➡ Tom Fitton, who leads a group called Judicial Watch, is talking about different political problems. He doesn’t agree with how the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Johnson, is spending money on President Biden’s plans. This includes moving people who came to the U.S. without permission and focusing on former President Trump. Fitton also talks about Fannie Willis, a lawyer in Georgia, who he thinks is not being fair to Trump. He says Judicial Watch is looking into all of this.

➡ Fannie Willis, the lawyer, might have done something wrong in a legal case about Trump. Because of this, the case might be stopped. People are worried about unfairness and wrongdoings in the government, especially in how they treat Trump. There’s also a big discussion about whether Trump should be allowed to run for president again. Some places want to stop him because of claims that he led a rebellion.

➡ The main idea here is about stopping someone like President Trump from running for president. This could be unfair to the many people and political groups who want to vote for him. The text says this might make elections seem less honest because legal tricks, not voters, are deciding things. If someone is stopped from running based on weak reasons, it could cause a lot of trouble and harm democracy.

➡ A video by Judicial Watch was taken down from YouTube. It talked about a whistleblower and his visits to the White House when Obama was president. Judicial Watch thinks this is part of a bigger problem that is hurting our freedoms. They keep trying to share information and be open, even though the government and websites like YouTube make it hard.

➡ Judicial Watch is working to expose wrongdoings, make elections fairer, and show problems at the U.S. border. They need your help. You can learn more and help them by going to their website, giving money, and telling others about it. They also want you to subscribe and like their videos to get updates.”

Hey, everyone, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update here on social media. Thank you, as always, for joining us. The cold winds of winter and corruption are blowing here in Washington, DC and in Fulton County, Georgia. Some big updates there. Kefani WIllis, evidence or evidence of Fannie Willis corruption. The prosecutor targeting Trump down in Fulton county, plus, and involves what’s happening up here in Washington, DC, in terms of the Biden White House and the Justice Department.

So I’ll talk about that. A big Supreme Court fight has been joined this week, further as it relates to the left’s attempts to turn America into a one party state by removing Trump from the ballot. Plus, Judicial Watch has an important new lawsuit over documents about the corruption of Joe Biden, the illicit targeting of Trump, and the deep state efforts to undo and interfere with our election. So I’ll talk about that as well.

First up, I’m disappointed. I’m not surprised, but I’m disappointed that Speaker Johnson worked with the majority of Democrats, virtually every single Democrat in the House, to pass a continuing resolution or a series of continuing resolutions that have the effect of fully funding everything that Joe Biden is doing, at least until March. You heard me right, everything Biden’s doing. Using your tax dollars to move illegal aliens to your hometown and throughout the nation by the millions, fully funded by the House Republican Congress, using your tax dollars to try to jail.

As we’re talking about repeatedly here on this program, President Trump on Trumped up charges, election interference, abuse of process, abuse of power in the Justice Department, the FBI and throughout the land, targeting Trump, fully funded by Speaker Johnson’s leadership team and the Democrats censorship of Americans, fully funded. So the Biden border crisis, the effort to jail Trump, all of that, fully funded by Speaker Johnson. Now, the thinking Speaker Johnson would have you believe is that, well, now that there’s this continuing resolution, we can get back to regular order and that there will be a series of appropriation bills where we might be able to get the policy issues that I’m talking about in terms of the defunding of these abuses that I’ve been highlighting, and we’ve heard it before, and it’s just like the same old, same old.

And I’ve talked about this before in this very spot. Let’s play that video where I’m talking about the outrageous funding of the Republican Congress, of the effort to destroy the Republic. Why is the Justice Department’s fake investigations of Biden being funded by Congress without aggressive oversight and the abusive investigations of Trump and the election interference being funded by Trump without aggressive oversight and or, quote, defunding. I couldn’t hear it.

I don’t know if you could hear it. Thankfully, we had the subtitles up. That’s the question. And I think that’s a question you should continue to ask your elected member of Congress. Now, the numbers who voted for the continuing resolution include virtually every Democrat in the House. And 107 Republicans voted for it and 106 Republicans voted against it. So that’s where things stand. The Democrats seem to be running the House, which may be a good thing, depending on your point of view.

