Summary
➡ The article talks about a report that suggests Mr. Biden might have mishandled classified information. However, it also says that he probably won’t be prosecuted because he’s an older man with a poor memory, which could make it hard to prove he did anything wrong on purpose. The article also suggests that this situation could be used to defend President Trump in a similar case. Lastly, it raises questions about whether Mr. Biden should continue to be president given his memory issues.
➡ The president is facing criticism for his handling of issues, especially regarding the Middle East. Some people are questioning his memory and ability to do his job. There’s also a debate about whether he should be removed from office. This situation is causing problems for the president and the country.
➡ This text talks about how both Trump and Biden have been investigated for things they didn’t do. It also mentions how the Justice Department changed rules which ended up affecting Biden. The text also discusses how Trump was targeted by many government agencies. Lastly, it talks about a court case where people are trying to stop Trump from being on the ballot for the next election, but it seems like the court might not agree with this.
➡ This text talks about a lot of political issues. It says that Trump’s rights were violated and the Supreme Court might stop this. It also talks about an immigration bill that didn’t pass, which would have changed how we handle people coming into the country illegally. The text also mentions a lawsuit about counting votes that come in after Election Day, which some people think is unfair and could change the results of an election.
➡ Judicial Watch, a group that works to keep voting records clean, has removed millions of names from voting lists. They are also fighting for fair and honest vote counting. However, they are upset because Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running for president, has been denied Secret Service protection despite threats to his safety. They believe this is a dangerous and politically motivated decision.
➡ A city worker sent out an invite for a party only for elected officials of color, which some people think is unfair. The people who sent the invite say they didn’t mean to leave anyone out. Some folks are upset and have asked for more information about the party, but they feel like they’re not getting straight answers. A group called Judicial Watch is trying to help by taking legal action and fighting against what they see as unfair treatment based on race.
Transcript
We had a major development in the presidential immunity case and the effort to jail Trump for daring to dispute the election. Plus, new litigation by Judicial Watch to vindicate the rule of law on elections and stop them where states from counting ballots after election day that are received after election day. A new lawsuit over racism up in Boston and outrageous documents, more outrageous documents, about the refusal by the Biden administration to provide Secret Service protection to Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. First up, of course, is the big news out of the special counsel’s office, Mr. Hurr, H-U-R who released a report essentially saying that Joe Biden committed a crime, but he’s not going to be prosecuted for it because no jury is going to buy that he had the willful intent to commit the crime. Because he’s adult, he’s brain adult. His memory is not sufficient enough to warrant a prosecution, so he’s seemingly incompetent and can’t be prosecuted before a jury.
An incredible development. In addition, the report further confirms that President Trump was right and that the Justice Department has and had dual standards in how they approached Trump and how they approached previous presidents. And with all due respect to Mr. Hurr, how they approached Joe Biden in the handling of these document disputes, I tell you, if the prosecution against Joe Biden can’t proceed, then the prosecution against President Trump on these very same issues must be dropped.
That’s for sure. So the report was released this week. And the funny thing is, I was traveling this week. I went down to Savannah, Georgia, wonderful city, to do a little speech down that way. And all of this is coming out while I’m traveling. So I was able to look at much of what was released, not all of it, but much of it as I was traveling back and forth.
But the document is important, and I encourage you to read the entire thing. Not because I think all of it is persuasive, not that I think all of it is necessarily even honest in its analysis, but it’s devastating in terms of exposing the double standard that the Justice Department took with the approach to Trump versus Biden. And when you go through each of the steps, the investigative steps, and kind of the benefit of the doubt that he gave Joe Biden at every step of the way versus how they evaluated and treated President Trump in almost exactly similar circumstances, you’re going to be shocked.
And of course, the media misses that because they’re so anti Trump and they’re more focused on the problem for Biden as a result of his obvious cognitive disability being exposed. But this is as important for Trump as it is for Biden. Excuse me. So Merrick Garland released the report, and this is how it starts. It’s whether it’s legally devastating, obviously, Trump, but Biden isn’t going to be prosecuted, at least under this theory or by this special counsel, but politically, it’s potentially disastrous.
Executive summary we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if the Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president. So to take a step back, there’s no law that says a sitting president can’t be prosecuted for crimes. It’s a policy that the Justice Department follows based on their analysis of the Constitution, which is still at issue with the issues related to President Trump, who’s being prosecuted for things he did as president after he left office.
So you see how that rule basically blows. Know that exception that they want to make for Trump blows up the rule that no one be prosecuted while they’re in office. But you can be prosecuted the day after you leave office. Well, why would you behave quite differently? Wouldn’t you? And the whole purpose of protecting the president for prosecution for official acts, just as there is a protection to judges from being prosecuted or pursued for official acts or for members of Congress, the speech or debate clause, they’re immune for prosecution in the course of their legislative duties like that.
Of course, there has to be a similar rule for the president. The constitutional structure requires it. So, of course, I’m already getting distracted because everything’s outrageous, right? Because the dishonesty here just bleeds through in terms of how all of this has been applied and how much Trump has been abused. Our investigators uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.
These materials included one marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and two notebooks containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home. So there you have it. There’s the garage. Makes me think that I get worried my garage is too messy.
And then I see Joe Biden’s garage, and I’m thinking, well, it’s not all that bad. But that circled box is where he kept the classified information. Now, again, to take a step further back, judicial Watch had litigated this very issue against who? Bill Clinton, or specifically the National Archives. Bill Clinton had talked to an author who recorded him while he was president of the United States, and that author recorded him talking to members of Congress and foreign leaders, at least one foreign leader.
