➡ Judicial Watch, a legal group, has successfully removed over 6 million inactive voters from the national voter rolls. This was achieved through lawsuits and settlements with various states, forcing them to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law that requires states to maintain their voting lists. Despite resistance from some states, Judicial Watch’s efforts have led to the removal of inactive voters who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible to vote. This work is crucial to prevent potential voting fraud and ensure the integrity of elections.
➡ The text discusses the importance of election security and the need for voter ID and citizenship verification. It highlights the work of Judicial Watch, a group that fights for election integrity and has helped clean up voter rolls. The text also mentions ongoing legal actions and the need for public support to continue their work. Lastly, it discusses Judicial Watch’s global reach and their investigation into a Secret Service failure related to an assassination attempt.
➡ The article discusses an investigation into a shooting attempt on President Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The shooter, Thomas Crooks, had an altercation with Trump supporters and made hateful comments towards Trump before the incident. The article criticizes the FBI and Secret Service for their lack of action and communication, and questions the effectiveness of the protective measures around the former president. The author expresses concern about the safety of the president and the functionality of the Secret Service.
➡ The article discusses concerns about the Secret Service’s protection of the President and the legal issues surrounding it. It also talks about the controversial raid on former President Trump’s home at Mar a Lago, which was criticized for lacking probable cause. The article suggests that the Justice Department treated Trump differently than previous presidents, like Bill Clinton, who also took classified records. The FBI released documents showing their disagreement with the Justice Department about the raid’s justification.
➡ The article discusses a controversial raid on President Trump’s Mar a Lago home, which was pushed forward by Biden’s Justice Department despite the FBI’s belief that there was no probable cause. The raid is seen as a significant abuse of power and is being investigated by Judicial Watch. The article also mentions a secret room at FBI headquarters filled with documents, many of which are anti-Trump, and calls for these documents to be released. The author criticizes the lack of action from Congress and calls for accountability and transparency.
➡ The FBI and Justice Department are reviewing around 2 million records related to investigations into former President Trump, which could take up to a year. These documents, some of which were hidden, may reveal attempts to undermine Trump’s presidency. It’s suggested that an outside agency should investigate any potential criminal actions by the Justice Department or FBI. The hope is that the new Attorney General will prioritize this review and expedite the process.

We have crossed another humongous threshold, which is the removal of 6 million dirty names from the voter rolls nationally. It’s the result of new numbers. That 6 million number has been reached and arguably surpassed as a result of new information we have from the state of Colorado in response to a settlement and lawsuit and just great work by our lawyers to clean up the voter rolls in Colorado. They informed us that 372,000 inactive voters have been removed from Colorado’s voter rolls after Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and settlement. It is a remarkable number. It is, in my view, just in some ways, the tip of the iceberg in terms of names nationally that need to be released.

I’ll get into that a little bit later. But now we are over 6 million names removed from the rolls or about to be removed from the rolls, thanks to Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and other legal actions. And we were at 5 million for a bit. Then we bumped up to nearly 6 because Oregon, in response to our lawsuit, announced they were removing, I think, over 800,000 names from the voting rolls. So the 800,000 plus the 372 brings it to one point. And now we are well over 6 million names having been removed thanks to Judicial Watch’s legal work.

And how is it this happens? So the National Voter Registration act is a federal law that requires states to take reasonable steps to maintain the voting list. It means that they got to remove them. The names of people who move away, die, or otherwise are known to be ineligible. And it’s a really simple process. It just requires, at least under the litigation that we’ve initiated and essentially has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that they if you don’t show up to vote, you get a card saying, hey, where are you? You didn’t show up to vote this year.

And if you don’t vote in that, it’s for a federal election. And if you don’t vote in the next two federal elections or otherwise communicate that you still want to be on the registration list, they remove your name, or they’re supposed to. So in theory, it could take as long as five years plus to have your name removed. If you move away without informing someone. And incredibly, the states still fight doing that. The left hates removing names from the voting rolls. At least the activist groups do. But in places like Colorado, a blue state, California, we settled a case.

New York, we settled a case. D.C. they removed hundreds, I think 138,000 names. When the lawsuits are brought or the legal actions commence, Judicial Watch is able to get even the bluest of the blue states to begin to comply with the law. And so that’s why we are getting in the case of Colorado, 372,000 names removed. That’s why we’ve gotten in the case of Oregon, the Secretary of state recently announced after our lawsuit was filed, I think he removed 160,000 names immediately, 600,000 are set to be removed. Subsequently in California, LA county removed 1.2 million names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement.

So there is nothing comparable being done at the federal government, by the federal government or the state governments to kind of push this removal process to clean up the rolls as necessary under the nvra. Now, to the credit of the Trump Justice Department, Harmeet Dhillon has started asking for and demanding and been willing to go to court to get the full list of, of voter registration names so they can look at the names and see if there are illegal aliens on there or names that should be removed. And of course, the left wing states are fighting her in court.

