➡ Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group, recently had two significant victories in election law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of their client, Congressman Boss, affirming the right of candidates to challenge vote counting practices. Additionally, after a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, Oregon is set to remove 800,000 names from their voter rolls, with 160,000 being removed immediately. Judicial Watch continues to fight for election integrity and is preparing for future court cases.
➡ The text discusses a controversial event where a church was disrupted, allegedly by communists and media personalities. It criticizes the lack of legal action against those involved and suggests that the rule of law is under threat. The author also mentions a special counsel’s testimony to Congress, accusing him of abusing his power and targeting conservative groups. The author calls for the president to restore law and order, and expresses concern about the potential loss of the country to radicals.
➡ A federal judge recently suggested that a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after being disqualified should face disciplinary action. This statement was made in relation to a lawsuit filed in Georgia, which was one of many cases related to former President Trump’s allegations of election fraud. The article also discusses the controversy surrounding a non-disclosure order involving Speaker McCarthy, and allegations of dishonesty and abuse of power within the Justice Department. Lastly, it mentions a lawsuit concerning Peter Navarro, a former aide to President Trump, who was prosecuted for contempt of Congress and served jail time.
➡ The text discusses a series of legal and political events involving figures such as Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and others. It mentions investigations, subpoenas, and potential charges related to contempt of Congress and other issues. The text also discusses the Justice Department’s handling of these cases and the author’s desire for more transparency and accountability. The author also mentions their organization’s efforts to obtain more information through the Freedom of Information Act.
➡ The speaker discusses the alleged collaboration between the FBI and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to target Donald Trump, expressing outrage over the situation. They also mention the lack of action from special counsel Durham, who they believe failed to adequately investigate the matter. The speaker then discusses a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, seeking documents related to the case, and criticizes the Justice Department and FBI for not providing the requested records. Lastly, they mention a separate lawsuit filed on behalf of a conservative teacher who was allegedly fired over his social media posts.
➡ A man was hired for a job, quit his previous job, and started working. However, he was later put on leave and then fired due to some posts on his Facebook page. The posts were public before he was hired and he was told he passed a social media check before being offered the job. This case is now a lawsuit, arguing that his firing was retaliation for protected speech and a breach of his hiring contract.
➡ Don’t miss the next Judicial Watch update. Remember to subscribe and like our video.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update here on social media. Thank you as always, for joining us during a very busy season for Judicial Watch, especially in the area of election law. In case you missed our update last week, it’s worth repeating we’ve had two tremendous, historic successes in the area. First, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s client, Congressman Boss, in Illinois, and two presidential electors affirming the right of candidates to challenge count practices. In Illinois, they count ballots that arrive for up to seven days after Election Day, sometimes even without a postmark.

The rules even allow that exception. And rather than let us litigate on that very issue because federal law sets Election Day, the lower court said, no, he doesn’t even have standing. He doesn’t have the right to challenge this. And The Supreme Court 7 to 2 said, yes, he does. And five of the justices said it for one reason. Two of the justices said it for another reason and combined it with seven. We’re in court. And on top of that, we received word from Oregon that after a Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed to clean up the rolls in Oregon, they removed 800,000 names or about to remove 800,000 names.

At least 160,000 will be removed immediately, with the rest to be removed at a future time. And all of this resulted obviously from our federal lawsuit to clean up the rolls. So that means our prior litigation and legal actions that caused the removal of 5 million names, dirty names, from the rolls is now nearly those numbers are now up to nearly 6 million names from the rolls, 5.8 million, to be specific. And we had a video created to explain the issues we’re talking about. And I’ll have a link to the video below, but I’ll play for I’ll play it for you now.

The Supreme Court ruled in Judicial Watch’s favor in the most important election law decision in a generation. The 7 to 2 decision affirms that candidates in federal elections have standing to bring challenges to the rules that govern how an election is operated. Judicial Watch represents Illinois Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after election Day. Judicial Watch argued that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their election.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed. Writing under Article 3 of the Constitution, plaintiffs have a personal stake in a case to have standing to sue. And Congressman Bost has an obvious answer. He is a candidate for office, and a candidate has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. Chief Justice John Roberts goes on to say, rules that undermine the integrity of the electoral process also undermine the winner’s political legitimacy. The counting of unlawful votes or discarding of lawful ones erodes public confidence that the election results reflect the people’s will.

Next, the Supreme Court will review this term another landmark Judicial Watch election integrity case that could result in the ending of counting of ballots received by mail after Election Day. This latest victory is another in a long list of election integrity efforts led by Judicial Watch. Recently, federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuits against those states may proceed, forcing them to clean their voter rolls. Oregon announced the cleanup of over 800,000 ineligible voters from its rolls after Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. Judicial Watch is also responsible for cleaning 5 million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.

To learn more about Judicial Watch’s election integrity work, visit judicialwatch.org and so, as we mentioned in the video, up next, we are in the Supreme Court again. I think the argument may be set as soon as April, maybe late March. I’m not sure what the dates are on the issue of the underlying issue, at least as to whether states can extend Election day, meaning count ballots that arrive after Election Day, five days, seven days, two weeks, you name it. I think in Illinois, it’s two weeks. I said it was seven days. I think it’s two weeks.

