We’re all supposed to forget that, right? Just move on, talk about the primary or debates, whatever the latest flavor of the day is. Well, you can see the President hasn’t forgotten about it. He’s still concerned about corruption, and nor has Judicial Watch forgotten about it. We’ve got the lawsuits ongoing. For instance, we have sued for records about the alleged whistleblower whose name I’m not allowed to say because if I were to say it on this video and it wasn’t edited out, it would be taken off by YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. So you know who the name of the alleged whistleblower is.

Now, I don’t know for sure he’s the alleged whistleblower, but I do know, based on public reports, is that he was assigned to the White House for the CIA during both the Obama and Trump administrations. We looked at the visitor logs that were available, at least from the Obama administration time, and saw that he was involved with some of the same bad actors who were behind the Ukraine assault on President Trump. So we’ve asked for records about his involvement with the State Department, Stonewall. We’ve also asked for records about his involvement with the Justice Department and FBI because his name, surprise, surprise, shows up as it relates to Russiagate.

I think it shows up in the Mueller report. And as a CIA guy, we asked the CIA for documents. We got the hands of the face. I call it the proverbial hands of the face we always get from government agencies. So we had to sue. And what is the response we get? We get two extraordinary letters from the CIA and the FBI. I call them GLOMAR responses. Well, GLOMAR is a kind of a FOIA nerd term for they can’t confirm or deny the existence of the records. And in doing so, they say it doesn’t mean that records necessarily exist, but to deny or confirm the existence of the records would somehow harm national security, or specifically, in the case of this employee, his personal privacy.

Yes, this Justice Department and this CIA are defending this person’s personal privacy by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records. And why is it called GLOMAR? From what I recall, there was, I think, a sunk Russian ship or submarine. And there was a vessel that the CIA had. I think it was called the GLOMAR Explorer. And so they were trying to gather some intelligence or try to probe the wreckage. And I think a media person had gotten hold of it and wanted information. And so they came up with the solution.

They can’t confirm or deny the existence of the operation. And you can understand if there was significant national security implications here, you can understand why they’re saying they can’t confirm or deny the existence of the operation. Because confirming it tells someone something and denying it tells someone something. And if that someone is an antagonistic foreign government, I mean, it’s fair to say you don’t want that happening. And the big case was GLOMAR. That was the shorthand for the case. So when I say there’s a GLOMAR response, I want you all to remember it means they can’t confirm or deny the existence of the records.

But when you have a name that’s been out there in the news, has been public in terms of his involvement in the Mueller report, everyone knows he worked for the CIA. Everyone knows he was assigned to the White House to have the CIA tell you they can’t confirm. And this is what the response is. In accordance with Section 3.6a of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records responsive to our requests. The fact of the existence or non-existence of such records is self-exempt from FOIA under Exemption B3 and Section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949.

And to the extent your request could relate to CIA intelligence sources and methods information, the factor of the existence of non-existence of all such records is exempt from FOIA. This completes our response to the above reference cases. Justice Department, similar response, but they also say that you can’t have them because the release of them could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of a third party. Because we had asked for records of this guy’s contacts with Peter Struck, Lisa Page, you know the usual suspects over at the Obama FBI.

So now they’re protecting the personal privacy of this guy, which is part of the course from the Justice Department. They tried to protect the personal privacy of Christopher Steele, the Clinton spy, believe it or not. We’ve had two courts push back on that scheme and scam by the FBI and Justice Department to protect, quote, the personal privacy. They’re using the excuse of protecting their personal privacy to keep records away from us about Christopher Steele. They went to hide all those records, or not all of them, but a good part of them. And now they’re doing it for the guy who may be behind an effort to overthrow the President of the United States.

And I’d like to know where the Justice Department is on this because I think this person ought to be investigated. Why? Because I don’t think he had no, based on the information out there, there’s an open question as to whether he should have had access to the phone call, which was classified at the time. Colonel Vindman, who was kicked out of the White House finally, and he and his brother. It looks like he gave this call, content to his ally in the CIA. And if it was done for any reason, other than need to know, then it would have been a crime.

And the Justice Department ought to be investigating that. How that call was handled, and certainly the communications between the whistleblower and Adam Schiff, who the communications of, of which, and what the Adam Schiff lied about with his office. DOJ should be investigating that. But instead, they’re stonewalling. Instead, the CIA is stonewalling. Can you believe it? I mean, it’s one thing to say Adam Schiff, to see Adam Schiff say, well, I’m not going to mention the name of my co-conspirator. He’s not going to make a confession. I understand that. However corrupt it is, at least you know where you stand with someone like Adam Schiff.

But the CIA and the Justice Department are taking the same point of view as Adam Schiff is on the identity of the alleged whistleblower who smeared President Trump. So we’re going to have to fight in court against Attorney General Barr’s Justice Department and Director Haspel’s CIA to get access to information about a man who has been implicated not only in the issue of Ukraine policy for two White Houses, but the attempt to take down of the President of the United States. I’m actually pretty calm, given how outrageous it is, isn’t it? So, well, I’ll keep you updated on that.

