➡ Ashley Babbitt’s family has filed a $30 million lawsuit against the U.S. Capitol Police and Lieutenant Byrd, who they claim wrongfully killed Ashley during the January 6th events. The lawsuit alleges that Ashley was shot without warning or reason, and that there has been no accountability for her death. The case is set to go to trial on July 20, 2026. Meanwhile, Judicial Watch, who is supporting the lawsuit, will gather evidence and testimonies from government witnesses.
➡ The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that counting ballots received after election day is unlawful, a victory for Judicial Watch. However, there’s controversy as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s running for president, has been denied Secret Service protection despite known threats to him. This decision is seen as dangerous and potentially politically motivated. Additionally, there are concerns about the Biden administration’s handling of aggressive dogs in the White House, with one dog, Commander, reportedly attacking numerous Secret Service agents and White House staff.
➡ The Committee on Education and the Workforce has raised concerns about workplace safety at the White House, citing incidents of staff and Secret Service personnel being bitten by the President’s dog. The committee is requesting information on workplace accidents and injuries at the White House. In another case, Judicial Watch is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the city of Evanston, Illinois, for a program that provides cash based on race, which they argue is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Judicial Watch is also fighting against laws in Minneapolis and Asheville that they believe promote discrimination and racism, and have successfully challenged laws in California requiring quotas for corporate boards of directors.
➡ The government is accused of mishandling classified information and altering transcripts of audio recordings. The Attorney General could face contempt of Congress for not complying with a subpoena to release these tapes. The tapes are believed to reveal President Biden’s cognitive challenges, which the government is allegedly trying to hide. The Justice Department’s senior lawyer admitted minor differences between the transcripts and the audio, raising questions about their accuracy.
➡ Judicial Watch is suing for the release of Biden’s audio interviews, claiming they were altered to benefit his political campaign. They’ve also filed a new request to investigate this alleged tampering. Additionally, Judicial Watch has exposed a potential conspiracy involving federal, state, and private actors to censor Americans on social media during the presidential campaign and beyond. They continue to fight against these perceived threats to First Amendment rights.
➡ The article discusses how the CIA allegedly rushed to approve a letter from 51 former intelligence officials that suggested the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was Russian disinformation. This action was seen as a way to protect Joe Biden during his presidential campaign. The article also mentions that Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group, has filed numerous lawsuits related to the Biden family and their activities. Lastly, it reports that 113 non-citizens voted in the D.C. presidential primary in 2024, which is a new development as non-citizens were previously not allowed to vote.
➡ The text discusses concerns about non-citizens voting in the U.S. elections, suggesting that it could potentially violate the law and dilute the votes of citizens. It also criticizes the left for allegedly supporting non-citizen voting and accuses them of obstructing efforts to investigate the issue. The text further discusses perceived issues with the Secret Service, including allegations of gender-based fitness standards and inadequate protection for former President Trump. Lastly, it mentions a controversial incident where Secret Service agents allegedly broke into a private business during a Kamala Harris event.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group, has been working to clean up voter registration rolls across the U.S., removing around 4 million outdated names in the past two years. They recently filed a lawsuit against Oregon, claiming the state has not been properly maintaining its voter rolls, with many counties having registration rates exceeding 100%. The group argues that Oregon’s failure to update its rolls could lead to fraudulent voting. Judicial Watch is also pursuing similar lawsuits in California and Illinois.
➡ Oregon has more registered voters than eligible citizens, with 35 out of 36 counties showing voter registration rates over 100%. This could potentially lead to voter fraud and double voting. In a separate issue, Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis was found to have undisclosed documents related to her communications with the January 6th Committee, despite initially denying their existence. Judicial Watch is pushing for these documents to be released to the public.
➡ Fanny Willis, a lawbreaker, has been found in default for not responding to a lawsuit and violating open Records law. Despite previously claiming no records existed, it’s now confirmed that there are undisclosed documents related to her collusion with the Pelosi January 6th committee against Trump. Judicial Watch is pushing back against this secrecy in court, aiming to hold Willis accountable and reveal these records to the public. This case highlights the misuse of prosecutorial resources to target political opponents, which is considered a significant corruption scandal in American history.