It’s seven days in California. And right now our lawyers are working on the Supreme Court briefs. The arguments will take place, as I said, in March or April. And if that court decision goes our way, as I pray it ultimately will, and I think intellectually, the court will be with us on it. Under the law and the facts, we will overturn laws in upwards of 19 states that unlawfully count ballots that arrive late. I mean, there’s no other way to put it. The ballots get there late. So this is the most significant election work at the Supreme Court level, certainly the decision affirming the right of candidates to try to go to court and to stop an election from being stolen.

That’s a big deal. Biggest case or biggest decision on election law issues in a generation from the Supreme Court. Next up is the possibility, a distinct possibility because we already got a lower court decision at the appellate court that counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is contrary to federal law. The Supreme Court upholds that and affirms it. As I said, the laws will change in 20 states. So that would be a big deal as well and an historic victory on behalf of the rule of law. So we’re cleaning up the rolls. We are ensuring that elections are run according to law and not in a way that allow them to be, in my view, stolen because the rules are being bent and broken.

So this is what Judicial Watch is doing that no one else is doing. We’re doing more work than the Justice Department. Justice Department is doing a bit more work than it used to, but never enough. And obviously, we’re in court against the left on all of these issues. So if you believe in election integrity and you want the fights to continue, like I said, we’ve cleaned up the rolls in Oregon. We’ve got lawsuits still against California to clean up the rolls there in Illinois to clean up the rolls. Other actions forthcoming. There are 24 million, by our estimation, dirty names on the rolls and dirty nationally.

And dirty names, dirty voting lists can mean dirty elections. So we are just going full speed ahead and we’re only able to do it with your support. So there’s some great news there. And, you know, a lot of other news happens. But I tell you, if our elections are not honest, well, we’ve already been through a dishonest election, 2020. The results can be catastrophic in terms of faith in our Republican form of government, abuses of power that result from it. Because when you break the law or rig the system related to an election, you know, the regime that results necessarily needs to jail opponents to protect their power and their credibility because, you know, half the country, in the case of Biden, didn’t think he was elected legitimately in large measure.

And so what his response was, jail those who questioned his election. That’s what he tried to do to Trump. So this is a serious issue, and it’s about the future of our country. This election integrity fight. And Judicial Watches is well positioned and has a demonstrated record of success second to none. And we’re proud to be able to do the work and so pray for further successes, but also share the information that I’m sharing with you here about the importance of our work, what specifically we’ve been doing in order to get people more excited and gather more support and energy behind our cause.

You know, the other big news this week was the ongoing insurrection in Minnesota. And it began with an attempt on the life of an ICE officer, where a woman, according to video, tried to run him down or was willing to run him down in the least, and he shot and killed her to defend himself. And the response to that, from the left is typical. The Communists look for opportunities to, you know, bring anarchy and disrupt our system, our government, and disrupt our civilization and our society. And that’s literally what they’re doing in Minnesota. So they’ve took that woman’s death, they’ve escalated it in a way to target ICE and to justify the murder of ICE agents, encouraging and inciting violence against them.

The mayor of Minneapolis, Mayor Frey F R E Y and Tim Waltz, the governor of Minnesota, are, in my view, in insurrection. ICE agents are under the gun. I mean, you have politicians, most, you know, Democrat politicians, for the most part. 30 Republicans, please point them out to me, saying these things, but suggesting ICE agents should be shot. You have a Democratic senator suggesting that ICE agents are the Gestapo. When you call ICE agents the Gestapo, as they simply try to enforce basic immigration law, you’re inciting violence and justifying violence against them. And of course, it’s not just about targeting ice, because these are the Communists.

The targets are basically just come with opportunity. So if the opportunity is to target ice, that’s who they’ll target. But it’s all part of the plan to target all opponents to their agenda. And who is an opponent to their agenda, typically for the Communists, the church. And that’s why you had the Communists invade and disrupt and attack a church service earlier this week. And it was aided and abetted and looks like in concert with the. The notorious former CNN activist Don Lemon. And here’s some video produced by Mr. Lemon highlighting the outrageous nature of what he and his commie allies were up to in disrupting the church.

I’m going to play this video. It’s here on our. This is from YouTube. Let’s play it. This is an operation that is secret, that they invited folks out. This is Operation Pull up, more of a clandestine operation. We show up, see somewhere. They don’t expect us to come there, and then we disrupt business as usual. So right now, it’s kind of mayhem. We’re not part of the. A member of ice, and he’s a pastor of the church. Our church had gathered for worship, which we do every Sunday. We asked them to leave, and. And they obviously have not left.

So this is. This is what the First Amendment is about, about the freedom to protest. There’s varying array of views in this church. Okay, so the First Amendment is not about a mob storming a church. It’s the exact opposite. It’s about protecting that church from a mob. And to the credit of Attorney General Bondi, the FBI secretary Noem, dhs, they Arrested three of the people, including two leaders involved in the storming of this Christian church. We’ve got the commies attacking a church, the left, media establishment defending it. We have, in my view, a judge, in an act of corruption, an abuse of power, a magistrate judge refusing to sign off on the arrest of Don Lemon, who was obviously.

I mean, here, this is really strong evidence he was involved, and not as a, quote, journalist, tell it to the jury. So we’ve got this insurrectionist approach. It’s not just limited to politicians. Sometimes the judges I’ve highlighted, we can go through hundreds of decisions, literally, that suggest a judicial insurrection. And here we have a magistrate judge, a federal magistrate judge. And, you know, people and the media likes to call him a federal judge. He’s not a federal judge, as traditionally understood. He’s a magistrate judge. He’s a judicial officer. He can put you in jail. He can run sometimes a trial, but he’s an employee of the federal court.