And when the president communicates with a foreign leader, those communications generally are necessarily classified. So we were talking about potentially, and the assumption was in the case, classified information. And this was many years ago, it’s about 1012 years ago now. And we said, well, aren’t these presidential records? Right. We were taking the Biden administration’s position with respect to Trump. And the Justice Department at the time came back at us and said no.
The archives came back at us and said no. And the court, a left wing judge, agreed and said, essentially the president has unreviewable authority, unreviewable authority to designate records as personal or classified, and there’s no second guessing it. And if he wants to take documents with him, he can, and there’s no way to get them back because once he has them, they’re his. Indeed, in the hearing related to our case, the Justice Department told the court at the time that records that he has, because we were talking about classified records, they said, well, we just presume they’re personal if he has them.
And in this case, they confirmed. Joe Biden thought that same way in the handling of records from his time as vice president of the United States. He wanted to keep these records for his own use, and he specifically wanted them, at least the case of the Afghanistan documents, because he didn’t like the Afghanistan policy of Obama and Obama’s predecessors, and he thought he would be vindicated by history and he wanted to keep those records and he thought he had a right to them that they were his records.
And her says the special prosecutor, although he pretended to disagree with him on the law, said that’s a credible defense. And because it’s a credible defense, it might be a powerful enough defense to get him off on a jury. And that’s one of the reasons they didn’t prosecute him. That same very analysis applies to Trump, as we’ve highlighted, as we’ve been punished for highlighting. Remember, because we’ve been talking about this issue, the Justice Department and Jack Smith targeted me personally with a subpoena and judicial watch and forced me to come in and testify to a grand jury for 4 hours where I argued with them about this very issue.
And what’s interesting in this report is that there’s even another case that’s even more on point that supports not only President Biden’s position, blows out of the water the attack on Trump. And it doubly confirms what we found in the Clinton records case or what we lost in the Clinton records case. It was the Reagan diaries. Reagan kept a diary day to day of his activities almost in the White House, and that included classified information.
And this is what they say about that. The clearest example is President Reagan, who left the White House in 1989 with eight years worth of handwritten diaries, which he appears to have kept at a California home, even though they contain top secret information. During criminal litigation involving a former president, a Reagan administration official in 1989 and 90, the Department of Justice stated in public court file, stated in public court filings that the currently classified diaries were Mr.
Reagan’s personal records. Yet we know of no steps the department or other agencies took to investigate Mr. Reagan for mishandling classified information or to retrieve or secure his diaries. Most jurors will likely find evidence of this precedent and Mr. Biden’s claim, reliance on it, which we expect would be admitted at trial to be compelling evidence that Mr. Biden did not act willfully. How on earth does that not apply to Trump, too? Now they’re pretending there’s a distinction, by the way, between Biden and Trump, and there isn’t.
I read the report. There’s nothing persuasive. It’s all just mere allegations that easily could be applied to Biden as it is to Trump. Now the devastated, so this is dramatic evidence on behalf of President Trump. Mr. Her is now, as far as I’m concerned, the number one defense witness for President Trump in that documents trial down in Miami that Jack Smith is pursuing against mean. How is this not mean? The fact that they’re not prosecuting Biden on the same set of facts while they’re prosecuting mean.
To me, that’s the epitome of selective prosecution and should result in the case being thrown out. But it gets worse because all that’s helpful to Trump. Right? But even though Trump supposedly, I mean, Biden is supposedly exonerated here, however dishonestly, he’s exonerated in a way that’s devastating to him in terms of his ability potentially to remain in office. Forget about getting elected or not. There’s serious questions about whether he should resign because of the information in this report.
In addition to him being accused quite directly of a crime, we’re told that one of the reasons he’s not going to be prosecuted, in addition to these plausible defenses he has, based on constitutional law and precedent and practice and DOJ’s prior position, the same things that we’ve been talking for a year or two about Trump, they say his memory is awful, and no one’s going to believe he had the mental state of willfulness necessary to warrant a prosecution.
It first comes up here. This is the big phrase. In addition, Mr. Biden’s memory. This is page five, guys. You’re down a little bit too further. We’re going to get to that part later. In addition, Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter. He had talked to a book ghostwriter for his book in 2017 and in his interview with our office in 2023.
And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake. Rather than acting willfully, that is, with intent to break the law, as the statute requires, his memory is significantly limited. And then later, we have also considered that at trial, Mr. Biden will likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poorer memory based on a direct interactions with and observance of him.
He is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It will be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him by then, a former president, well into his eighty s of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness. So the honesty here is he’s a very sympathetic defendant because he has evidence of dementia or cognitive decline associated with late age. The dishonesty is saying a jury will never convict him.
What they mean is a Democrat jury in DC will never convict him. I mean, you could play that game for any candidate, any potential defendant. So to me, it’s not sufficient to keep him out of court. But they had to have an explanation, right? Because they say he committed a crime here. There’s evidence he committed a crime. Why aren’t we prosecuting him? And the key reason they’re not prosecuting him is because of his terrible failures of memory.
And it’s not just that. I mean, listen to the devastating analysis of it later. Here. This is on page 207 of the report. We’ll have a link below for the report if you want to look at it. Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations, both at the time he spoke to Swanitsa. I don’t know how to pronounce his name. That’s the ghostwriter book author, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office.