And maybe President Trump can start tweeting out about this. We’re better yet, I think the President should just release these documents on mass. I mean, that’s my solution to, well, this is the approach the President should generally take. Pardons, prosecutions, and transparency. He should ensure that those who have been wrongly targeted or suspiciously targeted or targeted in a way that can’t be, that raises concerns about the fair administration of justice, pardoned. Those behind the criminal abuse of authority and power to spy on him, those involved in these abuses of power to spy on him and others, prosecuted.

And, of course, the American people need to know what happened. Transparency. And, of course, we’re working hard on the transparency. And I would think without the transparency, the prosecutions are less likely. Because the less you know, the less there is in terms of pressure on the Justice Department to do the right thing. And I don’t think the Justice Department is going to be able to do the right thing under these circumstances. You can see that there is a seditious cabal within the Justice Department. They were targeting Trump. I call it a seditious conspiracy.

The media picked up on that and the tweets that President Trump retweeted. Good. American people need to know there’s a seditious conspiracy within our government to destroy President Trump. It was exposed. You could see it through the Mueller operation. You could see it through Comey. And you could see it through Congress. It’s in your face. But we’re not allowed to talk about it. Well, we’re not going to be cowed. We’re going to tell a truth about this attack on our constitutional republic. And we’re going to do everything we can under the law to expose it and end it.

And the President has taken some steps. And these are the additional steps I think he could take that could further restore confidence in the rule of law. And if I were him, I’d also appoint a special counsel and not a special counsel within the Justice Department, one that reports directly to him or his advisors. I don’t think the Justice Department is capable of this. I mean, they’re asking FBI agents who probably would probably want to do the right thing, but I’m sure a few of them are pretty nervous about being asked to investigate their leadership or their former leadership.

They should maybe have outside investigators. Do you trust the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate themselves? Do you? Or would you prefer a third party do it? I’d prefer a third party to do it. A constitutional special counsel that reports to a constitutional officer, the chief law enforcement officer of the country, he said that the President said that drove him crazy. Or in the least, how about a compromise? Attorney General Barr should elevate Durham to a special counsel or designate him as a special counsel. Not the unconstitutional special counsel that gets to do anything he wants without adequate supervision, but a special counsel that reports to him on a day-to-day basis and can’t do anything without Barr’s approval in terms of prosecutions or decision-making.

We’ve got to escalate the investigations into the worst corruption scandal in American history because as they’re now going, I don’t see much justice in the offing. I suspect that FBI agent who was responsible, I think his name is Cline Smith, who’s allegedly responsible for changing that document from the CIA that confirmed that Carter Page was a good guy. He literally changed it to say the opposite. I mean, someone like him may get prosecuted, but the idea, for instance, that you’ve got James Comey and Andrew McCabe who were both referred after comprehensive investigations by the IG or seemingly competent investigations by the IG, there’s always more they can be doing, about leaks and lies about those leaks.

Easy peasy prosecutions. They didn’t want to pursue them. Are we expected to believe they’re going to bring more complicated prosecutions against senior level officials of the Justice Department and the FBI from the Obama administration and maybe in the Trump administration on their allocation of intelligence assets? They’re designating certain people as subject to investigation, mainly President Trump and others. They’re going to be second-guessing that. I’m not saying there’s not a case there. I think there’s a strong case of a conspiracy to subvert the law. I mean, you’ve got the lies and the FISA warrants, so that’s a pretty good place to start.

But my point is they don’t want to pursue the easy prosecutions, and yet we’re being told we should believe they’re going to prosecute for exceedingly complex, on exceedingly complex issues. I don’t believe it’s going to happen. I’m seeing any evidence these investigations are taking place beyond, as I say, glorified IG report. Do you? That’s what I love about Judicial Watch. We put the documents out. We read the same newspapers you do. We looked at the same information you do. I draw my conclusions from looking at the documents. You can look at the documents, draw your own conclusions.

And to the degree I comment on things that are just generally out there, you can have your own conclusions. But do you think anything’s going to be done? Comment. Comment here on YouTube or on Facebook or wherever you’re watching this. Comment. Let me know what you think. I look at the comments to see where people are. I can’t read every single one. There’s thousands of them. But my colleagues and I review the comments. Let us know what you think. But you know what? Even if the Justice Department doesn’t do anything, we’re going to do something.

We’ve got the lawsuits going. That’s why we have Judicial Watch, because we don’t rely on the Justice Department to do anything. We want them to do the right thing. We’ll be happy to encourage them and work with them on doing the right thing. Same goes for Congress. Same goes for other agencies. But we do our own thing because we know we can trust ourselves. We depend on you to support our work, obviously. And even if we think the Justice Department’s going to do the right thing, for instance, we’ll be still asking more questions, just to be sure.

So that’s why it’s important to have independent groups like Judicial Watch out there. What’s outrageous is here in Washington, D.C., it’s so few and far between. We’ve got this precious right, this precious, precious right where we can go and petition our government, use the law to go in an equal way before the courts with massive government agencies. I mean, I complain about the stonewalling, but what’s wonderful about our system is that they have to go to court with us and explain their stonewalling. That doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world to any degree like it does here.

And we’ve got this precious right to hold our government to account, and it’s so rarely utilized on a day-to-day basis. Obviously, it’s available during election time to a certain extent. But in terms of just doing the basic oversight work, why is Judicial Watch alone and doing it practically speaking? We’re happy to do it, but boy, more people need to step up to the plate. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. [tr:trw].

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