But it’s hard to believe that Republicans who are complaining about the border invasion, including Speaker Johnson, would just go in and fund it with no reasonable expectation that things are going to change next time this issue comes up for a funding fight. So that’s the challenge we face. We’ve got this, what I believe, failing leadership on the Hill. I think only 18 senators voted against this continuing resolution to keep the government open and allow the Biden administration to use tax monies to undermine the know.

In my view, you can have funding fights that don’t necessarily require government shutdowns. If you win or lose, people argue over tax rates. And maybe not every funding fight is worth potentially shutting the government down over. But I don’t know about you, but I believe that an invasion of the United States by the millions of foreign nationals paid for with your tax dollars might be worth shutting the government down over.

We’re trying to jail Trump’s number one political opponent. That might be worth shutting the government down over. We’re censoring tens of millions of Americans. That might be worth shutting the government down over. We’re not going to fund that. And if you want to fund it, then you’re not going to get anything funded. So to me, the unwillingness to do that suggests to me they don’t consider it important because if it were important, they’d be behaving quite differently.

So that’s the challenge we face. Congress isn’t doing what it needs to do. And they’ll say, well, we’re doing impeachment. And they’ll try to say that impeachment is just good enough to distract you from the fact they’re funding the abuses of power. In many ways, they’re trying to impeach Biden for. How does that work? Of course, they don’t want to impeach him for the border invasion, or at least they haven’t yet.

I guess that would be hard to do since they’re actually funding his doing it. And even the impeachment, it’s going slow. Hunter Biden, he didn’t show up, conspired with his father to thumb his nose at this lawful subpoena, goes into a contempt situation. What happens? Well, they come to a deal and he’s going to come at the end of February. So, I mean, isn’t that smart? Joe and Hunter mess with Congress, evade a subpoena, don’t abide by it, and they buy themselves months of extra time in terms of having to testify to the House about it.

He’s not going to testify until February 20 eigth. Now, at this rate, they’ll have an impeachment vote in 2026. I exaggerate, but you know what I mean. So sometimes we’re supportive of the House doing work to pursue oversight. And when Speaker Johnson says and does the right thing, we’ll support them. Democrats say and do the right things, we’ll support them as well. But funding government corruption, I just can’t support.

I just can’t support, especially kind of in your face government corruption, like an invasion. We talked about last week how Fanny Willis’s prosecution down in Fulton county, the democratic politician, she’s a prosecutor, but she’s an elected prosecutor. She’s not appointed. With this unprecedented indictment and targeting of Trump and 18 others has been compromised as if it wasn’t already by politics. But now it’s been compromised by significant allegations of personal corruption by Ms.

Willis herself, who is accused of improperly hiring an inexperienced lawyer to serve a special prosecutor. And it looks like the only reason she hired him is because she was in an adulterous romantic relationship with them and they used the monies. It looks like that he was able to Bill Fulton county to advance the romantic relationship, meaning to go on trips. Now, those allegations were first made in a filing, and the details, they were made, but there was nothing substantive to back them up other than the credibility of the attorney, which, as I said last week, is quite high.

And this whole prosecution has been tainted from the beginning. And I called it out several months ago. I think this video we’re going to play is back from August. And unfortunately, things really haven’t changed that much. But let’s play that, everyone. Judicial watch. President Tom Fiton, here we are in a rule of law crisis with these mass political arrests down there in Georgia. Indeed, President Trump is set to be arrested as well.

All these people, these 19 people, their crime was opposing Biden under state, federal, and constitutional law and daring to dispute an election. There’s never been anything that’s in american history and officials in Georgia, the federal courts, state courts, can’t act soon enough to shut this down. On top of that, we’ve got this crisis up here in Washington, DC, with an out of control Justice Department abusing Trump while protecting Biden.

And it’s also going on in New York City with the Soros back prosecutor trying to jail Trump again on political charges first, can’t act soon enough to shut this down. But you can be sure that judicial watch is taking this seriously. And we’ve got multiple investigations under FOIA lawsuits underway to uncover the truth about this terrible corruption. And we’re continuing investigations in Georgia, here in Washington, DC, up in New York as well.

And in response to the brief, or the brief filed last week, Fannie Willis over the weekend played the race card. She was at a church citing Martin Luther King and suggesting her critics were attacking her because of race. And she made a series of misstatements about the scandal, which were later found to be untrue. The chief among them was that she paid her alleged boyfriend as the same amount of money, if not less, than others, that she had hired from the outside.