So one of the worst scandals, I know there are so many the last few years was the lack of accountability for the death of Ashley Babbitt, the only official homicide victim on 9 11. Excuse me, on January 6th. The left thinks it’s 9 11. It was January 6th. There’s a nice photo of Ashley. She was killed by Lt. Byrd, U.S. capitol Hill Police lieutenant at the time. There’s her husband Aaron, with her shot for no reason, no good reason. I mean, he has an explanation which is wanting, as we demonstrated in the lawsuit we filed for Ashley Babbitt, her estate and her family.

$30 million wrongful death action. And here’s the video of her being unlawfully killed, in our view, by the Capitol Hill police officer, Lieutenant Byrd. No. There’s a gun. There’s a gu. There’s a gun. Hey, he’s got a gun. He’s got a gun. I still can’t believe he shot her like that. Lunacy. Shooting into a crowd. Police officers were behind them. Other civilians were there and just shot into a crowd. And there was no accountability for it. He didn’t cooperate. Judicial Watch uncovered, and of course, he was protected by the powers that be. He was able to hold.

He was put up in general’s quarters at a hotel on Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, for six months. We didn’t even know his name until almost. I think it was not until the fall of 2021. What other police officer involved in a shooting like that would be able to mask themselves that way? What a cover up. DOJ did nothing. Capitol Police did nothing. Congress did nothing. And so, once again, it’s up to Judicial Watch. We worked with her family, did a comprehensive investigation and filed this $30 million lawsuit. And this week, or last week, actually, a federal court here in the District of Columbia set a trial date for the lawsuit.

It’s been officially set for July 20, 2026. And in the meantime, Judicial Watch will conduct discovery and discovery means essentially gathering evidence. Right? The lawyers, our lawyers will be getting documents, other information from the government and witnesses and testimony from government witnesses and such. And that’s going to be a massive undertaking by Judicial Watch’s legal team. But this is a massive issue. It’s a massive lawsuit. And it goes to the heart of the fake news about January 6th, because as I have said, the only official homicide victim is that innocent Ashley Babbitt, who was killed unlawfully, as the lawsuit alleges, by a Capitol Hill police officer.

And in the meantime, we’re still fighting transferring the case back to California, where It was initially filed because we think there’s bias. There’s. Well, a. It requires, generally speaking, the law requires it to be heard in the jurisdiction in which it was filed, where Ashley lived. But also there’s bias here on January 6th and bias against Ashley. But in the meantime, the court is moving it along here in Washington, D.C. which is good. Ashley was 35. She owned and operated a successful pool business with her husband Aaron. She traveled alone from San Diego to D.C. to attend the Women for America first, the Save America rally on January 6, 2021.

We filed the wrongful death lawsuit for her, her family on January 5, 2024, here, excuse me, over in the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The Biden administration came in and immediately tried to move it successfully initially to here in Washington, D.C. for obvious reasons. The lawsuit includes claims against the government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence issues. And I want to read a little bit from the lawsuit to give you a flavor and detail of that terrible day. The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s lobby. After demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby.

Two individuals in a crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors. And you saw that going on in the video and the right door side light. Lieutenant Byrd, who was the United States Capitol Police commander and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, shot Ashley on sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. He might as well have just closed his eyes and fired.

Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Byrd and the other officers in the lobby. The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. Byrd, who is a U.S. capitol Police commander and was the incident commander of the house on January 6, 2021, shot Ashley as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight. Not one member of Congress was in the lobby, which was guarded by multiple armed police officers.

Additional armed officers were in the hallway outside the lobby or on the adjoining stairway. There was a stairway just behind Ashley coming up into the hallway, and they were on there and entering the hallway from the stairs. At the time of the shooting, Ashley could not have seen Bird, who was positioned far to Ashley’s left and on the opposite side of the doors, near an opening in the to the retiring room. A distance of approximately 15ft and an angle of approximately 160 degrees. So Ashley’s coming in like this, and Byrd’s over here behind a column. Sergeant Timothy Lively, one of the armed officers guarding the lobby doors from the hallway, later told officials investigating the shooting.