They’re hired. They’re lawyers who are hired and help run the court and help run minor matters, can sign off on arrest warrants. Has this magistrate refused to. To protect Don Lemon, a leftist, from being held accountable. But you can be sure that Judicial Watch is very much interested in pursuing this issue, exposing the networks behind this insurrection, exposing the facts of their abuses and their targeting of this church. So we’re not going to sit idly by, and we have other investigations going on as it relates to Minnesota as well, that we will pursue for whatever, you know, for reasons that are tactical and opportunistic, never let a crisis go to waste.

As has been famously said, the left has used Minnesota to be a place where they will engage in revolutionary activity with the support, as I said, of the national news media and as I call it, the D.C. left media complex. The Borg. It’s more like a Borg, since they all almost marched in lockstep. So these are dangerous times for our country, and the rule of law is under attack. And if I were the president, I would invoke the Insurrection act now in Minnesota. These leftists are going to get more people killed. I mean, that woman who was shot by that ICE agent, her death is on the hands of those inciting that type of activity, obstructing justice, obstructing law enforcement proceedings or law enforcement operations, in this case.

And they had another event, this. I haven’t seen too much on the news about it. I’ve been busy. But they were trying to shut down the airport, so trying to disrupt travel, very dangerous. This is pure communism. What’s happening? It’s straight out of the Leninist Bolshevik playbooks. I mean, you think we’re immune from losing our country to these radicals? We are not. When you have politicians who know better allowing it to take place, we’re in a very dangerous spot. And the rule of law is not being enforced as it relates to this specific issue in a dangerous way in Minnesota.

And so I would encourage the president to use all of his authorities under the Constitution to restore the rule of law and a Republican form of government to Minnesota. Immediately. You know, speaking of assaults on the rule of law, did you see Special Counsel Jack Smith testified to Congress this week? Now, he did have a deposition earlier, I guess. Earlier? Was it this month? Maybe it was last month. And, you know, he testified as he would testify. He pretends everything he does is fine. And the Republicans are mad at him, highlighting some of his abuses, not all of them.

And he essentially says that if you dispute an election, you’re going to go to jail. That’s his rule. That was the rule he made up for Trump. And in doing so, he abused all sorts of other people, like yours truly, like Judicial Watch. He harassed us with subpoenas, forced me to testify to a grand jury where I was arguing with these prosecutors about First Amendment protected activity, arguing about elections. And it was ridiculous. I mean, it was ridiculous, but was outrageous about it. It’s the grand jury process that was being abused to harass me. And your Judicial Watch.

And if you’re a supporter of Judicial Watch, it means you’re targeted, too, indirectly. And they were spying on members of Congress, the Speaker of the house, Mr. McCarthy, taking up their phone records, hiding it, and abusing Trump six ways to Sunday through abusive process. And, you know, I like to see, you know, the hearings are as good as they are. But, you know, frankly, I was kind of underwhelmed by the hearing, because when you think about it, if you thought you were going to go to jail for something, would you go and testify to Congress? To me, the fact that Jack Smith is testifying without invoking the Fifth Amendment strongly suggests that he does not fear prosecution.

I’m presuming he has private lawyers advising him. So Jack Smith’s going to. He gets to abuse his office, abuse the civil rights of countless Americans, and he’s not going to be prosecuted. If he’s going to be prosecuted. You know, you could knock me over with a feather if that happens. But nevertheless, there was at least some good educational benefit to having him testify. And we had Congressman Chip Roy highlight some of his abuses of power. And Chip Roy, I guess was also a crime victim of the Biden gang. It’s been exposed. Let’s watch this video of Chip interviewing or questioning Jack Smith.

Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is? Yes, I do. She’s an election lawyer that was involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020. A 64 page complaint with over 1100 pages of exhibits one witness affidavits and expert witness reports documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included in the vote totals. Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that was filed, is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, a client, is that a criminal act? Yes or no? No.

In fact, we. So why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell’s long distance phone records in 2023, two and a half years after the election Conte filed and after the presidential electors were certified? What about Jenna Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Sepien? What crime did you suspect had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records two and a half years after the 2020. The 2020 election was certified. With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the co conspirators alleged in the indictment. I don’t know what you mean by monitoring, sir.

If you’re talking well, there were some 400 plus Republican conservative groups and leaders who were targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the rnc, the Trump campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the America First Policy Institute, nrcc, nrse, pacs, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens, because we hear a lot about members of Congress and we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of power. But what we’re not talking about enough in my opinion, are the American citizens that have been targeted. Because frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or special counsel? So much so in your abuse of power that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the appointments clause of the Constitution.

But you continued to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned from office in January 2025. A federal judge just recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment. Yes. So a pretty good summary by Chip Roy about some of the abuses of power and that Cleta Mitchell lawsuit, the lawsuit that was filed In Georgia is a good example of the dishonesty of the media and people like Jack Smith who suggest falsely that all of Trump’s cases were dismissed on the merits.

You know, they talk about 60 cases were dismissed. I mean that could includeyou know, that includes cases that were completely tertiary and irrelevant to the core issues that Trump was pursuing. And none of Trump’s cases were allowed to proceed on the merits in Georgia. They literally refused to appoint a judge. They literally refused to appoint a judge to consider his case. He was denied any justice in Georgia with that case. So when they say the cases were all dismissed, that’s propaganda and it’s false in that they mislead people about the substance of the allegations and whether they were properly adjudicated.