But what’s great about what Judicial Watch is doing, and we’ve been doing it, by the way, since 2000, well, at least 15 years, I think, is that we’ve been initiating private actions to clean up the voter rolls. In fact, we’ve initiated, we are responsible for the first private actions in federal court to clean up the election rolls. We sued first in Indiana, we sued first in Ohio. We’ve sued in North Carolina, we sued in Kentucky. We’ve sued in, as I said, California, Colorado, Oregon, California, Illinois. Now, As I said, 6 million names have been removed thanks to Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting to clean up the voter list.

The challenge is there are probably 23, 24 million names that still need to be removed, meaning there are inactive names on the rolls, names that are susceptible to being removed under the law and likely are ineligible to vote. So there’s a big, big backup of dirty names on the voting rolls in various states across the country. And the fact that Judicial Watch has been able to force and require or persuade through a settlement. Right, Settlements, you know, settlements, when you settle, you are, you know, you agree to disagree. Right. And they don’t admit wrongdoing. And, you know, we will take credit as much as we’re able under the terms of the settlement, but we’re happy to come to settlements that doesn’t matter who you are if you’re going to clean the names.

We’re not there to score political points. We are there just to get the law enforced because dirty names can mean dirty Elections. How is it that is the case? Because it is a pool of names from which fraudsters can draw to illegally vote. It’s that simple. And by the way, federal law requires the dirty names be cleaned up in a reasonable way. So to me, this is another extraordinary feather in the cap of the Judicial Watch legal team led by former Justice Department civil rights attorneys. This is a civil rights litigation. This is civil rights litigation.

When we’re cleaning up voting rolls, when we were upholding election integrity laws, when we’re trying to apply the rule of law to the voting process that’s designed to ensure that your votes are count and the system is run with integrity. Voting is a core civil right and the left wants to destroy it in large measure by making it meaningless as a result of fraud or by keeping people home in many ways as a result of a system that people can’t rely on. And by Judicial Watches moving forward to ensure the system is cleaner, fairer, and follows the rule of law, it frankly encourages more people to vote because they in many ways will think their vote is more likely to count.

And of course, this is only a portion of Judicial Watch’s election integrity work. Earlier this year, Judicial Watch obtained one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions on election law in recent memory. Which is the affirmation or reaffirmation in our view, that candidates of course can sue to stop an election from being stolen. That’s my non lawyer way of putting it. But essentially the court said that candidates have standing to challenge illicit ballot counting and other rules that can impinge on their on their ability to run in a significant way or in any way at all.

In large measure that’s called the boss decision. And we are seemingly about to win another important election law case that we also brought before the Supreme Court, which is the challenge to the counting of ballots that arrive after election Day. These mail in ballots get in late, upwards of seven days, two weeks in Washington state. I think it’s 21 days. Under the theory of our opponents, there’s really no limit as to when you can get your ballot in late. And the Supreme Court seems sympathetic to the notion that federal election law, which sets federal elections on, what is it, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, that means something.

It means if your ballot gets in late, that’s too late. And it looks like we’re going to win that one, you know, knock on wood. And that decision is expected from the Supreme Court one way or the other by the end of June. So just in a few months. But is there Anyone doing more to protect our elections than Judicial Watch? If so, I’d like to meet them. But in the meantime, if you want elections safe, if you want them secured, if you want them more honest, then you’re going to want to support Judicial Watch. Now, does it take the onus off the government to do what we’re doing and to try to enforce the rule of law? Of course not.

Now, the Trump administration has been with us on a few of these cases. They, for instance, argued with us against this post Election Day counting of late ballots just last month. But there’s been no comparable work in the history of America by the federal government in terms of cleaning up the rolls. There simply is nothing comparable. Now, the Justice Department under Harmeet Dhillon and Trump’s leadership is finally getting into that area. But it’s Judicial Watch that’s removed 6 million names from their voting rolls. It’s our work that’s done it, and we welcome additional activity by anyone else who wants to get involved, including the Feds.

But we’ve got other work to do, and I think the feds need to always need to do more. And secondly, of course, we’ve got these other gaping holes in election security where you have too many states refusing to implement voter id. And this is why you have the SAVE act that’s currently before the Senate, which would mandate a national, a national rule requiring voter ID for federal elections. And would also, I think, would not. I think. I know it would also require citizenship verification when you’re registering to vote. Because right now it’s the honor system. You sign a form saying, I’m a legal resident.

I mean, I’m a citizen and I’m eligible to vote. Now, if you aren’t and you sign that form, you technically can go to jail, you can be prosecuted, but that’s not enforced. And it’s, why are we checking citizenship status? It doesn’t make any sense. Why aren’t we checking voter id? It doesn’t make any sense. Of course it does make sense. If you want to be able to steal elections, if you want aliens to vote, foreign nationals to vote in elections, it does make perfect sense. And of course, that is the goal of the left, to allow non citizens to vote in our elections, turn America over to foreigners and voter id.

