➡ The text discusses concerns about the Justice Department and FBI’s ability to conduct fair investigations, especially when they may need to investigate themselves. The speaker suggests that a separate investigative unit should be set up by the president, with a special counsel appointed to manage the investigation. They also express concern about potential future political prosecutions, especially if Democrats regain control of the House. The speaker believes that the FBI has proven itself a threat to First Amendment rights and cannot be trusted, and suggests that an outsider should be brought in to conduct audits and analyses.

➡ The speaker encourages the use of the FOIA process to access records and criticizes the delay in releasing certain documents. They express concern about the lack of transparency and the need for urgent disclosure of information. They also discuss a Supreme Court case regarding the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day, arguing that this practice is contrary to federal law. The speaker believes that federal candidates should have the right to challenge whether a state is complying with federal law in the way elections are run.

Alright, the investigation into President Autopenn. Getting to the bottom of that garbage. That seems very important. And my next guest, while he specializes in getting to the bottom of garbage, he’s the president over at Judicial Watch. You do it all the time, Tom. That is true. That’s true. I always think. It’s always nice to see you. Hey, um, this seems like a big deal. This seems like a way bigger deal, I think, than people appreciate. Certainly that the media appreciates. I’m watching the New York Times this morning, just to give you a laugh.

They’re saying this is all conspiracy theory. A baseless conspiracy theory that Biden was non-compass meant this. Yeah, you know, we’ve got a book now by Alex J. Tapper. And of course, everyone witnessed it with their own eyes, right? So that’s the problem the media has. Everyone knows there was something going on, and he may not have been able to run the show. And you can’t really have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t have the Justice Department ratify a decision by the special counsel. We can’t prosecute him because obviously he is failing memory.

Right. And if that wasn’t the position of the Justice Department, why didn’t they prosecute Biden? Just reject the special counsel’s recommendation based on the documents. So, and then you look at the pardons themselves. They’re mighty strange. There have really been few similar pardons in American history. Maybe the Nixon pardon was similarly broad, but suspicious nevertheless, where you’ve had pardons for numerous people close to Biden. They didn’t specify crimes. And going back 10 years. Now, who came up with that? 11 in some cases. Yeah, who came up very specifically. And who came up with that solution? And when you look at, by the way, the pardon statement related to Hunter, yeah, clearly it was written by Hunter’s lawyers.

So, null and void to begin with, as far as I’m concerned. Then on top of that, who signed them, right? And our friends at Heritage Oversight, they highlighted the issue of the auto pens. Now, auto pens can be used by a president. Yep. But there’s got to be a paper trail. There has to be authorization. And I would argue specific authorization for each usage. I don’t think you can generally just give away those core presidential powers, as Biden may have done in this regard. And to me, the paper trail ought to be pretty readily apparent.

And if there is no paper trail, it lends further suspicion that these pardons are null and void. You know, one thing that like I mentioned, the New York Times covers, they’re saying, I’m already seeing kind of the how they’re working up their talking points. Well, no pardons ever been overturned by a court. There’s no, there’s no, there’s never been a process for that. They’re basically saying so that it’s so novel, the idea that you would overturn a pardon. I got, I got a plan. Well, wait a second. Everything about this entire scheme was novel.

Like this is the violations themselves were novel. So of course you have to take a novel approach to redress them. You should proceed as if the pardons are null and void. Let the defendants raise it as a defense in court, litigate it. A pardon about nothing to me is unenforceable. So what are they even going to be fighting over? And certainly the crimes associated with the pardon recipients can be investigated. They can be questioned and you don’t necessarily target someone who has been pardoned, but you don’t let the pardon stop, stop you from figuring out what crimes are associated with your conduct and then potentially prosecuting them.

So if you have evidence that Fauci committed a crime, start the prosecution. You have evidence that of course we had lots of evidence that Hunter Biden committed crimes. Although in Hunter’s case, that was hand signed by Joe. We know that that signature is different than the auto pen signatures. So in that sense, unfortunately, perhaps for those of us who want to see justice there, that one seems to stand. Part of the pardon seems to stand. Now the Hunter Biden pardon has elements that seem valid, specific violations of law for which he’s being pardoned.

