Summary
➡ The text discusses allegations of corruption and misuse of power by President Biden, particularly in relation to pardoning his son, Hunter. It suggests that while Biden has denied plans to pardon Hunter, there may have been internal discussions about it. The text also mentions potential pardons for other individuals and criticizes the potential misuse of pardons. It ends by suggesting that these issues highlight the need for a new FBI director.
➡ President Trump plans to appoint Cash Patel as the new FBI director, a move seen as a positive step towards reforming the FBI. Patel is expected to face opposition, but his track record of exposing corruption within the FBI and deep state is commendable. The author suggests that Patel should investigate the FBI’s alleged corruption and political targeting. The author also criticizes the secrecy surrounding the FBI and calls for transparency and accountability to the American people.
➡ Judicial Watch, a plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Fannie Willis for not responding to an open records request. Despite multiple opportunities, Willis did not respond or defend herself in court, leading to a default judgment in favor of Judicial Watch. The court ordered Willis to search for and provide the requested documents within five days. This is a significant victory for Judicial Watch, as it’s the first time a government official has been found in default in such a case.
➡ Judicial Watch, an organization that requests government documents to uncover potential scandals, is known for its persistence. They’ve been fighting for years to obtain text messages between two FBI agents involved in a controversial investigation. They also recently won a significant court case against Fannie Willis. The organization is also investigating General Milley for his alleged subversive behavior, including unauthorized calls to China and discussions with the Attorney General about investigating far-right militia groups.
➡ The Justice Department is accused of breaking the law to protect itself from exposure to the American public. The case involves a conspiracy between the military and the Attorney General to target American citizens with criminal investigations. The focus is on Lieutenant Byrd, who shot and killed Ashley Babbitt and received special treatment and payments from the Capitol Police. The case reveals a lack of serious investigation from the Justice Department and the D.C. police, and a delay in releasing Byrd’s name to the public, raising questions about the transparency and accountability of these institutions.
➡ Judicial Watch is pursuing a lawsuit related to the death of Ashley Babbitt, who was killed at the US Capitol on January 6th. The organization is also discussing various issues such as potential corruption in the Biden administration and the need for protection of constitutional rights. These topics are explored in a new book, “Rights and Freedoms in Peril,” which aims to explain complex legal issues in a way that’s easy for everyone to understand. Updates on these matters will be provided in the next weekly update from Judicial Watch.
Transcript
Big news there. We filed a major lawsuit against the Justice Department over collusion with the military to target Trump and his supporters. You’re just not going to. Again, you won’t believe what we’re suing about in terms of how corrupt things have been at the Biden Justice Department. And on top of that, we have new information about Ashley Babbitt’s killer, Lieutenant Byrd, now Captain Byrd, and the monies he got from the Capitol Police and who was involved in helping essentially promote him and protect him within Congress. So some new reporting there that I want to talk to you about as well.
First up is the corruption in the Biden White House. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you now know that President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, on the two charges or two convictions, one of which he pled guilty to, the other which he was found guilty of, related to tax crimes and gun crimes. And on top of that, the pardon extended back 10 years for crimes known and unknown. The date to be just before he began his corrupt racketeering operation that everyone now knows based on the information that’s been made available through various investigations, including judicial watches, that was designed to benefit Joe and the rest of the Biden crime family.
And here was my first reaction video to the pardon scandal explaining what some of the issues were. Everyone, I’m sure you’ve seen by now the big news of Joe Biden’s terrible pardon of his son Hunter. There’s really been nothing like it in American history. The president pardoning a family member who frankly could testify against him and put him in jail. That’s where we stand today as a result of Joe Biden’s awful pardon. Really a fitting end in many ways to his career of corruption, whether it be in the Senate, through the vice presidency. Now into the presidency, Joe Biden looks to have been running a RICO operation, and now he’s abused his office further to grant an unwarranted pardon, a blanket pardon, to his son.
Now, Judicial Watch has already been investigating and exposed so much of what we know about Biden’s corruption. And now we’ve officially expanded the investigation to include this scandalous pardon. So we’re up on it. Right? And I issued a series of tweets, which was followed up by a general statement from Judicial Watch on the pardon. Let’s bring up a few of those tweets. Remind me what I said. It perfectly fits to Biden’s family’s arc of corruption. It’s all about protecting Joe. And as you clearly see, it helps ensure his son will be less likely to testify against him.
And as I note in the tweet, there’s a series of false allegations attached to the official pardon about Hunter’s prosecution and how it was selective and corrupt. And frankly, the only selective prosecution involved here was the decision not to select Joe for prosecution and frankly, to limit Hunter’s prosecutions to protect Joe from being implicated. And I joked at the end, and it’s not really a joke. Joe was the most corrupt vice president since he was president. Think about that. And of course, you know, Attorney General Garland’s been. You know, it’s been crickets from him on this.
Is he going to resign in protest and outrage now that Joe Biden has stated Garland’s prosecution of Hunter Biden to be corrupt and selective? Are Biden’s criticisms of DOJ employees as corrupt, dangerous, or is that only true? When Republicans, Trump, and conservatives criticize the Justice Department, we come back to me here. You remember when Garland had that awful press conference where he essentially threatened all Americans who were criticizing the Justice Department, saying critics of the Justice Department and lawfare against Trump were engaged in dangerous behavior. So the President of the United States just does it. And where’s Garland complaining about that? Remember, this pardon was done in a way as to prevent Biden’s Hunter’s sentencing.
You know, typically, pardons are done, and I’m not saying all pardons are done this way. But, you know, in the ordinary course, a pardon comes after sentencing or sometimes even after jailing. And so Biden quickly intervened so as to prevent his son for being sentenced and causing more political headaches for him. And as I call it, the regime. And as I’ve noted, you know, the kind of. The broad nature of the pardon is sketchy. It’s suspicious. Constitutionally, typically, pardons are supposed to be specific as to the offense you’re being pardoned for such and such a crime.