Who knows who’s voting and how often with no voter id. So I see the left opposed to everything that Judicial Watch is doing. And so much of the litigation I’ve talked about has been opposed by the radical left. They come into court, Soros fronts, fronts for the Democratic Party, which, for reasons that I’ll let them explain, oppose virtually every election integrity measure. And we’ve done more than the Republican Party in key measures on most of these issues as well. Now, the Republicans have been more aggressive recently, but again, it’s Judicial Watch that’s kind of setting. Setting the standard.

So this is just great news. It’s just great news. Now, of course, are we going to stop on this? Are we going to stop suing, stop initiating legal action, stop pushing? No, we are not. In fact, I can guarantee with reasonable certainty as president of Judicial Watch, there will be more legal action, there will be more lawsuits to clean up voter rolls in the various states or big counties and states that aren’t cleaning up the rolls. So more is coming. We’ve cleaned 6 million, the latest number being 372,000 inactive names in Colorado. Again, that’s a lawsuit that began.

When did the lawsuit begin in Colorado? Yeah, so we sued in 2020. We settled in 2023. And it takes a while to get the names cleaned off. I know you want it to go faster. I do, too. But the law is the law and the process is the process. But I can guarantee you none of it would have taken place without Judicial Watches litigation. So this kind of shows you that you need a group with the institutional fortitude, expertise and support from the American people to kind of stick to it with this litigation, because it takes a long time in order to get the fullest and best results in election law litigation.

I mean, what happens often is that a lot of groups start talking about and parties especially, they start talking about election integrity during an election year. Well, you know, it’s really hard to kind of get litigation going to protect and ensure better election integrity during an election year. I mean, the timeframes that federal lawsuits at least take or state lawsuits take, it’s hard to do. And this is why you need to be doing election law work, election integrity work, 24, seven, every year, even in non election years. So I encourage you to go to Judicial Watch’s website, our Internet site, and support our work, because there’s no one doing this type of work the way Judicial Watch is.

It is an efficient way for you to ensure election integrity rules are being followed. You know, as I said, we’ve got potentially a Supreme Court decision that could change the laws in 30 states in which they count late ballots, ballots that arrive late. And of course, there are always ongoing challenges to election integrity that need to be pursued. And you can be sure we’re looking at and considering additional legal actions in new areas of election integrity enforcement that need to be pursued. So there’s nothing comparable to Judicial Watch’s expertise, demonstrated record of success. And so I respectfully ask for your support because I tell you, the other thing that we have that many others don’t is that we got you and hundreds of thousands of other patriots who support our work, because without that support, we wouldn’t be able to do this great election work.

It’s not free. We’ve got staff, we got to hire, our lawyers, we got to work with. We’ve got a big team of lawyers here in Judicial Watch, we often have to hire lawyers on the outside to help us. I mean, I don’t need, I don’t probably need to convince you that litigation, investigations and just monitoring even these issues requires resources. And it’s because of those resources that you. Well, I hope you. But because of patriots and Judicial Watch supporters give to us that we’re able just to do this great work. So credit goes to our team, but credit goes to you, dear Judicial Watch supporter who allows this great work to continue.

So go to our website, support our work and celebrate this great news. And yeah, ask your local election officials what they’re doing to clean up the rolls because they’re supposed to tell you that under law you can look it up. So I encourage, and there are a lot of, and thanks to Judicial Watch’s leading work on this, a lot of citizens have figured out what to do and have been empowered to pursue cleanups of the voter rolls and get an understanding from their local and state election officials what they’re doing under law to ensure the election rolls are clean.

So our work not only is direct right in terms of impact, but I’m also so proud of, and I think you as supporters should be proud of that. Our work is indirect in the sense that it empowers and has educated so many Americans to get involved in election integrity efforts on their own. They don’t need Judicial Watch to tell them what to do. You’re citizens. You know what to do. It’s government. It’s not rocket science. So figure out what the rules are, understand how elections are run in your local community, in your state, and get active to the degree the law allows.

I can’t encourage that enough. But if you can’t do that, or in addition to, I encourage you to support Judicial Watch because there’s simply nothing comparable. I mean, for example, just, I almost forgot we were, we had a team. I think it was an eight member team. I didn’t bring the. I didn’t. I don’t think maybe I do have the release. Monitoring the elections in Hungary. I mean, Judicial Watch’s work is so worldwide respected that we partnered with a group in Hungary to monitor the elections there. Now, typically, what goes on in a country like Hungary is the left swarms the area.

And if Orban had won, for instance, in Hungary, you could be sure the left would have been screaming from the rafters about the election not being correct. And that’s why it’s important for Judicial Watches for a group like Judicial Watch to participate in that type of process, because the world was watching the Hungarian elections that, you know, we know what an election monitoring operation is supposed to do. The team was led by Bob Popper, again, a former senior official in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department Department who used to monitor elections at the Justice Department.