Then you have this section that, and anything else he may have done in the last 10 or 11 years as you point out. That’s an unusual, that’s like, that’s never been done before. Not that expansive. No. And, and, you know, Nixon had a kind of a broad pardon like that and people were questioning whether it was sufficient or not given the broad nature or appropriate. And, and, you know, when you look at the history of pardons, one could argue, and there’s been certain court findings to this effect, that the pardon doesn’t stop you even from being put on trial.

It just stops you from being punished. So you can arguably go through the entire process and to the degree the pardon is valid, it just stops you from going to jail, but you’re found guilty. Right. Yeah. So you could still, you think that it’s possible they could still be subjected to the court process for a fact finding mission. In the least. I would test it with Millie. You know, I think there’s questions of fraud related and perjury related to Fauci. And the whole family, the Biden family, there’s criminality that needs to be fully vetted as well.

And it should be no bar to prosecutions. And in the least, no bar to investigations. And I, and I, and I feel that there, you know, my concern is the administration is kind of walking around these core issues though. Is there going to be a serious investigation of any of these issues I’m talking about? This is what I wanted to ask you about next, because here’s what we’ve seen. We’ve seen infamously on the right. We’ve seen a lot of, we’ve seen a lot of fact finding missions that don’t result in accountability action.

Right. So the big congressional investigations that give us a bunch of horrifying answers and then everyone is not charged because well, it’s outside of the statute of limitations that happened a long time ago. Somebody already caught a wrist slap or whatever. Kevin Kline Smith gets to just stampede all over the law and there’s nothing, no accountability for him. You know, so here’s my worry about this. And it sounds to me like you’re sharing it, that the president’s asking for a full blown investigation into this. And then we’re going to get some sort of, you know, spiral bound report without the kind of accountability that you and I want.

I can do an investigation. You do this all the time. You don’t have prosecuting ability. We don’t need the government to do quote an investigation. We need the government to do, as you say, a prosecution. And if I were the president, I would just have a separate investigative prosecutorial unit outside the FBI and Justice Department. I know Dan and Cash probably want to get into some of this as to what the FBI did in the past. I don’t think the FBI can investigate the FBI and the DOJ, especially on warfare. They’re compromised and conflicted.

And I would just, we kind of just need to get it done. It was last year they tried to destroy our republic by jailing our president. Yes. And I’m not seeing any urgency to figure out who should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of Trump and anyone else. At the top of this program, I played perhaps you’ve seen the clip of Dan on Hannity last night. Which one? There was a clip. In fact, the one that he said, this is the one that he said, bookmark this this morning. And the bookmark this one was him being asked a question by Sean about Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fannie Willis, and Nathan Wade.

And he said, I can’t get ahead of what the Justice Department is doing right now on that issue. So I really can’t give you more answers on this. But just, again, Dan is emphasizing that area. So if you’re looking at the people who actually did go after Trump and tried to rob him of his civil rights in that way, that’s definitely the cabal that they’re talking about. Well, you would think, but I’m not seeing any evidence that they’re actually doing a criminal investigation of that cabal. And if they were, I think we’d see evidence.

They’d be the cabal would be screaming about it. Yeah. You know, remember, after January 6, what happened? The Biden people came in and they went to town. They went after all of these folks related to January 6. They made it clear there are ongoing criminal investigations. Who were the targets? There were arrests. subpoena is issued very public. And I’m sorry, I don’t think all of this is being done in secret. I don’t think it’s being done. I think they’re kind of circling around the issues. There may be some prosecutions, but I just don’t see the comprehensive reform and oversight and prosecution.