And it has to be, you know, because it’s a federal pardon, it has to be a federal offense. But Biden’s language was so broad. I don’t know, do we have the actual pardon language up? Can we bring up the pardon itself? I think it’s at the last page of that document. Go down. Scroll down a little bit there. Down further here. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so down further. A full and unconditional pardon. Okay, so this is the key paragraph. Can we make this a little bigger because I really can’t see it and I’m close to it. There we go.
Go up. For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including, but not limited to, all offenses charged or prosecuted, including that, any that may have resulted in convictions by the special counsel, etc. So that last part of the paragraph there, you can come back to me. That last part of the paragraph there, that’s okay. What’s not okay is the first part of the paragraph where he’s talking about any and all offenses for a 10 year period.
That’s not normal, that’s not right, that’s not constitutional. I don’t think it can be enforced. Now, who could challenge something like that? Well, the prosecutors in the next administration that want to pursue charges going back that far. And it would be a novel question before the courts because the only similar pardon to that in terms of broadness was the Nixon pardon from Ford’s pardon of Nixon. And it was kind of similarly broad, but it was a little bit more specific in the sense you knew it was for. And I don’t have the exact language in front of me, but it was broad for offenses from when he was president.
Now, that was never challenged in court, but those other than that pardon, every other pardon is specific. There’s been nothing like this. And frankly, the Nixon pardon is the exception that proves the rule that they have to be specific. Now, Judicial Watch over the years has really done a lot of work on pardons, believe it or not, back in the end of the Clinton administration, remember, he issued a series of controversial and scandalous pardons, including to a donor who had literally fled the country. Mark Richard. 140 pardons, and some of which were broad in nature, some of which hadn’t even been delivered.
So we tried to get those pardons clawed back and a different interpretation of them in a way to make them invalid because they were so broad, seemingly on their faces in certain circumstances, but nothing like the Biden pardons. I mean, nothing like the Biden pardon. Excuse me. And when you look at the material from Joe’s statement, this is what especially is corrupt. It’s the series. As I note the false statements in his attached to the pardon. The charges in this case, these cases, Hunters, came only about after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.
Now, the charges were under investigation for five years and they were suppressed by your Justice Department, Joe. False. Then a carefully negotiated plea deal agreed to by the Department of Justice unraveled in the courtroom, with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. False. They became unraveled because whistleblowers exposed the scam that they were. And a federal judge asked, why do you have this extraordinary broad immunity agreement? Has there ever been like anything like this in a plea agreement? And the Justice Department said, no, and they had to retreat a bit.
And Hunter said, if I’m not going to get this sweetheart deal, I’m out. So another false statement by President Biden. No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he’s my son, and that is wrong. No, he was protected. These crimes are only a subset of the greater crimes he was involved in. They purposely waited for key tax violations, the statute limitations to pass. They didn’t investigate the FARA cases or they didn’t prosecute the FARA issue, which is the Foreign Agents Registration act, which was used like a cudgel for the first time in history against Trump’s people.
They didn’t apply it to Hunter, even though it was clearly he was working on behalf of foreign agents, foreign governments, which of course would again implicate Joe. So falsehood after falsehood, and of course, I guess everyone’s offended by this. I’m used to politicians lying, so it’s outrageous, but it’s actually par for the course here in D.C. but Joe really went out on a limb here and his spokesman in denying he would ever pardon Hunter, and I did a watch video of a compilation of all of his statements saying he’d never pardon him. Let’s go. Let me ask you, they’ve been lying to you.
Will you accept the jury’s outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? Yes. And have you ruled out a pardon for your son? Yes. Is there any possibility that the President would end up pardoning his son? No. I just said no. I just answered, go ahead, commute his son if he’s convicted. So I’ve answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no. And I am satisfied that I’m not going to do anything. I said, I said, I abide by the jury decision, and I will do that, and I will not pardon him.
First briefing since Hunter was indicted again in Los Angeles. Why doesn’t President Biden just pardon him? President, I’ve been very clear. The president’s not going to pardon. One more about. You’ve also said several times that the president would not pardon or commute sentences for his son Hunter. I just want to make sure that that is not going to change over the next six months. The president’s saying he would not. Still. It’s still a no. It’s still a no. It’s still a no. It will be a no. It is a no. And I don’t have anything else to add.
Will he pardon his son? No. His son Hunter is also up for being sentenced next month. Does the president have any intention of pardoning him? We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no. Isn’t that awful? Even the Democrats are offended by this. And what makes it really pernicious or malicious or outrageous. Pick your description, your adjective, unpack. Your adjective is that the reports are that as they were saying he was never going to pardon him, they were internally talking about pardoning him. So it wasn’t like I changed my mind. No, they were planning on it for months.
And when you look at this material, I’m sorry, it looks like it was written by Hunter’s lawyers. They controlled the writing of it. It’s clear. So I’ve compared it to a will that sometimes is signed by someone not of sound mind. Right. And people come in and contest the will saying, you know, grandpa, Grandpa Joe was not of sound mind. I contest, you know, Hunter getting all the money in this case. Right. I don’t think this pardon was signed by a man of sound mind. Now, is that enough to challenge its legality? Probably not, but I’m going to make that point, and I’d be interested in finding out more.
And I would encourage the Trump administration to expose what went on to the degree they can get access to the records or there are records to disclose about how this pardon came about, who wrote what, who wrote this material, who did it. And people have asked Me, well, are there going to be other pardons of Joe’s family? And I’m like, well, it depends. Are they going to come up here and write it for him? If so, yeah, probably. I mean, he’s not confident. And I don’t mean that in the he can’t do his job well sense.