One of his other colleagues who was a former IG and a former DOJ official, Sean o’, Donnell, was there as well, and other Judicial Watch legal teams members who and employees who have been involved in these issues before. So we’ve got a worldwide reach at Judicial Watch in terms of election integrity. We’ve got more great work to talk about, including some disturbing material that, again, your Judicial Watch heavy lifting uncovered through a FOIA lawsuit about the assassination attempt that led to the death of an innocent American and injuries of others. In Butler, Pennsylvania, two years ago, Judicial Watch sued the FBI for records of the Butler related to the Butler assassination attempt.

It was like a year we waited. They didn’t give us anything. And now it’s been one year almost completely. And they finally started giving us documents in tranches. So we had one tranche released to us, I guess, a few months ago that we talked about here, detailing issues about Secret Service failures at Butler. And we just got another batch of documents that we released earlier. And I’ve got some context for the prior work I think I posted on the website here. And of course, all of this is the result of a catastrophic failure by the Secret Service to protect President Trump.

Inexcusable. The more we learn, the more outrageous it is. And you can be sure that Judicial Watch will. Well, a, we’ve initiated a massive, a massive investigation into the Secret Service failure. We already have upwards of 20 open records law, open records investigations, requests at the federal, state and local level over this shooting. Because I don’t know about you, I don’t trust the federal agencies, the FBI, the Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, its mother agency, even Congress, you know, promises made. We pushed hard for the release of these records or records related to the attempt to kill President Trump up in Butler, Pennsylvania.

And initially we were only able to get records from the local police in Pennsylvania. We got documents or pictures of is it Thomas Crooks, the shooter? That had not previously been released is only because of Judicial Watch, Congress has been completely absent on this. AWOL on it. And so as I said, we had this long standing litigation with the FBI and they finally started releasing documents. And the new batch of documents just further confirm very serious and disturbing failures of security like core competencies related to the federal protective net that was supposed to be around the former president at the time, the candidate at the time President Trump.

And this is the headline from the, from our release. And I’ll give. Look at this. FBI records reveal altercation at Trump rally site before shooting Crooks was making hateful comments towards Trump. So this is the news you had witnesses tell the FBI in these reports, released for the first time only to Judicial Watch, exclusively to Judicial Watch, that Thomas Crooks was involved in altercations with Trump supporters, was making hateful comments directed at Trump immediately before he went and shot at President Trump. In fact, he walked from the altercation and went up on the roof and minutes later nearly killed President Trump.

Now, this hasn’t been reported before because the FBI has been sitting on this information for years, which is bothersome, to put it mildly. So let’s get into some of the details here. Now, the number of records that are being released are woefully small in terms of the volume. We just got 27 records, this time, heavily redacted. I think the last material was about 30 records, the last batch. So it’s really a kind of a modified limited hangout. We filed the lawsuit in July of 2025, and we’re now just getting just the beginnings of the records they might have about the Butler assassination.

I could read you everything we’re asking about, but it’s a pretty comprehensive lawsuit and I’m glad the FBI is finally beginning to release this information. It’s, you know, it’s never too late to be transparent, but we’ve had instances where we could wait for years and years and years, even though it’s outrageous to wait for two years, we could be waiting for six years sometimes. So I’m not going to look this gift horse in the mouth. I’m going to celebrate the release, but express concern at the same time about the pace of the release and why it took so long to begin releasing the information at all.

And this doesn’t just apply to the Trump Justice Department. The Biden gang was sitting on this as well. And finally the Trump people figured out we need to start getting this material out because it’s important. A July 17th 302 investigative report. Now, 302 investigative report is a report written by the FBI documenting interview, witness interviews. I mean, that’s my layman’s understanding of what 302s are. And it’s really quite the racket, in my view, because they don’t make recordations typically of these interviews. So they’re kind of narratives of what is said. They’re seen as generally reliable, I guess, you know, in the courts.

I’ll defer to the defense lawyers out there or the prosecutors of just how reliable they are, but you can imagine my skepticism about a process where the FBI, the only record of an interview is a report written by the FBI agent and his colleague who participated in the interview. There’s no written record or no recordation of the interviews at all, typically. So anyway, we get these 302s, and these 302s are the basis for this release, because the information that I’m talking about is in these witness interviews documented in these 302 reports. So one report states it was a July 17th report.

When was this shooting? When was the shooting of President Trump? What was the day? July 13th. So it was a few days after the shooting. A woman who attended the Trump rally was interviewed by the FBI and reported that crooks, quote, had an altercation with a group of people in the area where the woman was standing prior to the shooting. The witness continued that, quote, she observed crooks climbing the building a short time after the interaction. So it’s clear he’s arguing with Trump supporters because this is another report that shows another rally attendee. Actually, it’s the same report interviewed by agents said he also heard the altercation involving crooks at the rally.