I want the transcript, right? I want the video. If there’s a video. Was there a recordation made of this? Why isn’t it in public yet? Mr. Biden’s recorded conversation with Onitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries. In this interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended.
If it was 2013, when did I stop being vice president? They quoted Miss saying he did not remember even within several years when his son Bo died, and his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him, among other things, he mistakenly said he had a real difference of opinion. When General Carl Eichenberry, when in fact, Eichenberry was an ally who Mr.
Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama. And that’s a big memo he wrote opposing their strategy in Afghanistan in a case where the government must prove that Biden knew he had possession of the classified Afghanistan documents after the vice presidency and chose to keep those documents, knowing he was violating the law. We expect that at trial, his attorneys would emphasize these limitations in his recall.
So it wasn’t so much they’re trying to ding him for having a poor memory. They’re highlighting that obvious evidence of memory fails would make it impossible for them to get a conviction. Now, as I said, I disagree, but that’s the explanation they have. And so everyone on the left is now complaining, saying that this special counsel is a MAGA Republican, when in fact, he’s a left wing Republican, by all accounts, and he’s an appointee of.
I mean, my question is, if Merrick Garland thinks that Joe Biden’s memory is fine, then he should reject the conclusions of the special counsel and prosecute Joe Biden. If Joe Biden thinks his memory is fine, he should tell his attorney general to say, ignore what he says. You make an independent evaluation, and ignore his comments on my memory and just call it as you see it, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
You can’t, quote, exonerate Biden without admitting he’s being protected because of the fact he can’t function. And then to make matters worth, let me go through the rest of the report here. Let me make sure I’m going to cover something. Third, as discussed to some extent above, this is the other reason they don’t want to prosecute him. Biden will likely present himself to the jury, as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.
While he is and must be accountable for his actions, he is, after all, the president of the United States. Based on our direct conversations with him, Biden is someone for whom many jurors will want to search for a reasonable doubt. Again, as I say, what they need to be saying is DC jurors who are sympathetic, I mean, the number of Republicans in the DC jury pool is immaterial.
They’re not going to show up in the jury pool in any great extent. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him by then, a former president who will be at least well into his eighty s of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness. So you can see they declined to recommend prosecution. So completely devastating to Biden, completely exonerating to Trump, and a complete indictment of the way the Justice Department has approached Trump.
And I’ll talk about that in a minute, but let’s talk about the political blowback. So I remember, and I don’t remember the congressman. I think it happened. It’s not apocryphal. There was a congressman who was named the stupidest member of Congress. And to push back on it, he held a press conference denying he was stupid, which, as many people correctly saw, was further evidence that he was indeed stupid.
Now, Joe Biden was as accused here of being mentally unwell in terms of having just an awful memory that would protect him from federal prosecution, make him incompetent, practically speaking, for trial. Now, they didn’t go that far saying he would be incompetent and be found incompetent, but they thought his memory was so awful that no jury would convict him for crimes that required willfulness. So he reacted and held this awful press conference last night.
I think we have a clip of his initial reaction to these questions about his memory. President Biden, something the special counsel said in his report is that one of the reasons you were not charged is because in his description, you are a well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. I’m well meaning and I’m an elderly man, and I know what the hell I’m doing. I’ve been president.
I put this country back on its feet. I don’t need his recommendation. It’s totally your memory. And can you continue as president? My memory is so bad, I let you speak. My memory is fine. And then later, he was asked the question or made a statement related to the Middle east. He’s decided one of the other scandals this week is he’s become completely anti Israel on behalf of the terrorist supporters in the base of his party or what he considers to be the base of his voters that are angry that he’s daring to support Israel, even moderately.
Now he’s just completely, viciously anti Israel. But this is how he began talking about the issue. I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in the Gaza Strip has been over the top. I think that, as you know, initially the president of Mexico, CC, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him. I convinced him open the gate.
I talked to Bibi to open the gate. On the israeli side, I’ve been pushing really hard, really hard. So there you have the president literally minutes after he said he’s got a great memory, confuse the president of Mexico with the president of Egypt, and it happens all the time, but it happened at exactly the wrong time during this press conference. And as a result, there’s been a firestorm, even among Democrats.
And he repeatedly said false things about the special counsel, special counsel report and what Trump had done and that you can look up on your own. But my point is that he was trying to reassure the american people he’s on top of things. And he raised questions about whether he should be removed from office involuntarily through the 25th amendment or whether he should resign or whether Democrats, I’m sure now, are talking more brightly and directly about replacing him on the ballot.
And the politics of it, I guess they kind of intersect with the good government part of the analysis I’m trying to bring to bear here. But when you have a Justice Department special counsel operating on behalf of Merrick Arlin conclude his memory warrants him being protected from criminal prosecution, his memory problems? Well, why wouldn’t the body politic and government institutions wonder whether he can continue to function at all as president of the United States? So it’s a crisis now.
It’s a crisis for Joe Biden, and it’s a crisis for America. I mean, I don’t cackle about Joe Biden looking awful on the stage last night. It’s troubling because our whole country’s national security relies in large measure on the strength and competence as projected by the president of the United States. And when the president is weak and ill or seemingly cognitively challenged and confirmed to be cognitively challenged in a Justice Department report that’s protecting him for prosecution, how is it that adversaries like Putin, Chairman Xi, or even our friends? Because, as you know, in the international sphere, sometimes your friends are always trying to get one up.