I mean, in the mental sense at least, that’s my view. And now there are stories from Politico and the Washington Post that Biden is considering another set of unprecedented, I would argue, unlawful pardons to preempt possible prosecutions by the Trump administration for misconduct of people like Schiff, Mark Milley. Who else was on the list? Fauci, Jack Smith, that whole gang who was engaged in lawfare against Trump. That’s never been done before. If it happens, I don’t think it would be lawful. And the Trump administration should just go ahead and try to challenge it in court. If they try to do it, I mean, Mark Milley is going to be protected from potential court martial for treasonous subversion because that’s what he should be prosecuted for or investigated for, Fauci, the gain of function, fraud.
He’s going to get a pass on that. Jack Smith, that whole gang, they can do whatever they want. They get a pass. Why doesn’t Joe just write a pardon for everyone who worked in his administration under that theory of the law? That’s what he can do. And it suggests that maybe that theory of the law is incorrect. Right. And if that’s going to be the precedent, Trump and every future president can come in and basically pardon everybody for anything they do wrong in his administration from being prosecuted ever. And that’s not the way pardons are supposed to work typically.
Right. So Judicial Watch, as I said, we are investigating this issue and we’re going to, you know, we’ve already been on top of the Biden scandals specifically, but now we’re going to expand to include a new scandal, which is the Biden pardon scandal. I wanted to see if. Now, on top of that, as I was saying earlier on, we’ve got this tremendous work in investigating pardons. We had this case back with the Clinton era pardons. And this is just so typical Republican, right? So Clinton throws out 140 pardons basically the night he’s leaving office. And he left it literally for President Bush to implement the pardons, which Bush didn’t have to do, but he did it anyway.
So it was that loser approach. And then on top of that, when we asked for records from the Office of Pardon Attorney for the handling of those pardons. The Bush people asserted executive privilege, even though the records weren’t executive privilege documents, they were internal documents at the Justice Department. And we got the appellate court to say no. And it was a big ruling here in the D.C. circuit that the executive privilege is overruled. So it was a major victory. You know what the Biden, the Bush people did, they gave us the 945 pages of what they had on Clinton’s corrupt pardons and they blacked them all out using another privilege deliberative process, privilege, one that we couldn’t really overcome.
So there you had the Republicans covering up for the Democrats. And so I hope it’s going to be different under the Trump administration because this is a scandal that needs to be investigated and exposed by President Trump. Now, can Biden be prosecuted for this? No. No, he can’t. Not under the Supreme Court precedent related to immunity and the Constitution. Frankly, it’s the type of thing he can do as president and it’s not subject to second guessing by the courts of Congress. But let me be clear here. The fact that Joe Biden pardoned Hunter does not mean that Joe Biden gets a get out of jail free card, nor should it mean, it doesn’t mean Hunter gets a get out of jail free card.
Because I think the pardon is deficient and it may not even cover everything that Joe thinks it covers, certainly at the state level. And what about other Biden family members? So unless the pardon scheme and scam widens, including a self pardon for Joe, and some have suggested that’s not appropriate, it probably is. But you know, the courts might fight that out, too. So this ain’t over, folks. I mean, Joe has another month and a half, another. What’s today, the fifth, sixth? Is it Pearl harbor day? No, it’s the sixth. Right. Saturday is Pearl Harbor Day. So he’s another five or six weeks to continue the corruption.
But of course, this is perfectly in sync with what Biden’s done. Right. As I said, it’s completed his arc of corruption where he’s repeatedly misused the powers of his office and abused the powers of his office to protect himself and line his own pockets. And one way you kind of put the bow on it, right, is to pardon those who help you do it, including Hunter. And what a mockery of the rule of law this is. And you know, President Trump appointed or announced he’s going to appoint my friend Cash Patel as FBI director, which means he’s going to fire Ray.
Right. Which would be, I think, appropriate but this type of corruption highlights the need for someone like Cash Patel and makes it more likely he’ll be confirmed by the Senate. And here was my initial comment on Cash’s nomination. And then after that, I’m going to play a discussion about Cash I had with Kevin Cork at Fox News. President Trump made another inspired choice. He announced over the weekend that he is planning to appoint Cash Patel, my friend, to be the FBI director. Presumably, he’s going to fire Wray or Wray’s going to resign. The FBI is almost irredeemably compromised, and Cash Patel is nearly the perfect choice to go in there, bring transparency, reform and accountability.
Now, Cash is going to be attacked by the usual suspects, but he has a demonstrated record of uncovering, exposing, quite bravely, the corruption at the FBI and in the deep state. And he has vast experience working the bureaucracies on behalf of the American people. So what do you think Cash Patel should be investigating once he becomes FBI director? I’ve got a long list, but one of the things I think he certainly needs to investigate is FBI corruption and the targeting of Trump and other innocent Americans for political purposes by the corrupted Federal Bureau of Investigation. So.
And on top of this. Well, actually, let’s go play that Fox News clip as well. This is Cash Patel, a guy that I think a lot of people suspect will be running the FBI fairly soon. Maybe, but that’s my bet. I want to get your reaction to what he says about what he recalls about the FBI, the doj, even the CIA, how they used to operate and what they can be again. Listen to this. I want them to remember that the FBI, the doj, the DOD report to the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, and that commitment continues throughout their entire tenure.
And I don’t want any more Washington speak about we can’t talk about this or we can’t talk about that. The American people deserve courage and commitment and constitutional oversight, and that’s what President Trump is going to deliver. That’s been one of the major criticisms, you and I were just talking about this, of Christopher Wray. You can’t classify, redact and. Sorry, can’t talk about this. Can’t talk about that. You are responsible to the American people. You’re responsible to congressional lawmakers, and you need to give them information. We’re not been getting very much over the last several years.