The report states, in the name of the witnesses, redacted, which is, I guess, appropriate. Reported just before Donald Trump came on the stage, Crooks was making hateful comments towards Trump. The witness wasn’t sure if crooks was filming the event or speaking with someone on his cell phone. So the witness obviously heard the altercation with the Trump supporters. Then he witnessed, and this is, I think, very interesting. Crook’s on the phone and he wasn’t sure if he was filming Trump while he was saying these hateful comments. Maybe he was providing commentary. I don’t know what that was about, but it was like maybe he was, according to the Witness talking on the phone.

The witness wasn’t sure, which could be extremely interesting for obvious reasons. But either way, this guy was causing a commotion, this potential murderer of the president in a very public way. And then he goes up on the roof. Where on earth was the Secret Service? I mean, you have a guy causing a commotion and the security isn’t there to at least take note of it and take action and say, what’s going on here? And I tell you, these documents, beyond this kind of interesting witness testimony, have information from law enforcement officials who were there, who essentially say, look, you know, we were there.

I showed up. There’s no communication. I don’t know who knew what about what briefings. I mean, you know, another series of reports documenting the lack of communication among the Secret Service and local law enforcement and other law enforcement that were there. Because it wasn’t just Secret Service that were there. You obviously had, I think you had, from what I recall, HSI there, which is Homeland Security folks also providing support. So it’s like failure on top of failure. We knew about the lack of security, communications, coordination. And then I keep on going back to that video, and I think, let’s play it here.

We’re going to play it. And you know, that’s a little bit old, that chart. That chart’s a couple of months old. And if you want to really see something that said, take a look at what happened. When you’re ready. On you ready. Move, move, go. Okay. We are watching live at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where former President Trump was speaking on the stage. There has been some kind of disturbance that clearly sets law enforcement and Secret Service into motion immediately jumping around the former president in a protective mode. The crowd has been screaming. They are standing by.

You can hear some voices there saying, are we ready to go? Are we ready to go? We are looking at President Trump. This does not look good. I’m going to be honest with you. From what we can see right here, it looks like they are attempting to move him out, that he may have been injured. He is holding up his arm, he is pumping his fist, but clearly Secret Service wants to get him out of this situation. He is attempting to stand and walk on his own. He has got his hand pumping in the air, his fist just as pumping in the air, but quickly they are removing him from the stage.

And you see in that video where it just drives me crazy to see how long it took for them to get Trump out of there. And of course, you see the Secret Service female agent acting as if she never holstered or had handled a weapon before. It was a nightmare. As I said in the press release, it shouldn’t have taken two years in a federal lawsuit to find out that the Butler shooter was involved in an altercation with Trump supporters and made hateful comments towards Trump at the Butler rally minutes before he nearly killed Trump. These new FBI documents are disturbing and astonishing, detailing more conduct by the shooter that should have gotten the attention of Secret Service.

And this is why, you know, and I’m sure many of you share my concerns. I’m terribly concerned about the safety of the President. I think the Secret Service is a dysfunctional organization. The proof is the pudding. He’s been nearly killed twice while under their alleged protection, story after story. And Judicial Watch has been investigating Secret Service for years now, decades in some respects, shows that it is. It’s kind of a nightmare agency in terms of accountability, in terms of, you know, they had the DEI craziness that I don’t think has been sufficiently curtailed, Really. Contempt for the lying agents out there in a way that destroys morale and it puts the agents at risk and it puts the protectees at risk.

And I just see material like this where there’s an eruption at a rally for the president or the candidate, the number one candidate for President of the United States at the time, and nothing’s done. And we still got records and lawsuits pending on all sorts of issues. Remember, the president was confronted by those leftists at the restaurant as a Secret Service stood around almost waiting for something to happen before they would act. It was crazy. Those were the code Pink protesters. You can look it up, watch the video. We’ve got lawsuit after lawsuit. You can go to our website and look at them at our press release.

You’ll have the link there. Following up on all sorts of issues related to the Secret Service and the protection of the President. I don’t know about you. I consider this an important aspect of Judicial Watch’s work because in my view, lives are at stake with this one, including the President’s. So to read all the Butler documents, go to judicialwatch.org, the links below and again, share the wealth. What do I mean by share the wealth? The important educational materials about what your government’s up to and what it’s not up to in bad ways, at least with respect to the Secret Service, because this information, it’s blockbuster.

We received a new batch of important documents under the Freedom of Information act about the lawfare that I’ve been highlighting. And one of the worst aspects of the lawfare which Was the illicit, in my view, raid on the home of President Trump, then former President Trump, his home at Mar a Lago, by the Biden gang, namely the Justice Department, the FBI, and who knows who else. And the FBI, to its credit, gave us documents quickly. This is an example that maybe they’re paying attention a little bit on some of these transparency issues. The FBI, we’ve been fighting in court, day after day, lawsuit after lawsuit, to get access to records.