What must they been thinking? And, of course, they’ve probably been thinking this for years, but now it’s all out in the open, and our country is being destabilized as a result of these questions, not only about Biden’s criminality, but his basic ability to do the job. And this confirms the vicious, nasty, in my view, criminal abuse of power targeting Trump. So, as I said, they had the Clinton Socktro case.
They had the example of the Reagan case, where the presumption was by the Justice Department and the National Archives that records the president had after he leaves office, which also applied to the vice president. Because my view is Biden was right on documents he had as vice president, he did have a right to keep mean. That was the policy and practice of the Justice Department. That was their analysis.
It’s what the law says. It’s what a key court has decided. It’s the way Reagan was treated, was the way Clinton was treated. Biden was right. So was Trump. That’s the point. They’re treating him differently. Now. The problem that Biden has, which I think they tend to gloss over here, is that he had classified records from his days as senator. Now, those protections and prerogatives, the president has to keep classified information with him after they leave office.
It doesn’t apply to Joe Biden, the senator, and that’s where he faces a legal liability, where there is no legitimate defense. So what they did to Trump, this is what happened in 2021. They came in and lied to him. And they said to him and his attorneys and his personal representatives, you have documents from when you were president, and they’re ours. You’re not allowed to have them. You got to turn them back over to the national archives.
And they finally turned over 15 boxes, and they didn’t have to turn them over because they had no right to ask for them legally. I guess they could ask. Anyone can ask anything, right? But they lied when they said they weren’t his and they need to turn them over. They were his, and they told him otherwise. And they used that whole dispute to concoct a raid on his home and a prosecution.
They lied to trump about the nature of the records he had. They said they weren’t his and they knew better. And this is why we got so upset once it became public, because we had been involved in the Clinton case. We knew what they were telling Trump. And the position they were taking was at ODS with prior DOJ policy on records in the possession of a former president.
So when Biden says, these were mine, and I didn’t want to turn them over, whether they were classified or not, because they’re mine, he was right. But of course, the Justice Department changed the rules, and it’s led to this crisis for Biden because then it gave the Justice Department, they were forced into having to investigate Biden, even though the whole thing was based on a big falsehood that the records that a president or vice president had after he left office were still the custody, were still government records and they weren’t or presidential records.
There were their personal records. So this ought to be the end, in my view, of the Trump prosecution in Florida. I heard, and I don’t know if it’s true or not, so maybe I shouldn’t say that. This is what I think Trump should do. He should demand his records back, an apology and money for the damages he suffered for the violations of his civil liberties. That’s what he should do now, legally.
What he should do to get that, I guess, is another matter in this case. He can, I guess, maybe ask for a motion dismiss based on selective prosecution. I mean, this is exhibit a, this document, 300 and whatever pages, this is exhibit a for the Trump defense. If not Biden, then why Trump? If not Biden, then why Trump? Really outrageous. So, you know, I could go on and on about it, but I tell you, this is further evidence that the Justice Department has been turned into a weapon against President Trump.
It’s further evidence that the Justice Department and the FBI are completely political. Now, I know the left is complaining that this is like the Comey moment, right? That her went beyond what he was allowed to do by talking about this. And this is the Comey moment. They’re referencing from the group of 30,000 emails, 110 emails have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, we are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. And of course, he went on to just attack Hillary Clinton, right, saying how derelict in terms of her responsibilities she was in terms of the handling classified information.
And they’re saying, well, this is what the left is now saying. And Biden’s defenders is that’s what her did, something inappropriate by going beyond what he needed to say. And the difference is Comey didn’t need to attack Hillary there. And I don’t think he should have, really. And people say, Tom Fitton, you’re so anti Hillary. I think Hillary was right in criticizing Comey for the way he handled that.
He had no business making comments about her conduct, but her had no choice in some ways, because of the nature of his job. He was special counsel and he had to explain to the public why he wasn’t bringing charges. As I said earlier, you can’t say that someone committed a crime and not explain why you’re not prosecuting him, at least in the context of this. And if people don’t like this, then get rid of the darn special counsels.
I don’t know about you, but the Justice Department should not be running our election system and putting thumbs up or thumbs down on presidential candidates. And in this case, and with the case of Trump investigating non crimes and then using said investigation in the case of Trump, they’re trying to put him in jail for non crimes. And for poor Joe, I know a lot of you are going to say, who poor note, but don’t say poor Joe.
But for poor Joe, he gets investigated for non crimes, at least with respect to vice presidential records. And he gets slammed indirectly because of this memory. You know, this is the mess the left made. The Justice Department changed the rules. And so now Joe Biden got caught up in their own games that they were playing against Trump. The dog reared back and bit the handler, which is the Biden regime.
Now, you have to remember, at the time they were harassing Trump. They were hiding all this Biden information, the fact he had these documents. And once it became public, after months and months and months, they had no choice to appoint a special counsel for Biden because they already had been targeting and harassing Trump for a year plus. So they’re really devastating evidence not only of Justice Department and FBI double standards, but dishonesty by many agencies of government in the targeting of Trump.
And then you’ve got the kind of the current crisis of Biden’s questions about his cognitive abilities. What a week and that’s just half of what happened this week. On the outrage side, you had the appellate court here in the District of Columbia rush through in a hysterical opinion by anti Trump judges that upheld Judge Chutkin’s lower court opinion. This is what I said on Twitter about it. Let’s anti Trump.