We know that the mortgage fraud case against Letitia James is real. And they’re actually doing that. So that’s part of this. I mean, there’s definitely some investigative action going on against her. But that broader theme of are these guys lawyering up because the Justice Department is breathing down their necks? You’re saying, well, I just haven’t seen the public evidence for that right now. Where’s the grand jury? And I’m sorry, it has been, you know, they keep on saying it’s only been three months. Actually, it’s a long time. It’s a long time. And to build a case.

It’s a long time to not do anything publicly. And I’m not seeing evidence as being done. And I don’t trust the FBI and DOJ to be able to do it because they’re going to have to investigate themselves if they seriously want to get it done. You know, who who in the FBI was involved in the raid on Trump’s home? Right. Who’s going to investigate the FBI’s involvement? Who in the DOJ was involved? Who’s going to be investigating the DOJ? So what would you recommend? What would be the approach? I would have a separate investigative unit set up by the prosecutor in chief, our president, appoint a special counsel who is answerable to him.

And he should manage the investigation and the prosecutions and have other agency or outside contractors detailed to provide support. Yes. The due to sort of comprehensive analysis and investigation and if necessary prosecution under our Constitution. Donald Trump could go into the courtroom and prosecute a case if need be. Is this something that you recommended to him? I don’t say what I say or don’t say. Anybody in the White House. I’ve been very public. Well, you’re publicly recommending. Right. So if Donald Trump is watching this, dear Mr. President, my favorite president, this is something he should do.

Okay, so let me. I am officially recommending it on Vince’s broadcast. Okay, good. So we have an official recommendation for the president here. On the flip side of it, do you anticipate that this is something he would do? I would argue that if he doesn’t do it, he’s going to be prosecuted as soon as he gets out of office. They really want to hurt him. They’ve done it. In my view, the FBI has to be a husk of its former self and should be treated like USAID. We shouldn’t be talking about trying to get people hired at the FBI and letting cops be cops.

The FBI has proven itself a menace to our First Amendment rights and a tool that any president comes into town who has their sights on their opponents as opposed to the rule of law. And it’s too much of a threat. They’ve proven themselves incapable of doing the job that Americans expect them to do and can’t be trusted. Yeah, and also, one of the things we’ve discovered already through both Cash and Dan, who I am sincerely grateful for in that role. If there’s anybody who’s going to be there who I’d have any kind of confidence in is those two.

I agree. And they say right up front, you’ve been hearing from Dan lately, he repeated it last night, that they’re finding rooms full of information that was meant to be concealed. So what that means is that they still have a huge active problem inside of the bureau that they’re tackling in the midst of trying to keep the country safe. This is why you need outsiders to come in and do the audits, do a forensic analysis of the documents or the storage devices they have in there. Dan can’t do it all on his own.

I mean, Dan highlights all the work he’s doing on the law enforcement matters. And I think it kind of takes pressure off of them to focus on the kind of the current crises. And you have a separate agency or office reporting to the president who’s doing the cleanup in aisle six. Yeah. Yeah. Ed Martin seems like he’s really focused fire on this. Ed could do it. There are all sorts of people you could appoint as special counsel. Move someone over from DOJ or bring in an outsider. With all due respect to the leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department, we know how it works.

They go in. The bureaucracy is quite adept at focusing them on where they want to focus and explaining why it is they can’t do what they want to do and creating interesting issues for them to pursue that they know they’re going to be interested in. And meanwhile, things just keep on going the way they’ve been going in large measure. I’m not seeing any Doge going on at the FBI to any great extent, have you? Doge meaning the canning people? The Doge approach. Now, they’ve been canning some people who’ve been affiliated with some of the prior abuses.

Yes. But none of the traditional Doge approach for waste, fraud, and abuse. Same at the DOJ. And the FBI has, what, 38,000 people working for it? Right. And they’re recruiting more. They’re trying to get more agents in it. Look, at the end of the day, the only remaining person at the FBI should be Cash Patel and a few assistants as they’re basically shutting the lights off. That’s what my view is. And so I kind of want them to do investigations as best as they’re able. But let’s not be naive about the way things have been going.