And that simply wasn’t the truth. She had paid others from the other outside attorneys less than her boyfriend. And then it was reported that the special prosecutor, Mr. Wade’s wife, who’s in a divorce fight with him, sought her deposition testimony, wanted to subpoena her, and she fought back. And in the reply, Mr. Wade’s wife detailed and attached credit card receipts that kind of blow out of the water.

Frankly, any benefit of the doubt anyone would be given to Fannie Willis at this point. Let’s show those credit card receipts. There you have Mr. Wade purchasing a ticket for Fannie Willis there. Delta, you can see that San Francisco. I don’t think there was anything going on in San Francisco related to the trump prosecution. Let’s go to the next. And there’s on american Fannie Willis. You see there.

Where’s the destination fee? I think that’s in the Caribbean. Where is it? Fort Worth. So that’s in Texas. So what were they doing down there? Now, the court in this case has asked that Ms. Willis respond to this brief accusing her of misconduct and seeking the relief of having this case dismissed outright. And her response to that brief has been ordered by the court to be produced by February 2.

And then I guess there’ll be a hearing later in the month. So this case, I think, is about to be upended. And the question to me is, I think it’s likely that she is removed from the case and the special prosecutor is removed from the case. The question is, can the case survive this corruption? Is it so tainted by her misconduct as alleged here, as evidenced? I think there’s strong evidence or there’s this strong presumption that there’s something going on here that would result in all the cases being thrown out, including the case against Trump.

Now, Trump hasn’t decided whether to sign on to this, but I’m sure his lawyers are looking at this pretty carefully. And, you know, I was thinking about this, and when you see government corruption and kind of the terrible abuses we’ve been seeing with the targeting of, as I was telling Seb Gorka on newsmax the other day, there’s this meta issue, right, this attack on our republican form of government, the effort to turn America into a one party state by jailing the number one opponent of the president in his campaign, President Trump, taking him off the ballot.

We’ll talk about that in a little. Know that’s all terrible, right? But often with political corruption, you got these terrible big picture issues. But the corruption also is often underlined by the petty base, personal corruption. So in Georgia, you have the corruption of targeting Trump for political reasons, which is an outrageous abuse of power, and they’re trying to make a buck off of it personally in looks like an illegal way.

So it’s this personal corruption mashed up with this public corruption at the national and state level, which is just awful. And that’s often true of, and I don’t want to say just the left. There’s almost always the authoritarians that abuse power. They’re usually on the take. They jail their political opponents, and they’re also taking money on the side. And that’s why it’s sometimes called gangster government. And that’s what’s going on in Fulton county.

You have this element of gangster government going on. And on top of that, we have information that this special prosecutor, who arguably shouldn’t have been appointed to begin with, for a variety of reasons, he wasn’t lawfully appointed and he wasn’t experienced. He was appointed for corrupt reasons. He was up here in Washington, DC. So was this all orchestrated in part by the Biden White House and the Biden administration? Oh, you can bet.

You can bet. And we also know that they were working with the Pelosi rump January 6 committee. Now, how does that work? Why is that improper? Because the committee was supposed to be abusing people. Now, they didn’t say that. That’s how I’m saying it. Questioning people, issuing subpoenas and the basis for those subpoenas was that they were engaged in legislative activity. Well, now it turns out they wanted to get that material to advance criminal prosecutions.

And that’s not a valid function of Congress. It’s corruption on top of corruption. And I’ll say it once, and I’ll say it again, President Trump is a crime victim. You see it in Fulton county. You see it up here in Washington, DC. You see it up in, I mean, the judges are, as far as I’m concerned, the judicial system is failing not only President Trump, but the american people in not policing this.

Elected officials in Georgia are failing the people of Georgia and the United States for not policing Willis early on. Same goes in New York. And as I said earlier, congress is fully funding this. They could be cutting off grant money to Fulton county and New York City and attorney general’s office in New York over their abuses of Trump. But they don’t, you know, and it’s funny, I go, I should say it’s funny.

But just so you know, behind the scenes, I’m often talking to people on the Hill and my colleagues in the movement. We’re talking about these budget issues and what’s important and what should be done. And I’ve been consistent since the beginning. And some of my friends and colleagues and associates in the movement and on the Hill, members of Congress, they’ve probably heard me say this a million times, we need to defund all of this.