Well, this is something later. I’ve carefully reviewed DC’s circuit opinion upholding Judge Chuckin’s extremist decision to undo our constitutional system of government by allowing the unprecedented prosecution of Trump for official acts as president. The rush decision is another nakedly political act that seems primarily designed to ensure that Joe Biden’s appointees can jail his political opponent before the election. Supreme Court can’t undo this judicial assault on the rule of law soon enough.
Are republics at, you know, to further prove the political nature of this whole process, the DC appellate court rushed through and kind of forced Trump to speed up any appeal he wanted to have. Typically, ordinarily, according to the rule, and this is what I talk about later. You can throw up this tweet now. They sped up the mandate issuance to allow Chutkin’s trial to proceed against Trump from the ordinary 52 days to less than a week.
Now, what do I mean by mandate? Now, this is where I’m not a lawyer, so it means I don’t practice before the federal court of Appeals. But my understanding of a mandate is when an appeal is an opinion in a case is issued, and a mandate issues from the appellate court, allowing the lower court to get back on the case and continue to proceed as the appellate court opinion directed.
But because sometimes the litigants object, there’s a delay in the issuance of that mandate, which can be as long as 52 days, ordinarily. Instead, they rushed it to less than a week. So I don’t know if the Supreme Court is going to take this up. I don’t know if Trump is going to ask the full court to take it up. The full appellate court, the ask for an bonk review, but you can see they’re desperate to try to get him jailed.
And you can be sure that given this decision by her, to not prosecute Biden, while condemning Biden essentially for being incompetent because of mental challenges and memory challenges, they’re going to be in a desperate state to rush this prosecution of Trump. So they get their little victory with the anti Trump judges here in the District of Columbia. But also, it looks like they’re angry again because the Supreme Court of the United States wasn’t terribly interested in turning America into a complete one party state, and seems to suggest that there actually has to be an election in 2024.
That’s legitimate. Meaning that the Supreme Court justices had a hearing on Colorado’s efforts to throw Trump off the ballot and the efforts generally of the left to throw Trump off the ballot based on a malicious and bad faith reading of the 14th Amendment to justify, as I say, turning America into a one party state, a, by falsely accusing him of insurrection. This is the clause that’s relevant here.
Section three of the 14th Amendment. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or electoral president, vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state who has previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or was an offer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Do you notice what’s not there? President. No person shall be president doesn’t say that. And of course, Trump didn’t engage in insurrection, so that’s malarkey. We filed a case, an amicus. In that case, a big hearing before the Supreme Court, and it looks like it’s going to go bad for the left. We have a sample of some of the questioning between not only the conservative justices, but the left wing justices.
Let’s go to that. When you look at section three, the term insurrection jumps out. And the question is, the questions are, what does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides whether someone engaged in it? What processes, as Justice Barrett alluded to, what processes are appropriate for figuring out whether someone did engage in that? And that’s all what Chief justice chase focused on a year after the 14th Amendment.
To say, these are difficult questions, and you look right at section five of the 14th Amendment, as the chief justice said, and that tells you Congress has the primary role here. I think what’s different is the processes, the definition. Who decides? Questions really jump out at you when you look at section three, your response to that? Well, certainly, Justice Kavanaugh, there has to be some process for determining those questions.
And then the question becomes, does anything in the 14th Amendment say that only Congress can create that process? And section five very clearly is not an exclusive provision. It says, Congress shall have power. But maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. In other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is just say it.
It sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national. Know, if you weren’t from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan, and know what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between whether candidate a is elected or candidate b is mean. That seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it? The more broad point I want to make is that what is very clear from the history is that the framers were concerned about charismatic rebels who might rise through the ranks up to and including the presidency of the United States.
But then why didn’t they put the word president in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred and president is not there. And so I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focusing on the president. And for example, the fact that electors of vice president and president are there suggests that really what they thought was, if we’re worried about the charismatic person, we’re going to bar insurrectionist electors and therefore that person is never going to rise.
So you can see you had the two liberals, Elena Kagan and Kataji Braun. Jackson, the most recent Biden appointee, significantly questioned this effort to remove Trump from the ballot. It looks to me like it may be a nine nothing vote. Maybe it probably would be an eight one vote. Sotomayor, who knows where she is on these issues? It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a nine nothing vote.
And sometimes these judges issue concurring appearance opinions. It’s just an opinion not joining the majority, but kind of saying, I agree with the result for different reasons or with certain caveats, which would be a big victory for the rule of law and clean and fair elections and a big blow against the left’s efforts to destroy our system of government. The fact that they’re undertaking this, and even if they lose, I think it’s a problem because they’ve gotten so far, because it’s so disruptive to the rule of law.
If you’re running for office and if you’re wanting to volunteer, you should be spending your time on electioneering, right campaigning. And when the government and government officials abuse their powers to stop you from doing that with these ridiculous ideas that you can’t be removed from the ballot, something out of Putin’s Russia, that’s election interference. Whether or not you end up winning, in the end, you’ve been derailed, distracted.
I tell know, as I said earlier, Trump’s civil rights have been so terribly victimized. Here he is a crime victim, bar none in terms of the history of the United States, in terms of political crimes and crimes by the government targeting him. It’s just unbelievable. And I’m glad the Supreme Court is going to shut this down, by all accounts. And I just hope it gets to be nine nothing because that’s what it deserves.