What’s the best indication of future behavior by political and administrative agencies? Past performance. Yeah, that’s right. It’s the exact opposite for the stock market, right? Yes, that’s right. No, that’s true. Okay, let me ask you about what would happen if Democrats get control of the House. They’ve got, right now, Jasmine Crockett, one of the leaders of the party, is saying that it’s time for impeachment again. And I’m seeing Axios as a report up this morning that, oh, Democrats disagree and this is giving them agita. And like they, no, they don’t. It’s my view that the second they get a hold on power again, they’re once again impeaching President Trump for a third time.

Oh, yeah, in the lease. You can be sure there’ll be charges. You can see them circling around allegations of criminality associated with Trump and his family. Fake allegations, but they don’t need much to start charging him. So I don’t think it’s going to be limited to impeachment. And remember, they wanted to get him killed last time around. You know, you had Benny Thompson put a bill forward that would have denied him Secret Service protection if he was sent the Rikers, which would have been a death sentence. Yes. These guys, you know, and who did they use to go after him? Was the FBI and DOJ.

And I was joking with Bannon a few weeks ago. I said it was Trump’s DOJ that tried to put him in jail effectively. So let’s not think that we have to wait for Democrats to come in in order for us to be at risk. You could have a Republican president succeed. President Trump, assuming Trump’s term is limited to just two. And we could have a DOJ. Oh, we got to, you know, do what Trump is now doing with Biden, right? Right. Yeah, leakers, deceivers, saboteurs. We saw all of that in the Trump one and that now we, you know, very much a risk.

And we still don’t have the documents. You know, we’re in it for the documents initially, right? And FBI is stalling documents to us. DOJ is stalling documents to us. They’re still stalling to you now? Yeah. So I know that one thing that the document of production is ramped up from the FBI is to Congress. I know that those guys who’ve been asking for documents have been getting it a pretty rapid clip relative to what it’s been in the past. A lot of the Crossfire Hurricane, all that stuff is showing up in Congress, which is good news.

Well, we’re seeing for the Crossfire Hurricane two years ago. Yeah. We haven’t gotten one document. Well, I shouldn’t say one document, but we haven’t gotten a document. You haven’t gotten what you wanted. Yeah. And so what’s the answer for that? I think they should. I mean, what are they saying? I mean, obviously, I would imagine that the relationship you have now must be a better one, that there’s a better, more of a good faith relationship. But I mean, we’ve gotten, you know, like the DOJ has given us documents. We typically wouldn’t have gotten, for instance, on the her tapes.

Yes. They gave us documents showing the White House is trying to change the transcript, literally, to make it seem like he didn’t forget his son’s death. Yes. The year of his son’s death. And that material typically would never be released under FOIA. So there was that positive step. But typically, it’s the same old, same old. I mean, we’re not getting any faster responses to our pending FOIA lawsuits and litigation. And, you know, and I would recommend they just follow a FOIA process in releasing records. You know, the problem they had with Epstein and the JFK records, both of which we’ve sued on since then.

Right. Is that they kind of did public leaks. And the problem when you do a public leak, and I don’t want to say I’m against transparency, but people say, well, where did you look? What are you withholding? Right. And the only way to make sure you know how that, what’s happening in that regard is through litigation. Yes. A FOIA process. And so I would encourage them to follow the FOIA process. Don’t make it the perfect the enemy of the good, in the sense of pretending that the FOIA process gets in the way of releasing records.

Because the decisions that the, so when Dan gets on TV and says, you know, we’re looking at the videos. Yeah. Of the Epstein. The hallway, the core area. And we want to make them, we want to clean them up. We’re like, just give us the, you know, we asked for these documents two months ago. So if you’re going to release them, release them, you clean them up later, do whatever you want with them later. But we want the records. Where are those records? You keep on referencing records you’re seeing or sending to Congress.