Investigations are nice. It’s not sufficient, though. Congress has this unique ability to defund it. And even the investigations aren’t as hard charging as they could be. In fact, they were pretty weak under McCarthy. And I would argue they’re still not direct enough now. But we just don’t, you know, whether it be litigation in terms of suing to get access to information about what’s going on or participating in the court process directly.

Judicial Watch repeatedly stands for the rule of law against corrupt prosecutors, corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, or, in the case of Colorado, corrupt courts, as we highlighted earlier. And as you may know, the Colorado Supreme Court took action that, if upheld, would remove President Trump, at least from the primary ballot in Colorado based on these fake allegations. He engaged in an insurrection, and therefore, under the 14th amendment, he’s not allowed to be on the ballot because you can’t be on the ballot for president if you’re insurrectionist.

Now, that’s just wrong as a matter of the plain text of the constitution, because the 14th amendment doesn’t mention the office of the president in that respect. And it’s wrong in the sense that Colorado has no business trying to adjudicate that on its own. And even if it did, as I said, it doesn’t apply to the president. So they’re trying to steal the vote by keeping Trump off the election, off the ballot.

And these are all left wing judges out there. Now, to be fair, there were liberal judges who said, this is too far. I think the whole Supreme Court is appointed by Democrat governors in Colorado. So there’s no Clarence Thomas or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh or Alito on the Supreme Court out there. But there were a few Elena Kagan types who were opposed to this abuse. And now it’s before the Supreme Court of the United States.

And judicial watch, along with many others, filed amicus briefs this week. And the President Trump filed his brief. And I encourage you to go to the Supreme Court website, look up the docket. I think we have a link to it, and you can read all the amicus briefs. But Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief with our friends and supporters at the Allied Educational foundation and the Allied Educational foundation, often partners with us on these amicus briefs.

And let me tell you a little bit about them. They’re a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the foundation is engaged in a number of projects which include, but are not limited to, educational health conferences domestically and abroad, and its partner, frequently with judicial watch, to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life.

Ethics and morality in our nation’s public life. I think that’s a pretty good goal. I know that’s been a goal of judicial watch. So we filed this big amicus brief opposing the Colorado court decision to remove Trump from the ballot. Just to bring you up to date, there was a decision by a secretary of state in Maine. I think he’s on hold, practically speaking, that also removed him from the ballot, or would have the effect of removing him from the ballot if it was allowed to proceed.

Other states have knocked it back, at least for now, including, I think, Michigan and Washington state, Oregon. Anyway, you can look it up, but a few states have considered this, and you can bet if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in, many more states will consider it, and it will be all bets off. Not only will Trump be removed from the ballot, but you can be sure that opponents of Biden will seek to remove him from the ballot.

Under this elastic definition of insurrection, the left is pretending applies to President Trump and we made the point how your rights are under attack by this effort to remove Trump from the ballot by states unilaterally. In our amicus brief or our Amici brief with AEF, the legal and national interest is at stake in any proceeding to determine whether a candidate should be barred from running for a national office like the presidency are extraordinary.

Those interests encompass First Amendment associational rights of members of national political parties, as well as the rights of millions of voters to express their political preferences by voting for the party’s candidate. Those interests also include the national interest in conducting elections perceived to be legitimate because they reflect the wishes of the voters. The impact of banning a national candidate like President Trump from the ballot in one state is felt nationwide, as his supporters in every state reassess his chances of winning and the value of turning out to vote for him accordingly.

Any proceeding to remove President Trump from the ballot in Colorado must account for the interests of millions of republican party members and voters across the nation if it is to comport with the requirements of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. And there’s another point here I wanted to make here from the brief that isn’t in the release. Let me go find that argument in the brief.

Give me a secondary by any reckoning, the number of us voting age citizens whose fundamental First Amendment rights will be affected by the outcome of this matter is enormous. Donald Trump received almost 63 million votes in 2016 and over 74 million votes in 2020. Note also that the Census Bureau currently estimates the US population as close to 335,000,000 persons. About 262,000,000 of them are over the age of 18.