They should say no. 90 to this effort to destroy our republic and rig the elections. As I said, we have an amicus brief. You can look it up@judicialwatch. org. Which explains our view on it as well. And there was some good news also this week. The left had tried to, as we talked about, well, I don’t know if we talked about it last week. I think we predicted what was going to happen, and it was even worse than we thought in terms of what the Democrats and republican leadership in the Senate wanted to push forward in this immigration bill.
They were hoping because typically what happens is they release something at the last minute, the establishment wants it, they slide it through. The House gets rolled and it gets passed into law. This case that all blew apart because of you. We did it. We stopped this legislation that would have enshrined under law an invasion of the United States, made no effective changes in the way our immigration law is administered to stop anyone from crossing the border illegally or curtailing the flood that’s coming in.
Generally, it would have continued funding of left wing groups that are aiding and abetting the invaders while at the same time on the other end just sending all this foreign aid out without much checks. I’m not necessarily opposed to some money going to some of our friends in fights and such, but certainly not the way the Biden administration is doing it. And so that’s what the plan was, to make the border crisis worse by giving Biden an out and really making it impossible for any next president to significantly curtail illegal immigration.
And we won. I mean, how many times you heard me complain about something’s going to happen, I tell you to call and do something about it and you all call, right? But sometimes it mostly gets through, right? We end up losing. So the next question is, what is the House going to do about this? The republican controlled House, because their effort to impeach Majorcas failed this week. That’s another big news story, although they may bring it up again.
It was a voting game and they didn’t have enough votes present. Steve Scalise was sick. There was a Democrat who they didn’t think was going to be there, who ended up being there. Long story short, the vote didn’t turn out the way they wanted to get my orcas impeached. And as I said previously, I don’t know if I said it here, impeaching my orcas may be necessary, but is it sufficient? Of course not, because, a, he’s not going to be removed ultimately, and he’s not going to stop doing what he’s doing.
And of course, Biden is ultimately responsible for this. So the question I have is, why do we keep on funding? And I’ve asked it again, and I’ll keep on asking it as long as our country’s being under assault through this invasion, why is the republican controlled Congress and the Senate, which is really 50 50 more or less? I mean, I know Democrats control it, but it’s really 50 50 fully funding the Biden border invasion.
Everything they’re complaining about, Meyer orchestra is doing, they’ve completely fully funded just as soon as three weeks ago through a continuing resolution, and they’re going to do it in the beginning of next month again, you can be sure. I mean, this is a tool available to Congress to police and protect the republic, which is a spending tool. Everything that you dislike about what the Biden administration does is fully funded by the republican controlled Congress.
I don’t understand why it is they expect us to get outraged when they call attention to what’s going on, while at the same time they will have fully funded it repeatedly over time. In addition, why isn’t Biden being impeached for the border invasion? Heck, I mean, if you’re concerned that Biden is not capable of being president because of cognitive difficulties, why don’t you shut the government down till? He mean, that’s a tool available under the Constitution.
And leverage the power of Congress, the spending power. Now, they may win or they may lose those battles, but those are the sorts of battles necessary if you think the republic is on the line. Of course, you should be willing to engage in a partial government shutdown, which, as you know, is not a real shutdown in any sense of the word, but it’s a leverage point to get policy objectives accomplished.
And I’m not talking, well, higher taxes versus lower taxes, this money here versus that money there. I’m talking about, like, basics. No invasion, no censorship of Americans. Stop spending money on Jack Smith to jail Trump. Right. This, this Robert, her report. His name is Robert, isn’t it? I could be calling him by the wrong name. Yeah, Robert Hur this is a reason for the Republicans to shut down the Justice Department prosecutions of Trump, certainly on the documents in the least.
So that’s the news today in Washington. But on top of that and everything going on in Washington, judicial watch is always conducting its own powerful, hard hitting investigations. We have new lawsuit on the issue of election integrity. Talk about election rigging or undermine confidence in elections. One way to do that is by counting ballots that arrive after election day. And I think 19 or so states do it.
I know the District of Columbia here does it. Virgin Islands may do it. So ballots arrive after election day and they’re counted. And it’s not just like republican states versus Democrat states, and only democrat states do it, or states controlled by democrats. Mississippi, that’s a big conservative state. They count ballots after the election. They passed this in the COVID mania, right? They all had all these politicians panicking about COVID and got fooled by the left into changing election laws and undermining election integrity with those changed laws.
So judicial watch sued Mississippi to stop them from counting ballots after the election, contrary to election law. Federal election law, which sets elections for one day. We’re suing on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and this is the key allegation. Congress recently have reaffirmed a single national election day when it enacted the Electoral Count Reform act. Under the recent congressional amendments, no extension of election day shall be allowed unless there are forced majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic that justify extension.
Now, what type of event would that be? I don’t know. An earthquake, hurricane, maybe a natural disaster, or even a man made disaster that is so disruptive to the state that it requires the extension of an election day. You can look up the term force majeure and you’ll know what exactly Congress entails there. Despite Congress’s unambiguous and long standing statement regarding a single and uniform national election day, Mississippi extended election day by allowing five additional business days after election day for receipt of absentee ballots.
So that’s five business days. Practically speaking, that could be ten days. No, force majeure events that are an extraordinary catastrophic currently exist in Mississippi to justify extending the ballot receipt deadline past November 5, which is the 2024 election date. So we’re asking that it be stopped. Counting illegal, untimely, and invalid votes, such as those received in violation of federal law, substantially increases the pool of total votes cast and dilutes the weights of voters cast by plaintiffs members and others in support of plaintiffs federal nominees.