No, we were just talking about the assassination attempts on President Trump. Yeah. The FBI hasn’t released, as best I can tell, because we’ve sued one FOIA document in response to our request for what happened up in Butler, Pennsylvania, let alone what happened subsequently down in Florida. So there’s this terrible secrecy around the FBI. And the problem that Christopher Wray has is that he raided Trump’s home, his agents raided Trump’s home, and he knew, or should have known there was no good faith based reason to target Trump, let alone raid his home. I don’t even know how he could look him in the eye, let alone expect to remain as FBI director just under those narrow sets of circumstances.
And as far as I’m concerned, if the FBI is able to, the point of the Trump administration should be in large measure to make sure that the FBI, to the degree it remains, can’t ever do to someone else what they did to Trump. I agree with me. And that’s the same goes for the Justice Department. Really. Those agencies are, in my view, irredeemably corrupted. I think the Justice Department is effectively always going to be an agency. I don’t think that should be the assumption for the FBI. I really don’t. And I half jokingly say maybe Cash will be the FBI’s last FBI director because it’s activities, activities that are lawful and needed could be moved over to other agencies or created another subset of the Justice Department.
Just clean house and start afresh. You know, and, you know, when you think about, you know, bringing this back with the pardon scandal, you know, we’re all supposed to just tolerate these abuses and there’s supposed to be no consequences. So if they raid Trump’s home without basis and for political reasons, there can’t be an investigation. And that’s what the less approach is. We can do whatever we want in abusing the rule of law, but if you actually try to enforce the rule of law against our abuses, we’re going to pretend you’re doing something wrong, prohibit you from doing it.
And in the case of Joe, we’ll issue pardons in an unprecedented way to stop you from even asking questions. And when you think about what the favor that Joe gave to Hunter and what’s happened to the January 6th defendants, many of whom were prosecuted by charges never before brought in these types of circumstances by the federal government, prosecuted for charges that were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and there’s a debate about whether to pardon them. I said it once and I’ll say it again. President Trump should pardon each and every one of the January 6th defendants.
And unlike what Joe did for Hunter, these pardons would be moral and justified and in the public interest. And I hope President Trump authorizes. I hope all of his people really begin investigating these abusers. I hope cash gets in yesterday. I know that’s not technically possible, but you know what I mean. Quickly. I saw what these guys did. Obviously, we all saw what they did against Trump. The lawfare, they’re still harassing him to this day. And they came to my home. I talked about it in a speech to cpac. I want justice. Let’s go to that tape.
Not too long ago, I had significant skin cancer surgery. And a few hours after I got home, I’m on the couch recovering, when the FBI comes knocking. Came knocking on my door with a grand jury subpoena from the Biden doj. I ended up being hassled and abused by the special counsel team for four hours over Trump documents, my First Amendment rights, and what I had for lunch with President Trump. It was a partisan fishing expedition. Frankly, it was like having to spend a day on an MSNBC panel. But I knew why they brought me before that grand jury.
It was payback and intimidation for daring to defend Trump against their abuse of power. I’m Fit Wiz Tom Fit. Stand up. I mean, I want justice. It’s not retribution. I just want justice. I mean, clearly they targeted me for no good reason, and I know that because they were targeting Trump and I was just a witness. So you target Trump. Everyone else caught up in it. I mean, think of all the money Trump had to spend. I know we had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to deal with that subpoena for me and for Judicial Watch.
Outrageous. So, yes, there should be justice for this. And what is the media focused on? How much beer Pete Hegseth has to drink or has had to drink? They’d rather talk about that than the wild abuses by the agencies, whether they be at the Defense Department abusing the enlisted and officers with woke dei, brainwashing, vaccine mandates, you name it, the censorship of Americans, all of that. And they want to talk about how many beers Pete Hegseth can drink. Forgive me for thinking that’s a crock. It’s a crock. Big news, though. Let’s go to the big news and good news for the rule of law for a change, which is a massive victory by Judicial Watch against Fannie Willis and Fulton County, Georgia for documents or document lawsuit to get hold of her communications with the Pelosi gang and the Biden gang at the doj.
Specifically Jack Smith. And here’s my quick explainer video from the other just the other day. We’ve got the records coming within basically minutes here at Judicial Watch. Hey, everyone. Great news out of Georgia for Judicial Watch and the rule of law. A state court judge just found Bonnie Willis to be in default in a lawsuit Judicial Watch brought under the Georgia Open Records Act. We were seeking communications that her office likely had and we know had with the Biden gang and the Pelosi operation as part of the law fair collusion. Everyone you see the big news.
Fannie Willis has to turn over to Judicial Watch. Correspondence between her, her office and the Pelosi January 6th committee, the Jack Smith operation over at the Biden Justice Department. Judicial Watch sued for these records, and Willis couldn’t even be bothered to show up in court and properly respond. The court found her to be in default, ordered her to do a diligent search and turn over the correspondence to us by Monday after finding her in default. So Judicial Watch is heavy lifting once again. Again gets results as we seek to further expose and confirm the collusion and improper political abuse of power and lawfare targeting President Trump.
So, you know, we sued for these documents. I think it was back in March, and we had asked for the documents. They told us there were no documents showing communications between Fannie Willis and the Justice Department and the Pelosi Congress. And then Congress says, oh, no, there’s at least one letter we got. And Nathan Wade, Fannie’s boyfriend, was regularly visiting the Justice Department. Excuse me, the Justice Department, by all accounts, so how could there be no documents? So we sued. And rather than respond as you’re supposed to do when you’re sued, they didn’t respond in court.