And they were never properly adjudicated. At least Trump specific allegations in, in many of the swing states in which I believe the election was stolen from him improperly. And here we have Congressman Brandon Gill. And if you’re not following him online, you should because he’s a, he’s kind of, he’s a very talented young congressman who is particularly talented in his ability to cut through the. You know what, when it comes to questioning witnesses. Let’s watch Congressman Gill. Mr. Smith, at the time you, you secured those non disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? The non disclosure order was based on concerns about was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? He was not.

He was not. Then why did your non disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution. Sir, when securing a non disclosure order, the risks don’t have to be associated. You think that the speaker of the House is flight risk? No, this is not your time. This is my time. You think the speaker of the House is a flight risk? You think he’s going to hop on a plane and leave the country? No, what I was trying to explain is with respect to a non disclosure order, the risks aren’t necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone.

There’s there the risks to investigation. I think that you were using, this was clearly in reference to, to Speaker McCarthy and you were using clearly false information to secure a non disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records. Well, and he’s exactly right there. And Jack Smith in my view is being dishonest in suggesting the flight from prosecution wasn’t about McCarthy. Well, who was going to escape the country? Who was going to leave the country as a result of McCarthy’s phone record subpoena being disclosed to the American people.

No one was President Trump going to flee the country. Absurd and dishonest. And the fact is they held that information from Congress as they spied on Congress. Extraordinary, extraordinary abuses of the civil rights and the constitutional system. In targeting Congress like this for daring to oppose Joe Biden’s election, for disputing the election, or even worse, for talking about disputing the election. Talking about disputing the election. And I’m sorry, you know, I haven’t seen any action. That’s reassuring to me that Jack Smith is the subject of a serious investigation. He should be. Now, is it possible something’s happening I don’t know about? Maybe, but unlikely.

There’s talk of a grand jury in Florida that may be looking at these issues comprehensively. Maybe. Have I seen evidence that’s happening? No. I mean, there’s been noise about some subpoenas going out, but if there was, like, a comprehensive investigation into the coordinated lawfare that goes back a decade against President Trump, including by this guy, Jack Smith, you know, part of the hearing was talking about, really, disclosures that were uncovered by Judicial Watch showing that Jack Smith’s Justice Department, when he was working for the Obama gang back in the day, coordinated with Lois Lerner’s IRS to steal, in my view, IRS files and try to prosecute people and put them in jail, all of whom were opponents of Trumpexcuse me, all of whom were opponents of Obama.

And also it was a way to suppress the political opposition to Obama in the run up to his reelection campaign in 2012. Remember, Obama used the IRS to suppress his political opposition to help ensure that he was elected in 2012 or reelected in 2012. That was the first run through a successful one in abusing, weaponizing government to target their opponents. And who was involved in it? Jack Smith. You won’t hear the media tell you about that. So we’ve got Freedom of Information act request after Freedom of Information act request on Jack Smith. We’ve been battling for years.

Obviously, it’s one thing to get opposed by the Biden administration in turning over the truth about Jack Smith, but we’re still being opposed by the Trump administration about turning over the truth about Jack Smith and what he was up to. And that’s exceedingly frustrating, to put it mildly. I mean, who’s running the show at the Justice Department on these FOIA issues, these transparency issues? Some records are being released to Congress. We don’t know what other records they have. So some of that’s being disclosed, and we applaud any transparency, but there’s got to be also transparency under law here.

And so, you know, we need to get the full details about the abuses of Smith Co. And the Biden lawfare against Trump, because that’s one way to get accountability, and it’s one way to generate pressure for fuller accountability, either through the criminal process or any other appropriate ways in our system of government. So along those lines, we’ve got a few lawsuits that you might be interested in. One is a lawsuit concerning Peter Navarro. Peter Navarro is an aide to President Trump. He was an aide to President Trump in 2000 in the first term. And Peter, who I know slightly is a good guy, he’s a trade guy, and he’s a China hawk on trade and other matters.

And both Republicans and Democrats don’t like him because he kind of refuses to submit to the traditional approach on trade and how we’re supposed to treat China and other foreign, national, foreign governments when it comes to tariffs and such. So he’s kind of a. He’s known for his pro tariff advocacy. And he was questioned, or he was. Congress wanted to question him. And the long and short of it is he thought there was an executive privilege he could assert, and he had the right to assert it. And rather than allowing him to assert it and respect it and adjudicate that issue, the Biden administration prosecuted him for contempt of Congress, and he served time in jail.

And there were documents that were released recently showing the Biden gang at the Justice Department and FBI celebrating the targeting of Navarro. And we asked for records about that. We’ve gotten the runaround, and so we’ve sued under the Freedom of Information Act. So it’s a federal Freedom of Information act lawsuit against the Justice Department for these records. And let’s see what we got here. Give me a second. So we asked for these records back in May of 2025. Records and communications of Special Agent Walker Walter Giardina, Supervisory Special Agent Blair Tolman, and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Bowe about the investigation, arrest, indictment, or prosecution of Peter Navarro to include contempt of Congress referrals regarding Navarro or any other former Trump administration officials, which I guess would include Steve Bannon, who was also targeted with unprecedented prosecutions over contempt of Congress.