So legal votes or votes illegally counted basically cancel out and dilute votes legally cast and counted. The complaint points out that based on reported numbers, as many as 1. 7% of votes casted in Mississippi were received after election day. So that’s a number that in a close election can obviously change the outcome of an election. Now, we have a similar lawsuit in Illinois, which is now on appeal.
We sued on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two other registered voters where they allow vote by mail. In Illinois, the ballots to be received up to 14 days, even those without postmarks, after election. So you have election day and the ballots can keep on coming in for 14 days in Illinois and they’ll count them. So we have that lawsuit pending. The law requires an election day, not an election week.
Mississippi’s five day extension of election day beyond the date set by Congress is illegal, violates the civil rights of voters and encourages fraud. Simple. And other states do it. Like I said, I think California has a seven day rule. I mean, there should be no vote counting of ballots that arrive after election day. Simple. Key election integrity reform. And if I have to explain to you why counting ballots after election day undermines voter confidence in the outcome of the election, then I don’t have the patience for that.
You got to figure it out for yourself, because the leftists pretend not to understand that the sensible folks who follow me here and follow judicial Watch, I know you understand it, but I’m not going to play this leftist game of explaining why obviously unlawful and reckless and fraud inducing processes undermine voter confidence in elections. And so this is on top of Judicial Watch’s efforts to clean up the voting rolls.
We just cleaned up 103,000 or 138,000. I forget the number. Names in DC, 4 million names over the last year or two have been cleaned up from election rolls thanks to your heavy lifting. Judicial Watch our litigation our threats of litigation, and sometimes just helpful letters we sent, have resulted in millions of names being removed from the rolls. But there are still more names to be cleaned up, and that’s why you can expect litigation in the next few weeks, if not few days, to clean up election rolls.
So that’s our contribution to election integrity. Making sure votes are counted honestly and accurately, in a timely way, as the law requires. Making sure election rolls are clean because dirty election rolls can mean dirty elections. That’s why they’re supposed to be clean or cleaned up from now and again. We’ve been busy in that regard. An election, the quest for power and the request to remain in power causes so much corruption, and it’s sometimes so petty and nasty.
And this is a nasty corruption story, where Joe Biden’s justice Department of Homeland Security, where the secret Service resides, is denying requested secret service protection to RFK Jr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And we had uncovered that they had denied him protection despite known threats to him. And of course, he’s a Kennedy. I’m not saying vote for him because he’s a Kennedy or give him special treatment because he’s a Kennedy, if you’re a voter, but from the public interest.
I mean, his father and his uncle were murdered, assassinated. Why wouldn’t you just give him the darn Secret Service protection? I mean, he’s obviously going to be a magnet for crazies. It’s so outrageous. It really is. So we got these initial documents showing skullduggery by the Secret Service and keeping the protection away from him. So we filed up with a federal lawsuit, and it covered more documents, 63 pages of documents that are, again, devastating.
Now, the Secret Service would like you all to believe they’ve got this process in place. Well, these documents belie that because they show and confirm what everyone suspected or generally knew, that the secretary of Homeland security, Alexander Maya Workus, or the president can just, on their own, provide secret service protection. There has to be. They just decide. They just do it. Just do it. Because we had this document.
Part of what we uncovered was this document that showed campaign 2024 candidate of protection, who receives protection, and they go through and describe how this process goes. Secret Service does not determine who qualifies protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection. And there’s this board that they’re supposed to or can consult, consisting of the leaders of Congress. And the documents show that they were passed information along.
It looks like Mitch McConnell, who’s on this board, expressed some interest in having some protection for Mr. Kennedy. And they go through all these questions. But the document also confirms, as I said, the secretary can just designate the protection and the president can. And what’s really devastating is the document highlights that it happened. They set up these rules and changed the law to provide protection. I got to get a little closer because I don’t see it on my document.
Oh, what is the history of candidate and nominee protection? Major candidates and their spouses began receiving protection after the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. And you can see above, the US Secret Service is also authorized to protect spouses of major presidential vice presidential candidates within 120 days of the general presidential election. Some candidates have received protection earlier in the campaign pursuant to presidential memorandum. Heck, candidates for the presidency, because it used to be just, the president are given protection because Robert F.
Kennedy Jr’s father was assassinated. He’s running for president and they don’t want to provide him protection. How is that anything but malicious, dangerous and vindictive? What is the Biden gang thinking? Are they that petty? Because I don’t know. Kennedy, he’s running for office, he may hurt Trump, he may hurt Biden. I don’t know how many votes he would take away. I mean, if you asked Robert Kenney Jr.
I’m sure he would say he could win, right? I mean, he’s running because he thinks he can win, I would presume. I think he deserves a protection. The fact that he hasn’t gotten it and we’re getting this bureaucratic runaround, and I kind of missed the headline here. What’s the headline? I’ve been losing track of my documents here. Every time I screw something up like this, I think I’m turning into Joe Biden.
I know I’m not, but you. Ah, here’s the headline. Records show secret service ordered staff not to respond to head of RFK’s private security. So the head of his private security is sending the secret Service email and it’s unclear what he’s being sent. And they don’t want to respond to him. No response required, nor should it. So they directed no response. And of course, they’re hiding key documents.
