Is this not double standard and just surreal or what, Tom? Well, it’s kind of this abusive process, Rita, that we’ve been seeing, you know, frankly, since the time Trump emerged on the political scene. And in this case, you know, I fear that he’ll go to jail not because he’s necessarily convicted for non crimes, which would be outrageous enough, but they’ll use this court process as gag order as an excuse to jail him, as a pretext to jail him.

A gag order, which is very problematic, a word the left likes to use a lot because it’s so anti first amendment and so obviously designed to impair his ability to defend himself and frankly, campaign for the presidency. So, you know, he violates the gag order initially, the judge can fine him. And, you know, all you need to know is that when a trial begins and the first thing, something the prosecutor says is we should consider jailing him for violating gag orders, you kind of know where the bias is and where this is going.

Yeah, I mean, clearly it’s, it’s astounding to me. There was one of the jurors, I think one of the ones that got picked, believe it or not, Tom, who said that they watch Hannity on Fox and they watch MSNBC. I mean, I find that hard to believe that those are their two favorites. Rita, I thought, I’m only half joking when I said Trump’s lawyer should, right after they picked a jury, say, let’s go right to deliberation.

You’re going to get there in six months anyway. Go do it right now. Yeah, you know, I mean, it does seem like it’s stacked against him. Save all the money, go right to appeal. We’re done. You gotta highlight the absurdity of the process, because in the end, this is a vote for, against Trump, which is why this is so outrageous. There’s no there there in terms of criminal prosecution.

I’m calling it the Seinfeld prosecution, a prosecution about nothing. And it’s gonna come down to, because the law doesn’t allow them to do what they plan to do or want the jury to do. To convict them for any crime. So it comes down to politics in the end, and I’m concerned that there are going to be jurors who get in, who have a bias against Trump and are in it for a particular reason and are willing to mislead the court or pretend otherwise.

You know, I want to ask you, Tom Finton, because I know that you’re also working with the family of Ashley Babbitt. Ashley Babbitt is the only person who died on January 6, even though if you listen to the Democrats, it was like the worst thing in the world. Everything is January 6. January 6. She was unarmed. She’s a veteran. And the guy who killed her, the officer, sounded like he had obviously a history with being fast and loose with the weapons.

Before that, he had some issues, some sanctions against him. What’s the latest with the case? Because the federal government’s trying to move it right to a more popular, I guess, an easier venue for them to get a conviction to rule against anything that you’re trying to do to get justice for her family? Yes. She’s the only homicide victim from that day. And we filed a $30 million wrongful death action our lawyers did out in California, where she lived, southern District of California in San Diego area.

And the first thing the Justice Department did is try to change the venue, move it from where she lived and where widower lived to here in Washington, DC. And we call them out on it and our lawyers do in the briefs say it’s obviously want to change the venue because there’s a judiciary that’s infected with anti Trump bias here in Washington, DC. And Ashley’s not going to get a fair hearing.

And we’ll see what happens in the end. It’s the judge out in California that I think that will decide it, but just highlights that. Ashley, there’s a lot riding on the big lie that nothing untoward happened on January 6 in terms of government or police misconduct. And this officer involved shooting. The shooting death of Ashley Babbitt was unjustified. No serious law enforcement officer looking at that would see that as a good shoot and the fact that nothing’s been done about it other than this lawsuit.

We just found out the other day, generally. Did you see that the FBI was investigating Ashley for months after she died pursuing criminal allegations? Wow. Wow. That’s wild. We’re talking to Tom Fenton, who’s head of judicial watch, Judge Weinberg. And Tom, good to talk to you again. The problem is they never, first of all, they try to hide the identity of this Capitol police officer. That’s number one.

Number two, they never presented the case to a grand jury with evidence to examine what happened in the circumstances of the shooting, whether it was a righteous shooting or not, as they call it in the business. In any other case, that’s exactly what they would have done. They would have put it into the grand jury for an examination on this. This is absolutely reprehensible. It was a total cover up.

And we’ve all been around. You don’t have to be a lawyer or a judge or even a police officer to know, because we’ve all been so educated based on these controversial police shootings. What happens when there’s a police shooting in which there’s a question, or sometimes even when there isn’t a question, there’s a significant investigation, a public investigation, and the idea that this man’s name was been hidden from the public for nine months until he chose to disclose it.

He was put up in Andrews Air Force Base or joint base Andrews for six months on the government dime, a special vip apartment or suite down there. This has never been done the way this man was treated in terms of the history of police shootings, certainly modern police shootings. And at the same time, as I say, they’re basically trolling Ashley’s family and friends, clearly looking for justification after the fact for killing her.

That’s amazing. Craig Eaton. And Tom, what about all the evidence which was not disclosed and was hidden? I mean, if that evidence ever came out, all of these people that were convicted for January 6, I mean, their criminal prosecutions are in jeopardy if this evidence ever got out. Yeah. For instance, there’s emails that we know, you know, we’ve been asking for the emails and videos from January 6.

Now some of the videos are being released, but we know there’s a group of emails from the police board or the Capitol Hill police board that monitors security there and their communications with members of Congress in and around January 6, and they’ve been sitting on them and they don’t want to release them. You know, that’s the sort of basic information. You know, they say it’s worse than Pearl harbor, yet they’ve hidden basic information about what happened that day, and they still are hiding basic information about what happened that day.

Wasn’t a lot of it destroyed, too? Wasn’t there like a whole bunch of evidence? And Benny Thompson, remember, who was the head of the committee with Liz Cheney when he came speaking? Yeah. Remember? And he said, oh, I didn’t know I was supposed to keep it. That’s hogwash this all hexculpatory. Yeah. And if it gets disclosed, anyone that was prosecuted and convicted has a right to challenge is absolutely right.

That’s why it’s all suppression. And you know, you’re, you’re the lawyers and judges. You know, my, is there a presumption that when you destroy evidence and the government destroys evidence. Yes. That it is, it’s culpatory. Yes. It’s disgraceful at best. It’s disgraceful. It is incredible. Tom Fitton, keep us posted and keep fighting the good fight because she deserves justice. She was a veteran. And you look at the history of this guy, too.

We are big supporters of the police here, so we’re big believers in backing the men and women in blue. But this one seems like it was fast and loose. And there are so many questions in this case. And she certainly deserves justice and deserves the answers, and the family certainly does. So bravo to you on this one, Tom. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks so much.

.

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