Giardina, the lead name we’re asking about. He was fired by the FBI in 2025, Tolman was fired in 2025, and Thiebault resigned in 2022. So these guys were kind of up to their neck in some of this lawfare activity. And it’s hard to get fired from the FBI, even by the Trump administration because they’ve only fired at most 138people as of a few weeks ago. Navarro was sentenced in January 2024 to four months in prison for refusing to appear before the US Congress to give testimony and produce documents as required for a subpoena he received from the select committee to investigate January 6th.

So this is all tied to the January 6th jihad by the left in Congress, along with the media who were using the January 6th disturbance as an excuse to destroy the Republican Party. Jail Trump and anyone else who dared to dispute the election. Now, Chuck Grassley exposed emails showing the celebration of targeting Navarro. Let me show you some of these emails and and you can judge for yourself whether you think it’s appropriate or whether you think that Navarro was the subject of a dispassionate normal prosecution or one that was unhinged. The D.C. uSAO would like. So the U.S.

attorney’s office would like Navarro indicted on June 2nd. Were working on the possibility of such a search. Warren as well, writes Walter Giadina. And it’s sent along to Tolman and who sends it along to Thiebault who writes here. Look at this. Wow, great. Look at all the other stuff they wanted to do against him. Contempt of Congress cases. Update. I just spoke with the D.C. u.S. Attorney’s office. So the district attorney’s office. The U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia, which is now run by Jeanine Pirro, was run obviously by the Biden administration appointee at the time.

These emails are being written after consultation with May and Justice. They are not intending to prosecute Meadows or Scavino. Mark Meadows or Dan Scavino, two former Trump aides. The decision is based on their White House positions and prior DOJ opinions. Molly asked for you to call if you have any questions or concerns. We’ve been told to cease work on those cases. They would like to charge Navarro in the next two weeks. However, this is what we need to accomplish. Locate him. By the way, he’s been out. He was at the time quite public about what he was doing.

Get subpoena returned from Verizon, so get his phone records. An issue preservation letter to Apple, I guess iPhone records. Prepare a search warrant for his phone. And this is the abusive part. So they know they’re going to indict him. So they’re going to go to his house and try to catch him with a knock and talk interview and then serve a Phone, search warrant at the conclusion of the interview. So this was the agenda. You know, he was targeted in a way never seen before on contempt of Congress charges. Now, by the way, the Attorney General of the United States was also ultimately referred to Attorney General Garland for contempt of Congress for refusing to produce material to Congress.

Did the Justice Department prosecute him? No. So you can see all these documents here. We referenced them in our press release. But we want more information about the abusive targeting of Navarro. And it’s going to be very interesting to see what the Justice Department does on another contempt of Congress case which was just initiated or is about to be initiated or should be as a result of a referral from Congress. The first step of which, with the Committee on Government affairs and Oversight, I think that’s what it’s called, was the Government Oversight Committee. They referred Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

They voted out. And so the full House will vote on it. A contempt citation for the Clintons who have refused to testify to the Oversight Committee about epc. Now, they may have objections to doing so, but when you get a subpoena from Congress, you’re supposed to testify and show up and testify, and they refuse to do so. And they pretend they want to cooperate, but there are all sorts of conditions on the cooperation. That isn’tthat Congress, you know, doesn’t give to people normally. And it’s up to Congress to enforce their subpoena. And Hillary and Bill refused to obey the subpoena.

And so now they’re likely to be found in contempt, although I shouldn’t say that because, you know, there could be some Republicans who are afraid of their own shadow and refuse to vote for a full contempt referral to the Justice Department. So the Justice Department, though, has yet to prosecute Garland for the contempt citation. And I wonder if they’re going to prosecute Bill and Hillary. And they’re also hiding records about the improper or abusive prosecution of Peter Navarro. And so we’re in court over it. And it’s not the only issue. We’re sued. We sued for the emails of Jack Smith.

As I noted in November of last year, we see the Justice Department for more FBI anti Trump machination documents back in September. And of course, we have many FOIA records request and I think more than one lawsuit at this point for Arctic Frost Records, which was the core investigation or jihad against Trump by the Biden Justice Department. Arctic Frost. And by the way, Arctic Frost, it looks like, you know what, you may be wondering why that name, Arctic Frost, they came up with. Well, it looks like, according to my understanding that it was. I forget, because the documents were released by Grassley.

They called it something other than Frost. It was like something else Frost, and they didn’t like it. Now, typically the names are kind of auto generated, so they’re not supposed to make any sense, but Arctic Frost is a type of orange, right? And so it’s all geared at mocking Trump, you know, because the left sees him as, you know, the joke is Orange man, and they derisively refer to him as Orange Man. And so the, the gang in the Biden, FBI and Justice Department came up with an investigative name for the targeting of Trump that mocked him, Arctic Frost.

So I thought you might like to know that level detail. We also filed. And that’s what I love about Judicial Watch. I barely can keep up with our work. I’m the president of the company. We’re a nonprofit. We got to raise money to do the work. And those of you who support our work, it’s just, it’s just so great that I even have trouble keeping up with all our great work. And one of this, one of these lawsuits, it’s really important because it goes to the heart of, of lawfare, not by Biden, but by the Obama gang.

Is what happened to Trump with the targeting of him during the first presidential campaign that continued through the deep state machinations into his first presidency that resulted in impeachments and abuses and criminal investigations that just literally froze the Justice Department and turned it into an attack dog on the presidency in a way that we have never seen before. And it’s very unfortunate that they still, the Justice Department. And, you know, Pam Bondi has got to get her act together when it comes to these FOIA requests. I’m sorry. Because we’re not getting responses as we’re supposed to under the law.