In a recent Gallup poll, 43% of adults identified as republican or republican leaning extrapolated to the national population. That poll suggests that perhaps 113,000,000 adults are likely to be republican or republican leaning. A significant number of them may vote for President Trump if he is again the nominee. All their interests are present here, as the court has prudently observed, meaning the Supreme Court. The impact of the votes cast in each state is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other states, so that access to the ballot in any one state has an impact beyond its own borders.

To be specific, the impact of banning a national candidate like President Trump from the ballot in one state is felt nationwide, as his supporters in every state reassess his chances of winning and the value of turning out for him of know what’s going to ensue if the Supreme Court doesn’t put a stop to I, and I highlighted the issues at stake here. Let’s take a break and go to the video of Mike trying to summarize what’s in the brief here.

Hey everyone, Judicial Watch President Tom Fiton here with a big update. We just filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court opposing the left’s efforts to keep Trump off the ballot using their fake insurrection charges under the 14th amendment. As our lawyers point out in the brief, the left’s attack on Trump violates not only Trump’s rights, but the due process rights and First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans.

This is a coup against the Constitution, an effort to turn America into a one party state by keeping Trump off the ballot. And the Supreme Court should just say no to this attack on our system. The United States has an interest in being able to credibly maintain that national elections are decided by voters who are persuaded for various reasons to cast their ballots for particular candidates. Where this is so, the outcome of the election may be relied on to reasonably reflect what the american people want.

But this claim is undermined when it appears that the machinations of partisan bureaucrats and lawyers are more important in determining the outcome of an election than the will of voters, and chaos will follow if the Supreme Court doesn’t step up, our lawyers allege in this brief, in a basically standardless legal discussion, charges of insurrection can be leveled by imaginative partisans on the basis of many different kinds of inflammatory political actions or speech.

Consider Vice President Kamala Harris promoted a bail fund that helped to free those protesting on the ground in Minnesota in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. The protests in 20 states following that murder were among the costliest in us history, persisting in some cities for months and resulting in at least 25 deaths. Protesters attacked federal property and set fire to a federal courthouse. Protests also caused President Trump to evacuate the White House to a secure, undercrowd location as rioters assaulted police officers outside the White House gates.

So did Kamala Harris engage in insurrection and others who supported those riots in 2020? I would argue yes. I would argue yes. When you look at the language they use to support tearing down society and our government, Kamala Harris, should she be removed from the ballot? Discussing an anticipated abortion ruling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told a rally on the steps of the United States Supreme Court on March 5, 2020, which I considered the year of insurrection, and it was the leftist insurrection.

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you. If you go forward with these awful decisions, does that sound like a threat to you? It sounds like a threat to me. If I came up to you and said, you won’t know what hit you, you’d be threatened, wouldn’t you? He was threatening Supreme Court justices.

He should have been criminally investigated for that, in my view. Indeed, his comments were approved by the chief justice of this court, Chief Justice Roberts, as dangerous. Two years later, a man was arrested for threatening behavior directed at Justice Kavanaugh. Actually, he was arrested for much more, for attempting to murder Kavanaugh. That’s the charges that I recall. It’s pending. That’s what they incited and continue to incite threats and intimidation directed at the Supreme Court.

Is that insurrection? Dare I say it? Yes. At least under their definitions. The court should foreclose this kind of warfare. Now, we respectfully submit that the court should refuse to ratify these maneuvers to take Trump off the ballot and should instead adopted its policy. The observation that the cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy. If you don’t like Trump, run against them. Put out your ads, organize your voters, do what you do in a republican election, and I mean Republican with a small r.

The rule of law prevails. But it’s banana republic stuff. If you start taking your candidate, the candidates you don’t like, off the ballot based on fraud charges. You know what, if you. Or let me be clear. The left’s effort to fraudulently use charges of insurrection that are without foundation to remove Trump from the ballot, I would argue, is insurrection. Are these judges insurrectionists? Maybe all bets are off unless the Supreme Court takes action.

And of course, you know what I say? Chaos. As if the left thinks that’s a bad thing. They want chaos. We’re in a revolutionary period spurned on by the left, urged on by the left, and that means attacking all of our structures of government, our institutions, our elections. They don’t like elections. I mean, they just don’t want dirty elections. In my view, they want no elections. And we see that with the attack on Trump, trying to jail him and remove him from the ballot.