And in this case, we asked for records, and we got them almost immediately. So it was just great. This is the way it’s supposed to work. Director Cash Patel. This is the way it’s supposed to work. DOJ leadership. It’s just, this is perfect. We ask for the documents, we get the documents under the law, and the documents, you can see why they’ve been hidden from the American people for so long until this disclosure to Judicial Watch by the FBI. So, as the release says here, we obtain the 207 pages of those FBI records thatand the headline is they were concerned that there was no probable cause to raid the home of President Trump at Mar a Lago.

I’ll say it one more. No probable cause. That means there was no good faith reason to raid his home. And nonetheless, the Biden gang at the Justice Department, with the acquiescence obviously, of FBI leadership in the end, because that’s the way it technically or practically has to work, raided his home in an unprecedented fashion. And the abuses have reverberated through our national consciousness since then. And this shows that there was corruption behind the raid. And it gets even deeper than just the FBI’s concern about probable cause. The big email is the July 12, 2020-22 email. Let me bring it up here.

I’ll show you what it looks like, and then I’ll read it to you. I won’t force you to read it on the screen because it might be too difficult. So here’s a bunch of material withheld. For various reasons that I won’t go into. So essentially, the Washington field office moved forward with an investigative plan, much of which the purpose is withheld, but it’s typically aboutit’s about what they call plasmic echo. Plasmic echo was the code name for the investigation into President Trump’s handling of presidential files after his election or after he left office. And you can see they used to black it out, but I think someone in government figured out, we’re better off not blacking out documents because it looks terrible.

Let’s just white it out. So these are Blacked out documents. And this is the key part. So they said other options for resolution at the end. Washington Field Office has made numerous suggestions to DOJ Justice Department over the course of this investigation. But the most expedient way to ensure recovery of all classified documents would be to go through Mr. Corcoran, then Trump’s attorneys. Evan Corcoran was Trump’s attorney at the time. DOJ has persistently disagreed. New NARA referral. The National Archives and Records Administration, which is a bureaucracy that just houses government documents or presidential records. Referral for all Presidential Records act records versus classified.

If NARA pursuit of presidential records, which are likely to still be located. Let me start over on that again. If NARA pursued presidential records which are likely to be still located at Mar A Lago, they could recover any additional records which may, upon review, identify additional classified material. Washington Field Office has been rebuffed in this request by doj. So they were just asking for, let us look at presidential records that may be covered by the act and see if there are classified records there. The Field office does not believe and has articulated to DOJ Counterintelligence and Export Control Section that we have established probable cause for the search warrant at Mar? A Lago.

DOJ has opined they do, requesting a wide scope, including residence, office and storage place space. This is the key phrase here, right up top there. Wfo, that’s the field office, the most powerful field office arguably in the FBI. The Washington Field Office here in Washington, D.C. does not believe and has articulated to the relevant agency at the Justice Department that we have established probable cause for the search warrant at Mar? A Lago and doj, which again, DOJ meeting political appointees of President Biden have opined they do. And then they note, finally, if the goal is to identify and recover classified records quickly so as to protect the information, the five weeks fixated, spent fixated on probable cause for a search warrant have been counterproductive.

So their point was, talk to the lawyers and get in there and try to get them to give you any classified records you think are there, which is what President Trump had offered to them. You can go look and see anything you want and take any what you believe to be classified records. Now, under the Presidential Records act, he wasn’t required to do that. I mean, this is the big lie about this whole scenario. Under the Presidential Records act, under the precedent of the Presidential Records act, and I think only under to the degree it’s constitutional, the only appropriate reading of the Presidential Records act is that the President has the authority to take records that he deems to be personal.

And no one can second guess that authority. And yes, that means taking records that were, quote, classified when they were created in the agency, but he’s declassified them by converting them to personal records. That’s what the law allows for. How do we know that? Because we similarly had pursued a case against Bill Clinton in the Sock Draw case, you may have heard of it. Bill Clinton had recordations made of him by an author of his communications with foreign leaders and members of Congress, basically recording his duties as a president or his operations as a president. He kept them in his sock drawer, infamously, and took them with him and didn’t turn them over to the National Archives.

And we said, those are presidential records. The Justice Department at the time. Said, no, they’re presidential records. I mean, they’re not presidential records. And in fact, if they’re classified, they’re not classified anymore because he took them. They’re presumptively declassified. And we couldn’t get him. A judge said, what are we going to do? Raid the President’s home? And then Trump comes in and the Justice Department takes a complete 180 and says, oh, no, no. All that classified records permission that we gave to Bill Clinton to take with him, that we deemed to be declassified and personal to him, we’re going to pretend that doesn’t apply to Trump.

So to be clear, Bill Clinton took records just like Trump did, and the Justice Department said that was perfectly appropriate, even though some of those records were presumptively classified. Trump took records just like Bill Clinton did, and they tried to put him in jail for it. Oh, yes, and another thing, Joe had done the same darn thing, and they didn’t want to prosecute him at all or even investigate him. And to the degree they were, they were hiding it from the American people and protecting Joe as they were raiding the home of Donald Trump. And here we’ve got smoking gun documents again, smoking gun documents that the FBI thought there was no probable cause to raid the home of, of President Trump.