I mean, I want to go through what they’re withholding. This is what we asked for. And it’s important because the documents themselves tell a story. The document request, it’s a great request by our investigative team. So this is the way things work typically at judicial law. You know, our investigators come up with FOIA requests. I might say, hey, why don’t we ask for this? Or a lawyer might say, why don’t we ask for this? Or an investigative team member may get a tip to ask for records. All sorts of reasons to ask for records under the Freedom of Information Act.

So we file the request, and we’ve been doing this for 30 plus years. We know what we’re doing. We know how to Ask under the FOIA for records, the Freedom of Information Act. And we don’t necessarily sue the minute they say, you know, the minute the deadline passes, we sometimes give them a little more time. Well, a, we don’t have the capacity to sue for every request we file because we file thousands of requests over the years. I think we filed nearly 2000 FOIA requests last year. It was 1700, if I recall correctly. Was a lot.

But sometimes the requests are, you know, we got to sue over this because it’s important. And I think you’ll agree this is important. Look at this request. The complete unredacted notes we asked in August of this year, taken by former CIA Director John Brennan during the August 3, 2016 rhious briefing, which reportedly discussed intelligence regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to link Donald Trump to Russia. So that’s where supposedly Obama was told about that plan. Just to beso. You know, they knew they had intelligence that Hillary Clinton was concocting a Russia smear against Trump to distract from her email abuses and crimes that Judicial Watch uncovered.

Maybe it’s our fault. We shouldn’t have uncovered that. And Hillary wouldn’t have tried to get Trump thrown in jail and abused with Russia. Right. The full unredacted. And so this is about what Obama knew this lawsuit is with the abuses of Trump and where it originated. The full unredacted Inspection Division report from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General that critiques the FBI’s handling of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. A Crossfire hurricane was the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation that the Obama gang concocted. The 14 missing pages of the Durham report appendix that have not been publicly released.

So there’s still classified material. Why is it still classified? Well, I don’t even know if it’s classified necessarily, because they haven’t answered our request to say whether it is or not. All unredacted transcript summaries or notes from interviews conducted by Special Counsel John Durham with the following individuals regarding the 2016 election and related investigations. So he questioned all these people. They include Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta and some others. All unredacted records of referrals made by Special Counsel John Durham to the Department of Defense or any other federal agencies. All emails and communications between Fusion gps, which was the Hillary front that was also being paid by the FBI.

You know, this is not old news as far as I’m concerned, and it’s probably news to many of you because we uncovered Judicial Watch did that the FBI was paying the operative that Hillary had hired also to target Trump. It was a joint operation to target Trump between the Hillary campaign and the FBI. And you might say, well, the FBI didn’t know that he was also working for the Clinton campaign. They did know and they leaked crap to him to get it back to the Clinton campaign. This is why I think the FBI needs to be shattered and scattered.

What they did to Trump should end it in the least. I got distracted there with the little tirade, but this is outrageous. All the emails and communications between Fusion gps, New York Times, the Post, Washington Post and other major media outlets, as well as emails between Fusion GPS and the Hillary Clinton campaign or the dnc. All unredacted emails, memoranda or other communications between former head of British intelligence, Sir Richard Dearlove, US Intelligence officials, including CIA and FBI personnel Stefan Halper, who was also targeting Trump. He was a paid informant going after the Trump campaign by, you know, launched by the FBI and Christopher Steele of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier.

And Durham, of course, did virtually nothing as special counsel. He was a failure. He had a very limited view of his, of his. What he needed to investigate and what he needed to do. He got one conviction. Other cases were thrown out, and the conviction he got was essentially turned into a slap on the wrist for an FBI official who basically gave false evidence to target in order to better justify targeting the Trump campaign. This is why I’m skeptical of other things happening now, because during the first Trump administration, I was very public and vocal about the necessity of criminal investigations into whatinto the improper targeting of Trump over Russia, Russia, Russia.

And I was told repeatedly, but don’t worry, they were called him Bull Durham. He’s got it, he’s going to do it. I said, well, I don’t see any information that he’s doing anything like that. And I was right. I mean, he gave us a lot of good information, but nothing in the way of criminal prosecutions or in terms of what we thought was necessary and sufficient. I mean, the work we’ve done exposed pretty much every major detail we know about Russia, Russia, Russia, the Russia abuse, the smear against Trump. I shouldn’t say every. Most of the details have been released thanks to Judicial Watch for the first time in history, thanks to a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit, the FISA court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act court warrants that were signed to spy on the Trump campaign were released.

They’d never. Documents like that had never been released before. But we uncovered them, for example, and got them released. And we’re still in court. As I said, we just filed this lawsuit and we. So did you think those documents were important? I do. We asked for them back in August. Let’s see what the government said in response to our request because that’s sometimes illustrative of what we’re dealing with. So this is the complaint. So we file the lawsuit. You can bring it up on screen. Looking at the federal lawsuit complaint. Okay, so here are the document requests that we just talked about.

So here it is by letter dated September 3rd. So we filed it in. The request was in August, September 3rd. The Office of Information Policy, which is an agency or office within the Justice Department that handles FOIA requests, acknowledged receipt of plaintiff’s request on August 5, 2005, which is the date of our request, and advised plaintiff that the request had been assigned tracking number foia blank, blank, blank. So the tracking number OIP also invoked FOIA’s 10 day extension of time provision for unusual circumstances. And you know what? That was the last we heard of them, Heard from them.