And when you don’t do that as a litigant, you could be found in default, which is exactly what happened. It’s extraordinary. I’ve never seen it before in our FOIA litigation in the 25 years, certainly the entire 30 years of judicial Watch, we don’t have any. Anything comparable. Sometimes the government misses a deadline and we say they should be in default. No judge has ever agreed with that and always gives the government a second bite at the apple and lets them get past the deadline with no punishment or violate the deadline with no punishment. In this case, that was offered repeatedly to Fannie Willis people, and they still couldn’t respond or didn’t respond.
So here’s the court order. On August 22, 2023, plaintiff Judicial Watch submitted an open records request to Fannie Willis seeking, quote, all documents and communications sent to, received from or relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith and all documents and communications sent to or received from the United States House January 6 Committee plaintiff subsequently brought this action on March 5, 2024, alleging the defendant violated the Open Records act there in Georgia, because defendant, in fact, does have responsive documents that should have been produced. And then we want the records and attorneys fees for having to go to court to get the law enforced here.
And so the court then explains that it’s undisputed that they got served and they didn’t respond. So I don’t want to get the back and forth on that because it’s complicated. And the point is, we were right and they were wrong. They didn’t respond, and they had plenty of opportunity to respond in time. And so, in fact, when you’re in default, the court still lets you come back and say, your honor, we screwed up. Get us out of default so we can just litigate this normally. And most courts say, okay, they never did that, but let’s get to the juice here.
The court finds defendant is in default and has been since April 11, 2024, which is the due date they had to respond. As already mentioned, it’s undisputed that the defendant was served on March 11, 2024, a month earlier. So they had 30 days to respond. While it is true that the. Let me go back to nothing in the court’s order, basically asking Judicial Watch to clarify whether it served the complaint meant they didn’t get the complaint served. They were pretending that because the judge asked the question, they didn’t have to answer, even though they admitted they had gotten served with the complaint.
So there was a mix up at the court, but they knew better. Really, really awful, awful situation. So the court then goes on and explains how there are all sorts of ways that Fannie Willis team could have fixed the issue. And they didn’t. They didn’t. She never moved to open default on any basis, not even during the period where she could have opened default as a matter of right. She never paid costs and she never offered up a meritorious defense. Plaintiff is thus entitled to judgment by default, as if every item and paragraph of the complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence.
Here, this means Plaintiff Judicial Watch has established that the defendant violated the ORA by failing to either turn over responsive documents records or else notify plaintiff of her decision to withhold some or all records. So we effectively get the judge to declare, and he does, that Willis violated the office, the Open Records act, search for the records, turn over the records, give Judicial watch attorneys fees, etc. By finding defendant in default, the court has, in effect, declared that she has violated the Open Records Act. The court also hereby orders defendant Fannie Willis to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this order.
Within that same five day period, defendant is ordered to provide plaintiff with copies of all responsive records that all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure. And so she needs to give us a record to explain why not. But this is the kicker. The court expects that such production will include the correspondence identified by plaintiff and it’s a complaint. So the way I interpret this order is, look, there are going to be records you’re going to withhold. I expect the records you withhold do not include the correspondence. So that’s a pretty big, that’s a pretty big deal in terms of the court ordering her to respond.
And he wants an explanation if they, quote, don’t find any such correspondence, literally. It is further ordered to provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist in defendant’s records or why it is being withheld. So the writing’s on the wall, right? Turn over the records. You’ve got five days. And those five days run on Monday. So Monday, it’s now the sixth. Monday is the deadline. Now Judicial Watch attorneys deposed, I guess a top aide for Willie, for Fannie Willis yesterday and it was about two and a half hours. But even after that testimony, they were unclear or we are unclear as to whether they’re going to give us any documents or whether they’re going to produce any documents or what they’re going to say.
So that was two and a half hours of not getting an explanation. It sounded like to me. But you know, this is an issue that Congress has been pursuing. They’ve been. Now they’ve re asked for documents that Judicial Watch is likely to get or have disclosed in part. And frankly, even if they don’t give us the documents, they’re going to have to say there are documents but we don’t want to give them. At least that’s what I think the law would require. Big victory. And as I said, we’ve been doing this type of work for 30 plus years at Judicial Watch and never before has a government official gone into default in such an egregious way here and be found in default by a court in what is essentially a simple open records lawsuit.
And it kind of shows you where Fannie Willis competencies are or where her corruption is. Right? What did I say in the. I want to read my quote because I had a good quote. Fannie Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years. And this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit. Judicial Watch looks forward to getting any documents from the Fannie Willis operation about collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s Congress on this unprecedented and compromised get Trump prosecution.
So in many ways, this is also a vindication for President Trump that Fannie Willis is dishonest. She doesn’t want to follow the law. She has contempt for the rule of law. Now, Trump’s cases are now before the appellate court in D.C. over the other corruption Fannie Willis was involved in with her boyfriend and her paramour being hired and making it look like the whole prosecution for Trump was designed to line their respective pockets and fund their romantic relationship and trips. But Trump has also asserted this immunity defense to protect himself as well. So the case may be killed that way.
But don’t you want to know about any collusion between Jack Smith and Nancy Pelosi and Fannie Willis? I do. And of course, they know that’s what we’re asking for. When Wade goes up to the White House, there are no documents. They send a letter to Congress about collusion, basically the January 6th committee, and we ask for the documents and they say, well, we don’t have any. Even though Congress says, well, what about this letter? So got a lot of attention. News all over the world, all over the country. Let’s go see some of those headlines. The Hill, Daily Mail, ABC News, Fox News, Atlanta Journal, Constitution, Associated Press, all the big news networks covered it.