And kudos to the FBI for releasing this information as quickly as they did to us. Now, it’s years late, admittedly, but we had this specific request and they responded quickly. And, you know, despite the redactions, with plenty of important information. Again, a separate internal communication reinforces the agents rejected the legal basis and the scope of the search. DOJ has inquired as to an operations plan for a search, a search warrant of Mar a Lago. The field office relayed that we are not in agreement for probable cause. On the search warrant, Washington Field office has an ops plan in place that will can be quickly updated between FBI Miami and FBI.

I guess the Washington Field office, however blank the names redacted, does not believe we have probable cause for the Trump office or the bedroom due to the recency and issues of boxes versus classified information. Therefore, as we are in disagreement on a search warrant in scope, we are not yet finalizing a search warrant as we are missing relevant logistics and detail. So they were at loggerheads, DOJ wanted to run in there, raid the President’s bedroom and the FBI said no and eventually they were forced to. Obviously the history is the raid occurred. So politics won. The rule of law lost.

Politics won. President Trump’s civil liberties lost. Politics won. The President’s prerogative, President Trump’s prerogative as President of the United States lost. Politics won, our Constitution lost all in the Mar a Lago raid. These documents demonstrate that. There’s another email that shows that the FBI said, you know, let us talk to the President’s lawyers because the DOJ is just ham fisted and causing problems. And the DOJ’s response was he franklythis is one of the lawyers for the doj, one of Trumpsone of Biden’s appointees. He frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics. And they highlight how Mr.

Brat, who became a top official also for Jack Smith Jihad Against Trump, quote, has already built an antagonistic relationship with the former President’s attorney, then former President Trump. So even just communicating with Corcoran, who was his lawyer about the search warrant should have been done by the FBI. And of course the DOJ didn’t do any of that. Another email suggests that the FBI, the press had heads up on the search. So how did that happen? So another abuse of power, a leak about the search, it looks like, and this is interesting, another document shows that a left wing group or left wing groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, notorious left wing group that was actually created because of Judicial Watch.

They saw Judicial Watch was effective so they came up with some front left wing group for the left to pursue ethics issues targeting only conservatives. Now of course we target both political parties. Cruz was obviously just targeting Donald Trump in this regard and they had sent a letter with these non serious claims about the Presidential Records Act. And the letter it looks like helped generate the investigation and the raid subsequent. So it looks like a left wing interest group worked with the Justice Department and FBI to get the President’s home raided. Here in black and white, letter to AG and Director from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive, another left wing Group dated 2822, writing regarding President Donald Trump and other White House officials demonstrating a serious regard for their recordkeeping responsibilities under Presidential Records act, requesting DOJ investigate whether former President Trump violated federal criminal law by willfully mutilating and destroying critical records of his presidency before leaving office.

And they moved that into the system and a few days later they opened up the investigation. Officially, These documents show the FBI knew there was no probable cause, yet Biden’s Justice Department pushed forward with an abusive raid on President Trump’s Mar a Lago home. This is an historic, or I would say infamous, abuse of power that demands full accountability. And Judicial Watch will continue pursuing additional disclosures to uncover the full truth behind one of the most controversial federal investigations in American history. There’s been nothing like it in American history. The targeting of President Trump. And once again, it’s Judicial Watch front and center getting you key truths about the level of abuse.

This is more evidence, in my view, of criminal conduct by DOJ and FBI officials. You had FBI folks who were in the middle of the investigation suggesting there was no probable cause for a search warrant into the home of a President of the United States, or at least a former President of the United States, and they did it anyway. How is that not under criminal investigation? It’s really inexcusable. I give credit to the FBI, Cash Patel’s team for releasing this material pretty quickly to us. On the other hand, where are the arrests? I say that advisedly.

I know it doesn’t mean an arrest is going to meet, but that’s a shorthand for where are the investigations? Where are the serious grand jury investigations? Calling in people. And as I said earlier in talking about the firing of Pam Bondi, I don’t think the FBI can investigate the FBI. The Justice Department can’t investigate the Justice Department. There should be outside entities appointed by the president who are doing the investigation into this abuse of power. Now, remember Judicial Watch in retaliation for our calling attention to these abuses of power, specifically the Mar a Lago garbage, and highlighting the 180 the Justice Department took from the Clinton Sacktoro case, resulted in them sending the FBI to my home, resulted in a subpoena to Judicial Watch, resulted in me having to go before a grand jury for hours and getting harassed to name other, to include other abuses that I haven’t even gotten into yet.