They gave us a number to track the FOIA and went silent. That’s not acceptable. We’re asking for doj, probably FBI records here. And they haven’t given us one record. They’ve given us virtually nothing on Arctic Frost, the Biden gang attack on Trump. What are they covering up? Now, I know some of you are saying, well, they’ve got a prosecution going on, then tell us there’s a prosecution going on and you can’t give us records. There are ways, you know, the law doesn’t require them to give us the records. Sometimes that we understand, but we’re not, at that point, they’re not even, they’re not even looking for records.

They’re not even responding to our requests. They’re not telling me, you know, if they said, oh, we got records, but you can’t have them for reasons X, Y and Z, they’re not even. They’re just ignoring their requests outright. So just so you know, there’s no good reason the Justice Department or the FBI have given us for withholding information about the lawfare against Trump. And so we’re going to sue, keep on suing and try to get these records for you in court. So Judicial Watch filed another important federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a conservative teacher or educator who was fired by a school district over straightforward social media posts on matters of public concern.

And the way they went about it was really nasty. We filed a lawsuit against Barnstable Public Schools up in Massachusetts. I think it’s our third lawsuit. Up there recently over trying to protect the first amendment rights of teachers. They really hate conservatives up there, it looks like, and have contempt for the first Amendment. We filed the lawsuit under the civil rights Statute called under 42 USC 1983. It’s a breach of contract case. It’s a promissory estoppel case filed on behalf of John Briganzi. And I want to go over the lawsuit with you because I think it’s interesting.

And I want to kind of show you how our expert lawyers in this case, Michael Pikesha, kind of develop the case and explain it to the court. Okay, statement of facts. Let’s go and bring up the case. I’ll bring it up so you can read it along in part with me. In August 2024, plaintiff. Our client was a tenured science teacher at Brockton Public Schools in Brockton, Mass. Plaintiff had taught at Brockton for 17 years, and he was teaching science as he had in prior years. In 2024, he applied for the job as assistant associate principal position as associate principal at Barnstable High School in August of 2024.

On September 3rd, he interviewed for the associate principal position at Barnstable High School with at least eight and as many as 13 Barnstable Public School teachers and administrators. I mean, if that’s not an indictment of our public school system, I don’t know what is. He’s trying to get a job as assistant principal, more or less, and he has to interview with 20 people. He also interviewed with the Barnstable Public School superintendent, Sarah Hearn, and the high school principal, obviously, on September 6th. So he had two interviews during the interview process. This is important. Now, Barnstable Public Schools personnel clearly and unambiguously told him multiple times that.

Here it is. Let’s look at this on screen. That no employment officer. Excuse me, no employment offer would be extended unless and until the district reviewed his social media activity, including his Facebook page, for any issues or concerns. It was explained to the plaintiff that a social media check was a routine part of the district’s interview process. So they warned him, if we find something on your page we don’t like, you may not get the job. And I think that’s probably. That may be their right. I’m not sure. So we’ll see as we argue the case how that plays out.

At no point during the interview process did any personnel apprise him of any issues or concerns the district had with about his social media activity, including his Facebook page. So he got the job. On September 10, he accepted the job orally. So the superintendent called and offered him the job. He accepted it. And then he was also told at the time, well, now you got to go through the paperwork. He met with the human resources personnel folks for the public schools at Barnstable on September 24th to begin the onboarding process. That’s the HR term for getting people situated in an office or a new job.

You have them fill out the forms, you describe policies to them, give them some information about their job now. So he completed the onboarding process on September 30, 2024. It took a week. At no point during the onboarding process did any Barnstable Public school re human resources personnel raise any issues or concerns about his social media activity. And he began and he was told his start date would be October 7th. He got his start date. This is key. After completing the onboarding process on September 30, 2024 and receiving his start date, the plaintiff resigned from his tenured position at Brockton Public Schools in reliance on Barnesville Public Schools promise of employment and representation about performing a social media check.

So he had a tenured position, nearly 20 years as a teacher over at Brockton. They said, you got the job, we’re going to hire you. We might do a social media check, but we’ll let you know if there are any issues. They offered him a job, he took it, went through the onboarding process, got a start date, he quit his tenured position. No one told him there were any issues with his social media. So you can guess what happened next. He began working on October 7th as previously agreed. He got a letter confirming his start date, what his salary was going to be, your start date, and this is what they said in the letter.

Your start date is determined by a successful background check. So they said you got the job because you passed the background check. The representation further confirmed that he satisfied all requirements for employment. This is what we allege, including a passing a social media check. On November 20, he gets called into a meeting with the union, the public schools union, resources human resources director and the principal. He’s handed a letter signed by Superintendent Ahern placing him on paid administrative leave, effective immediately, pending an investigation and allegations that there were memes and posts on his Facebook page that required investigation.

And these Facebook page memes and posts were not buried. They were all recent upwards from 2022 to 2024. So it wasn’t like they had to, oh, we didn’t go back far enough. No, they were up in front. And by the way, he was promised that it would all be done. And the reason he Got the job was because they had looked at this sort of stuff. But no, no, no. He subsequently learned that the investigation originated from an email sent to Barnstable public schools on November 15, 2024 by an individual identified only as a concerned colleague.