Where news? I don’t know. Media covered it. And it shows you that, you know, as I said in the video, the heavy lifting gets results. You got to be consistent. You’ve got to be strong. You got to know what we’re doing, what you’re doing in court. I mean, we’ve got such a great team of lawyers. Paul Orphanedi leads our legal division. Russ Nobile was the lawyer or senior attorney in this case for Judicial Watch. We’ve been assisted. I would be remiss in not mentioning the excellent work of John Monroe of the John Monroe Law Firm in Georgia.
So, you know, we sometimes need help when we go into states where our lawyers aren’t admitted to practice law. We have to work with local counsel. And that teamwork is essential. And of course, this victory is because of you, dear supporters. I mean, this isn’t free. You know, it costs money to pay lawyers to pay the rent and to pursue this investigation. You know, they wanted to make us. It took us almost a year to get this result. And the reason they’re able to get away with secrecy is because people don’t have the capacity and resources to sue or even the patience to wait around.
And we are patient. We’re not so. We’re not so patient that we won’t go to court when the law allows us to if we had the capacity. But we’re not going to go away. I mean, one of the funny things that often happens here at Judicial Watch is that there will be a FOIA request or an open records request outstanding. And let’s say it’s like three or four, some ridiculous amount of time, and the government will come back to us and say, oh, we have this FOIA request from three years ago. Do you want, do you still want? We say, like, yes.
We don’t even let him finish answering the question before we say, yes, we still want the documents. Because in my experience and in Judicial Watch’s experience, all scandals, no matter how old, are always fresh. I don’t know, there’s probably a better way of saying that, but I think you get my point. A scandal from four years ago, you never know when it’s going to be relevant again. For example, the government has been stalling forever. And a day in the release of text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Those FBI agents who were texting each other, they were, they had an office romance, to put it charitably, and they were texting anti Trump messaging and pro Hillary Clinton messaging and, you know, really further compromising what it already obviously was, a compromised, corrupted investigation of President Trump.
And it’s been four, five years of fighting for those text messages. Now before November, you know, we’re just trying to get the darn documents we’re due under law. But now all of a sudden, they’re a bit more important, right? Because Trump’s coming back in, there’s going to be potential reform at the FBI and, and their conduct is going to be central to understanding the corruption that went on at that agency. So whether it be Fannie Willis, Jack Smith, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Barack Obama, dare I say it, Hillary Clinton, we’re just not going to go away.
And once we begin an investigation, and sometimes we don’t get much further than the lawsuit and we don’t get the documents, and that’s the end. And, you know, there’s not much else we can do other than bemoan the fact we didn’t get documents, but we try to pursue them as long as we’re able. And in this case, we just refused to go away. They told us they didn’t have documents. And rather than just saying, oh well, I guess they don’t have documents, we sued. And Fannie Willis suffered a massive defeat in court. Very unusual, unprecedented even defeat in court thanks to Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting, again assisted by you dear supporters.
So let’s see what they give us. One of the reasons I get outraged all the time is because I’m thinking we’re going to get everything we should get under law and then they pull a fast one. So I’m prepared for the fast one from Fannie, but I don’t think the court is going to suffer it. But we’ll see. We’ll see. So be sure to tune in next week. We’ll have an update as to what happened. So Millie, Millie was we just talked about earlier in the program here was the beneficiary or could be the beneficiary of a preemptive pardon by President Biden.
Now, Milley is engaged in subversive behavior and he should be court martialed. There’s no doubt about it. My colleague Chris Farrell here wrote a great piece on it and I talked about it a little bit in an earlier weekly update. And let’s just run that minute clip or so he was calling China to reassure the Chinese communists. Don’t worry. If we plan to do anything, we’re going to warn you. We’re going to warn you. And my colleague and you’ve probably seen him on our channel and on our media, Chris Farrell, who directs, he’s a member of our board.
He directs our investigative department. He’s a former counterintelligence officer with the Army. You know, he thinks General Milley should be court martialed. And I think he wrote a piece on this that’s well worth sharing in large measure with you. Mark Milley, who as I said, is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chris says should be subject to what is called an Article 32 hearing. And those of you who are veterans probably know very much what I’m talking about here. Yeah. And Chris in the op ed compares him, Millie, to General Billy Mitchell. And if you’ve studied history, you may recall General Mitchell was a famous general, but he was court martialed in 1925 for a relatively mild criticism of what he calls incompetency, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the Navy and War departments.
And he complained about many of his comrades being sent to their death by official stupidity. He was court martialed for that and found guilty of conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service. This is what Milley did, according to Chris’s op ed. Let’s bring that op ed. If we pop it up on the screen, we’ll put a link to it below. Milley called his Communist Chinese military counterparts in October 2020 and January 2021. So Milley was a crazed anti Trumper. That’s clear. With unauthorized promises and assurances of advance warnings of military intentions and actions.
And so this was in a book by Bob Woodward that reported this. As I described in the prior clip, Millie admitted to making the calls and his spokesman stated he acted within his authority, but he didn’t consult with anyone before making those calls. So it was clearly something he did on his own. And secondly, that he talked with Nancy Pelosi, who laid into Trump, said he’s crazy. And Milley says, I agree with you on everything that is so subversive. I mean, his calls to China were treasonous. And then he’s attacking the Commander in chief with the speaker of the House.
Some might call that like a coup like activity. You know, C O K O U C O U P coup like activity. And he probably leaked it to the book author Bob Woodward. Milley is quoted as saying, f that sugar, I’ll just fight him, referencing Trump. They want to court martial me or put me in prison. Have at it. I will fight from the inside. And as Chris points out, a general fighting from the inside against the President is the very definition of subversion. Milley must be held to account for his conduct in selectively leaked statements.