And I don’t know about you, but I think it’s worth fighting to have free and fair elections in the United States. Republicans on the Hill don’t think it’s worth fighting. The media applauds it. But judicial watch will stand for you, the american people and voters of both parties who want to be able to decide who governs them, because the very idea of self government is under attack by the left.

You know, and we saw that with the attack on self government. I call it the soft coup against President Trump with the impeachment about nothing over that so called Ukraine phone call, right where President Trump was concerned about corruption tied to Ukraine A and the interference in the United States elections in 2016. And Joe Biden’s efforts to cajole, bribe, extort Ukraine into firing a prosecutor that was potentially investigating, if not investigating, at the time, his son’s company’s Barisma and Adam Schiff manufactured an impeachment against him, again, based on nothing.

And it started in part based on agitators within the intelligence community who, in my view, misstated a call because the call was perfect, as President Trump says, between him and his ukrainian counterpart, related to these corruption issues. And no one wants to investigate these folks who tried to undo the presidency and overturn the presidency, overturn an election and have effect rig an election, because that impeachment was about protecting Joe Biden.

They went after President Trump for going after and export and exposing Biden corruption that he was right about. And some of the details we weren’t allowed to talk to you about. And I don’t know if I still can like the name of the alleged CIA person involved in this targeting of Trump with Adam Schiff, because as last I checked, if I say his name on YouTube, they’ll take the video down.

I’m not even sure what the censors over at Facebook are doing. I mean, we’re on all the platforms, and it wouldn’t be an issue on X or Rumble or get truth or true social whatever, but I don’t want to have the video taken out. So I’m not going to mention the name, but you can look it up. Last time we talked about source operatives going to visit this guy in the White House, and YouTube took it down.

And I was complaining about it a few years ago. Here’s the tape. Hi, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fiton here with some breaking news. Judicial Watch’s YouTube video on the alleged whistleblower was censored by YouTube. It was taken down supposedly because we mentioned his name, even though we just reported on information we had received or observed in government documents. Obama White house visitor log so we talked about all the visits he had and who he was meeting with, but that was too much for the YouTube people and too much for the leftists who are trying to protect the coup.

So the video is available on Twitter and on Facebook, so you can find it there. But this censorship shows you how serious the coup is. It’s undermining all of our freedoms, but we’ll keep on fighting. Thank you. And it’s continuing. I’m going to have to edit the name here. I mean, you can see the video or see the name in the lawsuit that’s linked below. And it’s still relevant because Burisma and the connections there are under investigation still.

And we’re not going to back down. We pushed back, we asked for documents about this guy before, and the government told us, so you can’t have anything. Previously, we had a lawsuit about what it was the lawsuit for. We sued the DOJ in December of 2019. We sued the Justice Department and CIA for communications between this guy, whose name I can’t mention. We’ll call him Voldemort, right, and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe and order special counsel’s office.

That was Mueller. In both cases, the government refused to produce records, refusing to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of responsive records, because confirming or denying the existence of non existence of responsive records would reveal information protected by the CIA act, namely existence or non existence of an employment relationship between the agency and this person, and would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. So a man who helped impeach to president, who works for the intelligence community, we’re not even allowed to say his name on YouTube.

And the government won’t confirm he even works for the government because he has a privacy interest. I don’t buy, you know, the courts here are deferential to the government, especially the CIA. When the CIA says, this is a secret, rare is the federal court that will say otherwise. But what I love about judicial watch is that we are relentless, and we may take no for an answer because we have to, but we’re constantly pushing for the information any way we can.

And we had asked the Defense Department for records about this person and what he supposedly said to someone else in the White House. In the early part of the administration of President Trump, we asked for any and all records submitted by A-U-S. Military officer assigned to the National Security Council, to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard. Circuit January 2017, which is the beginning of the Trump administration, at an all hands NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts blank and blank.

I’m not sure if I’m allowed to say their names because YouTube, Google, Inc. Will censor us to help Joe Biden and hurt Donald Trump regarding trying to, quote, get rid of then President Trump. So we basically want to know what the Defense Department knew about this meeting because there was a story written by Paul Sperry, the investigative journalist, and this is what he wrote about what had happened barely two weeks after President Trump took office.

Eric, I can’t say his name. The CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous whistleblower who touched off Trump’s impeachment. Now, this is the first impeachment. The second impeachment was trying to throw him out of office for daring to question an election was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues, sources told real clear investigations.