So later in December, he was in a meeting. He had a meeting with the again, the assistant superintendent in this case and the human resources director. And they showed him the following Facebook posts. Can we bring that up here? So these are some of the posts. Some of it uses some, you know, he says the word a hole, basically. Anti immigration post complaining about Boston mayor engaging in racial separatism. Look at this. This is what bothered them. If a fence around the Capitol seems like a good idea, but not on the US Border, you’re a special kind of stupid.

Come on, what’s the big deal about any of that? And plus, it’s free speech, even if you don’t like it. Tough. So all of this was public before he applied, and they promised him a job based on a review of such posts, and then he quit another job, took this one, and then they pulled the rug out from under him. No one complained other than this person. So there was no, like, disruption or crisis at the school as a result. This is just, in my view, we don’t say this in the lawsuit, so this is my interpretation of it.

A bunch of left wing activists working in the school system up in Barnstable going after this poor guy, our client, for having the wrong views and retaliating and firing him. And you can’t do that under our laws. So this is retaliation under protected speech. So this is the 42 USC 1983 claim that we filed at all relevant times. He was engaged in constitutionally protected speech when he posted content on Facebook that addressed matters of public concern. Defendant acting under color of Massachusetts law, deprived plaintiff of his rights under the First Amendment by firing a plaintiff for engaging in protected speech was the breach of the contract.

So, you know, he had this essentially hiring contract. It was a breach. There were some. You know, even as an At Will employee. Excuse me, even as an At Will employee, you can’t get fired for retaliation like this. It’s not right. And then count three is promissory estoppel. Now, as a lawyer, I always pause when I read that. But what I love about that phrase, it kind of vaguely explains, even if you don’t know what it means, the words themselves kind of explain what the issue is. Promissory. The key word there is promissory is promise. Right? Essentially, he was promised the job.

He under, he relied on that promise and they pulled the rug out from under him. We got this job, by the way, the only way you’re going to get it is if you pass our review of your social media. They told him he passed the review because they offered him the job, gave him other information saying he passed the review, he quit his other job to take it, began working, and then a few weeks later, because some activists contacted them, they fired him. So, you know, I know I normally don’t go through lawsuits like that, but I think it’s very interesting to see the process that plays out in the lawsuit itself.

And to me, it’s devastating what happened in terms of the legal liability that is clear cut that these people face up in barstool for firing our poor client. And so this is the sort of work that we’ve been specializing in recently to. Because the new the rules are if you’re a conservative who’s a teacher and you say something outside the classroom that has no impact on the classroom. So it isn’t like our clients are going to class and saying, you know, the ICE agents are the Gestapo, which is what the left does all the time. Right.

But they’re not saying controversial things in class. These are statements that take place in this case long before he was hired, A few years in part. Some of these are a few years before he was hired or, you know, when people are on vacation or just, you know, just basically making comments in their personal capacities. And public schools are government entities and they can’t fire people in retaliation for their speech, punish their speech in this regard. They’re not disrupting the school. They’re not saying things at school that are inappropriate. It’s. They don’t like their speech outside of school.

So if the first time, you know, there are 22 million public employees, which don’t get me started, how outrageous a number that is. The point is you can’t have all of those public employees have their First Amendment rights suppressed as a condition of employment in an inappropriate way. Because you obviously don’t have absolute First Amendment rights, speech, free speech, rights in the conduct of your employment. Sometimes, like I said, you can’t go into a classroom and start saying crazy things one way or the other. So this is the challenge we’re facing. The left hates the First Amendment, they hate the Constitution, and they’re obsessed with destroying anyone who speaks outside their lanes or their lines that they’ve made up.

And we’re going to court to try to vindicate the rule of law. We got a supreme court or requested a Supreme Court on behalf of another teacher who was fired for posts she made opposing rioting while she’s sitting on the beach. This is how crazed the speech police are. And we don’t have. We’re not supposed to have speech police in our country. That’s what our Constitution is about, is to prohibit that type of abusive activity. So I want you to go back and watch this video again. I don’t know. I hope you can. I hope I’m tolerable enough that you’re willing to watch it again.

But at least go back and kind of review everything I’ve talked about. Our investigations about Jack Smith, our investigations of the insurrection in Minnesota, our multiple lawsuits for records about the lawfare against Trump, our lawsuit on behalf of a innocent educator who was fired for exercising his core First Amendment freedoms. Is there anyone, any, anyone else doing this type of work? Congress doesn’t do this type of work. I mean, there are some organizations that do a little bit of this work, but in terms of the comprehensive promotion of the rule of law against government abuse and misconduct, Judicial Watch is second to none.

So that’s why, again, I encourage you to support our work, join our cause, join our movement. Go to Judicial Watch.org Judicial Watch.org you can make a contribution. And I’m serious about this. And the fundraisers will be mad at me for saying this. Also important is share this information with others. I mean, could you believe the information about the elections I told you. Could you believe the information about the Love Fair I told you. Or what’s going up on in Massachusetts or the riot or the insurrection in Minnesota? And you know, the important thing about Judicial Watch is we just don’t talk about the issues that you’re concerned about.

We’re trying to address them by filing lawsuits, conducting investigations, educating Americans about the truth about what the government’s up to, trying to hold them accountable under the law. So go to judicialwatch.org, share this video, send an email out like it. If you’re watching it on YouTube, follow our channel. If you’re watching it on Twitter, follow Twitter. Follow us on Twitter, excuse me, on X. Keep on calling it Twitter. Be an activist on social media for Judicial Watch. We need your help. Our country’s at stake. And with that, I wish you the best. 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.