His conduct goes far beyond the controversy of the Mitchell court martial, the one earlier that, you know, Mitchell was mad and complained about his colleagues. Milley’s reported actions, if true, and there’s no doubt they’re true, are the most egregious examples of treasonous subversion by a commissioned officer of the United States since Major General Benedict Arnold. So I tell you, if Biden preemptively pardons Milley in a way that I think is unlawful, they really should challenge it with a court martial. And there’s more reason to court martial him. And Judicial Watch just filed a lawsuit to investigate it.
He was involved in a collusive attack on our freedoms with Merrick Garland in a meeting, again, a meeting leaked to Bob Woodward, the author of the prior book in which these anti Trump statements were leaked. So Woodward has a new book out and in the book the following is reported. He wrote that in early 2021, Attorney General Garland and Milley met for lunch at the Department of Justice. They discussed. Then former President Donald Trump and Chairman Milley pressed the Attorney General to investigate domestic threats in far right militia groups. Woodward described this meeting as highly unusual, if unprecedented.
It’s criminal, in my view, to have one of the most powerful military leaders in the country have a personal meeting with the Attorney General to encourage him to jail citizens of the United States and investigate them all. Part of this attack on Donald Trump and this, by the way, is the same man partly responsible because he ran the Pentagon for not having troops in place and military in place to protect the Capitol on January 6th. Remember, it was his team who denied and weren’t there to protect the Capitol despite Trump’s wishes to the contrary. So we asked for records about this meeting.
I guess we just asked about it last month. October. I guess it’s December now. We sent the FOIA on October 15th. Then we got the proverbial hand to the face from the Justice Department for the meetings. For the meeting or meetings where they talked about Trump, domestic violent extremism and far right militia movements. You know, all that is code for people who support Trump. General Milley and Garland’s reported meeting about targeting President Trump and other American citizens further demonstrates the Biden administration was and is at odds with the foundational principles of our constitutional republic. And that the Justice Department would flout FOIA law to hide the details of this conspiracy meeting speaks volumes about its contempt for the rule of law.
So there you have it. They don’t want us investigating this. I mean, the Justice Department, by the way, is charged with enforcing FOIA law, and they’re now breaking it. Literally breaking it. So every time we go to court for foia, it means a government agency has broken the law, and in this case, it’s the Justice Department breaking the law to protect the American people or protect themselves from being exposed to the American people as enemies of our republic. I mean, this should be subject to criminal inquiry, in my view. So we know the Justice Department isn’t going to do it.
So it’s Judah Shawach who comes in with the heavy lifting to expose this conspiracy between the military and the Attorney General to target American citizens with criminal investigations. I don’t know. Sounds kind of important to me. Does it to you? So last time we had some time together was just before Thanksgiving, and I reported to you a letter sent by a key committee chairman in the House, Chairman Loudermilk, asking questions about the U.S. capitol Police special treatment for Lieutenant Byrd. Now, Captain Byrd, the man who shot without justification and killed our client, essentially Ashley Babbitt, we represent her estate, Judicial Watch attorneys do in a federal lawsuit, $30 million wrongful death lawsuit.
We filed the lawsuit on behalf of her estate and her widow. Aaron. Aaron babbling. And the letter just describes much of what Judicial Watch has uncovered with more detail that he was put up in a special facility, military facility. So the Pentagon was involved in taking care of this guy special hotel at Joint Base Andrews, the major air base south of D.C. here. That he had an abysmal disciplinary work record, shooting at cars in a dangerous way, nearly getting people innocents killed, leaving his gun in a bathroom for nearly an hour, while all the time getting special treatment and payments from the Capitol Police, it looks like with the encouragement of Democrats.
So you kill a civilian for no good reason and you get special treatment if you’re a cop who works for Democrats. I mean, compare and contrast that with other officer involved shootings of recent note. The Justice Department didn’t do a serious investigation. The D.C. police didn’t do a serious investigation, and there was no admin or any other investigation of note by the Capitol Hill police. But there was a lot of bending over backwards to protect this guy from accountability. Heck, we didn’t even know his name. The public didn’t know his name officially for months. I don’t think it came out till was it October of 2021.
And the shooting occurred January 6th. So just the news, our friends over there, John Solomon, released more emails detailing the special monies that he was getting and how Byrd was outraged he wasn’t getting enough money and enough benefits and enough support from the police. And even the police, the Capitol Hill police were kind of like, what are you. What are you talking about? Do you realize what you’re getting that other officers aren’t getting? I mean, the emails are more smoking guns. A special treatment for the killer of Ashli Babbitt. Let’s go to the first email. I’ll just go.
I’ll take your lead guys in the back. So let’s go down here a little bit. Go down a little bit. Okay. So one of the big issues was there was a memorial fund that. Come back to me for a second so I can think this through. There was a memorial fund that the Capitol Hill police had set up where there’s a memorial fund generally available for injured and deceased officers. And they were insistent that they used the memorial fund or Byrd was assistant. And I guess with the Approval of others to give money to Byrd. So that’s what they’re referencing when they talk about the memorial fund in these emails.
So let’s go back to these emails released by Barry Laramooke to just the news. So this is Byrd writing, can you advise on the status of the memorial fund and the background check? I’ll let Karen update you on the background check, but for the memorial fund, we have all your info. We’re working on the announcement to the entire department as to how folks injured on 16 can apply to the fund and will consider all claims on that point. He wasn’t injured on January 6th. Now, to be fair to Byrd, he might say he had a mental injury or PTSD because he shot and killed Ashley.