And here there was no basis. So they were harassing me for suggesting there was no basis when The FBI knew there was no basis to raid the man’s home. And I get hauled in before a grand jury as, quote, a witness being asked about what. In retaliation over my blowing the whistle on this attack on Trump’s home. Outrageous. Outrageous. And so it’s unsurprising to me when an attorney general, kind of for a month, a year and a half, practically speaking, does nothing on any of this, gets fired by President Trump. Is he thinking of this specific issue? No, But I’m sure if he watched this, he’d be as angry as I am or as you are.

So we’ll see if we get other information on the raid and the Mar A Lago abuse from the FBI. We hope so. You can look at the documents, go to our website. The link is below because there’s more there. I can’t get into it all here, read. Educate yourself on this. Share this with your. With your friends, your family, members of your church, and call your members of Congress saying, what are you guys doing about this? What are you doing? Because they’re not doing anything. I mean, they’re asking some questions. They want to get documents. There are some members who kind of are upset about this as we are, but they’re fully funding the Justice Department and the FBI.

There’s been no financial or budgetary consequences or even policy changes out of Congress, despite this wild abuse of power by the Justice Department and FBI, a Congress nominally controlled by Republicans. And I’m tired of it, of course, I’ve been tired of it for nearly three decades here at Judicial Watch. But I’m willing to be upset on behalf of the American people for as long as it takes because we only got one country and it’s worth protecting. An unbelievable story at the FBI dating back to the James Comey error. A secret room at FBI headquarters in Washington that is allegedly filled with piles of documents, the majority anti Trump documents, all deliberately hidden in burn bags.

When the United States government and agency heads want things to disappear and want things to be buried and hidden, they know how to do it. But what they didn’t count on was President Trump winning him, electing leadership across the United States government to say, go find out how they corrupted and weaponized law enforcement. So burn bags are common at like embassies to burn sensitive documents. You don’t want the public to get, you don’t want adversaries to get. But typically you don’t hear about burning documents at the FBI because those documents are typically needed in both current future investigations, not to mention for the historical record.

But Our next guest says it goes way beyond that. There are nearly 2 million pages of records from Obama to Biden related to Jack Smith, Russiagate elections, and the lawfare they used to try to take down Donald Trump for more than a decade. Tom Fenton is the president of Judicial Watch. He uncovered this entire story and went public. Tom, good to have you on. I know you filed a Freedom of Information Law act lawsuit with the FBI, and they confirmed the existence of all of this. So where are we now with releasing these documents? So Dan Bogino and Cash also, as you can see, talked about these records that were either in burn bags or in hidden rooms.

So we said, well, give us those records. Right. And we were stalled and we didn’t get the records. We sued. And to their credit, the FBI disclosed specifically just how many records were at issue, generally what they covered. As I said, Jack Smith. And it could go back who knows how far in terms of other investigations that were political into Trump or related issues. Who knows what other special counsel investigations they’re hiding or other IG investigations they’re hiding. Could be Russiagate, for example. And they said they need about a year to kind of go through it all and get a handle on it.

And I compare this to the Epstein files, right, the Epstein files with 3 1/2 million records. This is upwards of 2 million. And if I were the FBI and Justice Department, I would. I would make this a priority, because as far as I’m concerned, the Epstein records had a lot of interesting revelations. But what the lawfare lunatics were engaged in was a plot to undo our republic by trying to jail President Trump when he was president and then when he was running for President Trump. So that ought to be. Just. Let me just stop you so I can just.

I want to get everybody on the same page, just so. And there’s been a lot of changes at the Department of Justice in the last several hours. So we’ll see where this goes. These were in burn bags. That’s really, really unusual. Can I ask you, do we have any insight into why Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland, didn’t burn them? We don’t know who put them in there, why they were hidden, what was the purpose of hiding them from other. The incoming FBI leadership had to figure out they were in either the burn bags or in the secret room generally.

And to me, that ought to be subject to a potential criminal investigation, and they should be questioning people closely as to how that happened. You know, and that kind of goes to the issue of, you know, Pam Bondi you know, was essentially fired by President Trump. You know, I think in the end, the FBI can investigate the FBI, the Justice Department can investigate the Justice Department. We can get the transparency. I think we’re getting more transparency. But in the end, to the degree there are criminal actions by the Justice Department, FBI at issue in terms of the warfare against President Trump, I think there should be outside agencies or independent counsels outside those two agencies looking at what went on here.

Okay, next step in the process. I’ve got 30 seconds, Tom. Well, the FBI says they need a year. I’m hoping leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI recognize that this is a priority issue and they speed up the review of these documents. The Epstein file shows it can be done where there’s a political will, and I’m hoping there’s a political will to expose these welfare documents. Very good point. And I’ll just add to that, that because of your work and you coming on tonight, the White House is aware of this. Donald Trump is aware of this, whereas a couple of weeks ago he didn’t know about this, so now he knows.

So I think that there will be something done to expedite that process. A year seems like way too much time, and I think that that is something that will be addressed by the new attorney General, hopefully. Tom Fenton. Great to have you on tonight. We’ll have you back. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Thank you. 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.