The staffer with whom Blank was speaking was blank. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues, and both expressed anger over Trump’s new american first policy, foreign policy, which was a seat change for President Obama’s approach to international affairs. At the meeting, two national security employees, the unidentified military staffer who was seated directly in front of these two confirmed hearing talking about toppling Trump after Flyn.

Mike Flyn, General Mike Flyn, he was then the national security advisor, briefed the staff about what America first foreign policy means. This CIA guy turned to his colleague and commented, we need to take him out, the staffer recalled. And the other guy replied, yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president, added the military detailee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. By taking him out, they meant removing him from office by any means necessary.

They were triggered by Trump and Flynn’s vision for the world. This was the first all hand staff meeting. They got to see Trump’s national security team, and they were huffing and puffing throughout the briefing. Anytime Flynn said something that they didn’t like about America first, he also heard this CIA deep stater tell his colleague, we can’t let him enact this foreign policy. This is no surprise, right? Because this is the way the beep state acted throughout and tried to basically destroy Trump from within for years.

Talk about sedition and insurrection. Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to superiors. And Paul mentions how in November 2019, we reported that among those visiting this CIA analyst in Sconston, the White House, were several officers and leftist George Soros organizations. And that’s where YouTube censored me and you and Judicial watch. Now, we’ve asked the Defense Department for these records because the DTLE said, I talked to my superiors so are there records of him reporting this attack on the president? Why is the Defense Department holding this up? It has our lawsuit details.

I thought we had it in there, but I guess we don’t. Well, anyway, they’ve been sitting on this for over a year. I think they started pretend they acknowledged receipt in the beginning of 2022, maybe 23. No, it’s 23. And as I note, the intelligence community targeted Trump for removal, for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Barisma. The Biden Defense Department sitting over a year, for over a year on this simple FOIA request, on the deep state targeting of Trump.

It’s a cover up, plain and simple. It’s a cover up, plain and simple. But, you know, we haven’t forgotten about Barisma in Ukraine. We haven’t forgotten about what Adam Schiff did. He’s running for the Senate now. He’s leveraged his work trying to destroy the Republic and attack Trump through impeachment coups into increased popularity in California, which is largely controlled by the left. At least going to be, I think he’s likely to be the Democrat nominee or the leading Democrat for the Senate there in the election later this year.

So it’s relevant to issues about him. He’s a politician. And what he did related to the Barisma impeachment was corrupt, was designed to protect Biden, and he was willing to destroy our republic to do so by removing the president on a pretext for daring to raise questions about erythma. So this is not only about the corruption of the deep state, it’s also about the corruption of a powerful politician and politicians on the Hill.

Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and company. So we’re all supposed to forget about this, right? Trump gets abused, our system of government is attacked, but let’s move on. Let’s just pretend the fight is about how much money we want to spend in Washington, DC. It doesn’t matter. The politicians spending the money are tearing down our country. That that money is regularly used to destroy and undermine the ability to govern ourselves by giving agencies like the CIA operatives protection to target a president.

Take him out again. This is why I love judicial Watch. Now, I like judicial watch because I’m its president. Right? But I like Judicial watch because these simple foias that we do, and I know they’re not simple because not everyone knows how to do FOIA litigation, like Judicial Watch, where America’s number one FOIA litigator. But it’s a relatively simple piece of litigation, given all the types of litigation you could be engaged in to get access to documents.

But documents that oftentimes reflect on and can change if released, the future course of the history of the country and can result in accountability and in the least should say, last but not least, right, the education of Americans about what their government’s up to, both good and bad, and in this case, bad. So if you like what you’re hearing from judicial watch, whether it be filing amicus briefs to try to save the republic from the effort to remove Trump from the ballot, exposing the corruption of Congress and taking out president for doing nothing more than highlighting the corruption of Joe Biden.

And there are other important investigations and litigation, whether it be cleaning elections, exposing the biden border invasion, you name it. There’s no one doing more on so many issues than judicial watch. So I encourage you to support our work. Go to judicialwatch. org, judicialwatch. org. Make a donation and also share the wealth of information you’ll see on that website so other Americans find out about the cris we face, and hopefully we can recruit them to our cause and our movement and in the least, educate them about where our country is.

With that, I’ll see you here next week on the Judicial watch weekly update. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.