But I don’t think that’s what the issue is here. And he writes, I don’t think that’s fair, blah, blah, blah. And then the supervisor writes up a little bit further. I’m sorry you’re disappointed. And this is the outrage here. I find that surprising since we’ve already provided you $36,000 in unrestricted retention funds, meaning they gave him money to stay in a job he likely was going to stay in. You know what the result of the department is receiving the rest of the apartment. Excuse me. You know what the rest of the department is receiving? $3,000 each.
Yes. You are being lumped in with the other 91 officers who suffered injuries that day. The memorial fund is for the ent. Not one officer. It will not take months, but more like weeks, during which we are providing you housing, training to take a department shotgun home, and extensive security upgrades at your personal residence. I don’t think that’s unfair. So he had a background check by the feds. They denied him access to a shotgun, and they were giving him a shotgun to take home. They were giving him money for his security improvements, and he’s still complaining.
Look at the email he wrote in response to that one. Go back up. We played the game as you request, and then once we’re in compliance, you guys change the rules on us. And then he complains that he had to pay taxes on his retention fund cash. Oh, it was less than 24,000 after taxes. Let’s go to the next set of emails. Here’s intervention of Senate leader of House leadership, Lieutenant Michael Byrd. He’s very upset with how he’s being treated. And who was the chairman? I think we tried to figure out who the chairman was. Who was it again, Congressman? Was it Laura? Congressman Rosa.
Rosa. Yeah. Laura. Rosa. She’s been there forever and a day. And just the news reported. And let’s go to the next one. So there we have intervention memorial fund request. I know we discussed this informally a few months ago. I’m sorry, informally. But then he tells Byrd this. I’m sorry to confirm you formally that the Capitol Police Board has decided not to disburse any funds from the memorial fund to you on the events of January 6th. So at least they backed. They didn’t push forward on that, at least based on these emails. But this is what Mike wrote back.
Mr. Byrd wrote back, okay, thank you. U.S. capitol Police will not look good. You know, this is. This is the type of guy he is. I mean, he’s lucky he wasn’t prosecuted. And this is his response because this is what the Capitol Police had stated. Let’s go to the next set of emails. Oh, so this is classic. So this is a meeting that they had. This document shows a meeting they had had with a top official for Pelosi’s office. And I think Steny Hoyer’s people were involved in this, too. And he was the number two. So these were all the ideas they had.
Per diems, give them a car, closing costs on the sale or purchase of a new house. Look at all the benefits they were going to give Ashley Babbitt’s killer. And I’m not going to go through and read them all. And they didn’t give them all those benefits. But the idea that they were going through this laundry list of unbelievable benefits to a public official or a government police officer who had just killed a civilian in controversial circumstances really raises significant issues, to put it charitably. I forget. What’s the last email? What’s the last email? That’s it.
That’s it. So go to justthenews.com get the details. Just the news had a story about these emails from the Capitol Hill police union who decried the special treatment for the officer who killed Ashley. Not sure what makes Mike Byrd so special that he thinks he needed to be taken care of by the department. U.S. capitol Police should give every officer a $37,000 bonus or have Matt or have Byrd pay it all back. So our Babbitt case, our lawsuit proceeds all this information, I think makes the case more powerful in court. I’ll defer to the lawyers as to whether that’s actually true or not.
Right now, the Biden administration is going to be fighting us on a lot of these issues related to Ashley Babbitt. And it’d be interesting to see what the Trump administration does. We hope there’s a different approach. There’s a trial set in our case for 2026 and we’ve got a hearing. I think we have a hearing later this month in the Ashley Babbitt lawsuit. I don’t know the date though, and I think it’s this month, so don’t. I’m just going on memory here. But the more we find out about the officer who killed Ashley Babbitt and the subsequent political intervention by Democrats to protect him, the more scandalous her death becomes.
As if it weren’t scandalous enough. And Judicial Watch is right in the thick of it with this important federal lawsuit to vindicate Ashley Babbitt’s memory of 14 year veteran who was killed while unarmed in the US Capitol on January 6th. The only official homicide victim that day, and a victim whose death was, relatively speaking, uninvestigated by responsible government officials. And we aim to hold them all accountable. Oh, boy. So a lot going on. Yeah. I got our book. My colleague reminds me, you know, they talk about Fauci getting a preemptive pardon. You know, they talk about Hunter, they talk about all the other corruption in the Biden administration.
And if you want to know what needs to be done, you need to read my new book, Rights and Freedoms in Peril, an investigative report on the left’s attack on America. It’s a great new book. It’s easy reading, not in the sense that it’s written for dumb people, but it’s written for the layman’s, meaning that there’s a lot of legal issues that are described here, but in a way that every citizen can understand and you will be outraged. I did a little commercial for it last week about it. Let’s run it. Hey everyone. So much heavy lifting needs to be done to protect our constitutional republic.
And my new book, Rights and Freedoms in Peril, make that heavy lifting so much easier. What Trump needs to do to protect our constitutional republic from the radical left that wants to destroy the institutions that protect our core freedoms. Who did it? What they did? This book brings the receipts, whether it be the law fare against Trump, the attacks on clean and fair elections, the attacks on your First Amendment freedoms, the left’s efforts to destroy America through woke racism and division and hatred. The details here will astonish you. Go to Rights and Freedoms in Peril. Great new book for the new Trump era.
Great new book for Christmas for the patriots in your life. Rights and Freedoms in peril. Judicial watchbook.com so I encourage you to get the new book great gift for Christmas as a note. But I also encourage you to come back here next week for our update because we will have updates on Fannie Willis. I think there’s a new lawsuit or two we’re going to talk about. And who knows what will happen, given all the news breaking seemingly every day as President Trump prepares to become the 47th President of the United States. Have a great week, and I’ll see you here next time on the Judicial Watch weekly update.
Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].
See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.
Author