The public isn’t seeing these records. Why is that? And maybe it’s because they’re kind of running, you know, they’re kind of in an emergency. Maybe it’s an emergency aspect. And we won’t know until we see that video what it is that they’d actually have to clean up. Because it sounds to me like typically video footage, especially if it’s a security camera, you can release it, but there must be some underlying reason. Again, in Dan’s case, I’m not distrusting. I’m perfectly fine with him saying that. But I’m with you on the on the transparency.

Yeah, it’s not a question of whether I like Dan or not. It’s like, I just know the way the agencies work. And the FBI, I’ve been doing this at Judicial Watch for almost 30 years. And, you know, don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining. For sure, yes. You know, yeah, yeah, yeah. The FBI, I’m not seeing any evidence of a real systemic criminal prosecution or investigation of the law fair. I’m not seeing an understanding that they start they need to really deal in an urgent basis, on an urgent basis, with releasing and disclosing information about what went on.

And frankly, the FBI should be treated like Japan at the end of World War Two. Mm hmm. You know, I’m sorry, you’re not we’re not going to leave you ever able to do what you did to us again. Yes, your governance will never look the same again. That’s true. That happened in Japan. OK, last thing I know that you’re concerned about election integrity. Oh, yeah, it’s a big focus for you. That matters a great deal. You know, if this if this whole system is going to keep going, people have to have faith in our elections.

What’s the latest for you? Supreme Court is going to take up a big case of ours. We sued in Illinois for a congressman, Mike Bost, and two electors in Illinois. They count ballots that arrive for up to two weeks after Election Day in Illinois. And we had a similar lawsuit in Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, you should watch this right here, you know, our clients are right. Counting ballots arrive after Election Day is contrary to federal law, which sets an election day, not an election week. But in Illinois, they didn’t even want to deal with the merits.

They said the congressman, the candidate had no standing to challenge the illegal counting of ballots. So we appealed. We lost the appeal. It was a split appeal to one, which suggests that maybe we were, you know, that was that was a bad decision. And the Supreme Court this week said they’re going to take up our case. So they’re going to consider whether essentially federal candidates can go into court and try to stop an election from being stolen. Yes. Well, I mean, you would think they would be the injured party. I would think, you know, so, you know, knock on wood, you never know with the Supreme Court.

You never know. Of course, it’s an election related case. So things get always a little bit weirder with the courts and election cases. You know, my suspicion is they didn’t like the idea of Trump challenging elections. Yeah. And that kind of has kind of impacted their theory of standing in too many courts that candidates or frankly, others who have the right to or should have the right to can’t get the time of day in courts. And of course, what the left says, 60, 60 court decisions, you know, a lot of those cases were thrown out for lack of standing and things like that.

I’m not saying all of that would be impacted by this particular lawsuit or this particular Supreme Court case. But it’s important for the court in our view to affirm that certainly a federal candidate, sitting member of Congress, should be able to challenge whether a state is complying with federal law in the way the election’s being run. What could be more American than protecting the will of the people? What could possibly be more American than that? Is all you’re saying is I want to make sure that the people’s voices accurately represented. That it has to be the most common sense thing in the world.

In California, they count ballots seven days after Election Day that arrived seven days after Election Day. You know, when Trump had an E.O. kind of cementing the policy that. Yes. And he made the good point in the E.O. because it’s like a voter showing up three days after the polls close and saying, open them up. I want to vote. Yes. And but in California, two Democrats won. I quote marks for those of you just listening, not watching. And beat to replace two Republicans based on ballots that were counted after that arrived after Election Day.

So late arriving ballots on our view under the law were counted and changed the election results. If I were in the House, I’d be doing a whole host of hearings and I think there’s a basis to change the change those seats. In order to, again, accurately reflect the will of the voters. That’s right. By the rules. Yeah, no, that’s that’s worth digging into. All right. Well, look, Judicial Watch continues relentlessly to go after all of this. Doesn’t matter who’s in power. And that’s why we like you. Thank you, man. Thank you. Good to see you here.

Thank you. Tom Fitten from Judicial Watch. Thank you again to Tom plowing ahead here. [tr:trw].

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