One of the things we deal with at Judicial watch, we get a lot of information, but also a lot of information is withheld from us. And a lot of that information, the biggest loophole that I really dislike in terms of government withholdings of information that has been found to be something the government can do by the courts is what they call the B five exception. It’s the exemption under FOIA that allows the government to withhold predecisional material.
So all the back and forth before a final decision is made, and you can imagine that’s all the stuff that we would want to see. And in this case, you can see they do this analysis that they supposedly go through for protection, analysis by the secret service. Like in this case, you see a threat assessment conducted by the secret service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate.
And then the white thing, the white box is redacting, redacted the b five. So they’re hiding the threat information they have about them and everything other analysis they did in point by point, whether the candidate is an independent or third party candidate for president, polling at 20% or more. So why is their analysis of polling information redacted. Now, it used to be all those white boxes. The government’s gotten a little bit better on the pr angle.
They used to black it out, but then they didn’t look good because no one likes. Everyone could see quite obviously all the redactions. Now they just use the white boxes. It makes it look softer. Right. The transparency isn’t as nasty without the black boxes. So we’ve got this outrage with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It’s not because I’m saying you should vote for RFK Jr. I think RFK Jr.
Has been denied secret service protection for political reasons. It’s dangerous. It could get him killed and other innocents killed. And Biden needs to step in and do something. Based on these earlier disclosures that we’re talking about this week, with his lack of failing memory and cognitive challenges, I don’t know who’s running the White House. I really don’t. Are there adults there? They’re going to say, why can’t we just give them the darn protection? And I’m sure there are political hacks in the White House and in the Biden administration, that they giving him political secret service protection would elevate his candidacy and make it seem more legit.
And if that’s their logic, then if they’re in a position of power, they should be thrown out. It’s deadly, dangerous, vicious, vindictive politicians. And I tell you, Congress should be investigating this. Call in the head of the secret service. Call in the White House. Call in Maya Orcus. Ask them why it is they’re leaving Kennedy out in such a risky situation. Now, we’ve talked about often how the left is completely obsessed by racial division and strife, encouraging discrimination contrary to law, segregation contrary to law, anti right racial division contrary to law.
It could wreck America. It’s communist, marxist, racist, and it could wreck America. And they aren’t backing down. Now. Judicial Watch is pushing back every way we can, often successfully, in court. Half of it is exposing what’s going on. And to that end, we sued Boston, which had a, the mayor had something called electeds of color holiday party. Electeds of color holiday party. So they were having a holiday party.
I don’t know what holiday they’re celebrating. Of course, they can’t mention Christmas, I guess. And they’re limiting it to just elected officials of color. Yes. On December 12, 2023, a city employee sent an email on behalf of Mayor Wu, the new mayor of Congress of Boston. I don’t know how new she is now, but I think she’s newish. Right, inviting all city councilors to an elected color holiday party being held the following Wednesday night.
Shortly after the initial invitation was sent, the same employee sent another email to apologize for sending out the invitation to all city councilors. She defended the party. Mayor Wu. She is a hardcore left wing extremist, by the way. It seems like some of the folks who are concerned might also just not have all the information right. I can understand someone might be confused or worried if certain people weren’t being invited at all or being left out of any type of celebration.
But I assure you, everyone on the Boston City Council has got an invitation to multiple types of events and holiday parties. I don’t even know what that means. The invitation says for elected electeds of color. The awkward phrasing aside, it’s obviously racially discriminatory and it’s a segregationist party. So we asked for records about this segregationist party back in December of 2023. Actually, the day after that email was sent, I told you about the day after the invitation went out and it became public.
We asked under the Boston’s or Massachusetts open records law, and they’ve given us the runaround, so we’re suing. Do you think they should have parties for politicians based on their race? Unbelievable. This is what the left has wrought, though. Left wing extremists in Boston city government have fully embraced anti white segregation and discrimination, and now these same politicians are hiding records about this racial discrimination and abuse. Now to remind you, we have other litigation.
We just sued in Oakland for a play date that was designed to exclude white children and families at a school. We just sued San Francisco for a racist, sexist policy that limits cash handouts to black men who present themselves as women only. We’re suing in Minnesota over a Minneapolis public schools contract that requires that whites be laid off before, quote, unrepresented minorities. And if they’re rehired, they take second place in rehirings.
Completely racist contract. And we successfully challenged racist quotas and sex quotas, and gender and gender quotas, and a quota based on ethnicity and LGBQTI status. Right? In California, where California had a requirement that those quotas be implemented for the boards of corporations in California, and we sued successfully twice and knocked those laws out. They are embracing illegal discrimination. Talk about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment requires the government to give you equal protection of the laws.
The left has abandoned that core civil right, and they don’t believe you deserve equal protection of the law based on race. They don’t. And we’re trying to save America from that. Judicial Watch because of this work is one of America’s most significant civil rights organizations, because we’re out there stopping government from abusing the civil rights of people based on race and other improper, immutable characteristics. And so, of course, we do it with your support.
Isn’t Judicial watch great? We’re doing all this great work, great lawsuits, election integrity, exposing the bad guys standing for the rule of law here in Washington, DC, educating you, my fellow american, on what the government’s up to. And I encourage you to support our work. You can@judicialwatch. org judicialwatch one word. And I encourage you to not only support our work directly, but also go to our website, find out what we’re doing, you hear what we’re doing, how we’re analyzing things and spread the word there as well.
So not only be active in supporting judicial watch, but also getting the word out about the current crisis. And with that, I will 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, I’m. .
See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.
Author
