS-CoV-2 variants. It hinted at the possibility that the third dose could prolong protection and further enhance the breadth of protection. The Pfizer study was sent to Marion Gruber, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review. Despite initial concerns about the effectiveness of the initial vaccines against variants, studies were submitted to support the need for booster shots. Shortly after submission, the White House announced plans for booster shot rollout, even before FDA clearance. It was later revealed that Dr. Gruber and his deputy were leaving the agency due to frustrations with CDC and Biden White House interference in vaccine decisions. They were part of a group of doctors who believed that available evidence did not yet indicate a need for booster shots in the general population. The FDA made its decision based on documents provided by Pfizer, along with input from the CDC, the Israeli Ministry of Health, and the University of Bristol in the UK. The plans for new boosters by the Biden administration have prompted a call for examination of the documents surrounding the approval process. Judicial Watch has ongoing investigations and lawsuits related to the COVID vaccine issue. They have uncovered hidden adverse events and have raised concerns about the lack of due diligence in government recommendations and spending on vaccines. Judicial Watch encourages people to visit their website to access the materials directly and support their work.
Author