I saw him. There was no way that woman would have seen that. Byrd, who was not in uniform, did not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence known to Ashley. Byrd did not give Ashley any warnings or commands before shooting her dead. Ashley. Ashley’s family is relieved. The case is moving forward to trial and, of course, moving forward generally on all fronts. They seek justice and accountability, accountability for Ashley’s violent and lawless death at the hands of U.S. capitol Police Lieutenant Byrd. So, yeah, this is about as important a lawsuit as Judicial Watch has ever pursued.

And you know why? You know exactly why. Because it was misconduct that led to the death of Ashley Byrd. Ashley Babbitt, by Lt. Byrd. In this case. We’ve already shown and alleged in our materials that, you know, Byrd was a disaster in terms of competence as a police officer. A disaster. So this case is important, and it’s important for the future of the country that it proceed. And whenever the trial comes, we’re going to be prepared to try to obtain justice for Ashley Babbitt. And we do it with your support. I encourage you to support our work in this regard.

Go to judicialwatch.org and if you like what we’re doing for Ashley or any of our other cases to ensure that the government is held fully accountable to the rule of law and the American people know what they’re up to. Then I encourage you to support our work@judic watch.org I was just about to go live on this recording, on this transmission here, and boom, we just got a ruling from the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Huge ruling, finding that we’re right on post election Day. Counting of ballots received after Election Day. Mississippi, they count ballots that are received for up to five days after an election.

Our lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party there in Mississippi was thrown out at the lower court. The appellate court just ruled. Judicial Watch is right. There’s an election Day. And counting, receiving and counting ballots after election day is contrary to federal law. And they’ve sent it. And I haven’t read the full opinion, so I’m kind of. I just had like a minute or two to glance on it before I started talking to you here. But the decision is historic. There are 13. I think there are 13 states, 14 states. And here in D.C. the count ballots that arrive at after election Day.

And this is the first decision that’s found those laws to be unlawful because counting ballots after election day, besides being unlawful, because federal law sets an election day, not an election day, not an election week, not an election month, it invites and is a inducement for fraud. Right, because it gives people a chance to manipulate the results and they know have the numbers. They know what to reach and what to do. And of course, it undermines voter confidence because people who see elections taking days to figure out who won, no one’s fooled that that’s normal and on the up and up.

So this is an important decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Judicial Watch’s arguments that Judicial Watch alone had been pursuing and first pursued, first in Illinois, then in Mississippi, and this is the first D.C. excuse me, Circuit Court, major federal court ruling that counting ballots received after election day is contrary to federal law. Huge victory for cleaner elections and the rule of law, the case is going to get kicked back down to the lower court. I don’t know, based on what the court’s saying, whether we’ll be able to stop this counting in this election, but certainly it sends a signal and suggests post election day counting of ballots that arrive after election day are contrary to law.

Huge victory. And I want to congratulate our election law team that made it happen. I want to thank our supporters that allowed this key victory to happen because of their support, because we can’t litigate without your support. If you think elections matter and that they should be run free and fair and as clean as possible, then you’re going to want to support Judicial Watch. And you can see we get the results. We don’t win every case. We get setbacks like every litigant, but we’re in there fight, fight, fighting for the rule of law wherever and however we can.

Great victory again. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that counting ballots received after election day is unlawful. It’s all because of Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting with your support. Thank you very much for that. The quest for power and the request to remain in power causes so much corruption, and it’s sometimes so petty and nasty. And this is a nasty corruption story where Joe Biden’s justice, excuse me, Department of Homeland Security, where the Secret Service resides, is denying requested Secret service protection to RFK Jr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And we had uncovered that they had denied them, denied him protection despite known threats to him.

And of Course he’s a Kennedy. I’m not saying vote for him because he’s a Kennedy or give him special treatment because he’s a Kennedy if you’re a voter, but from the public interest. I mean, his father and his uncle were murdered. Assassinated. Why wouldn’t you just give him the darn Secret Service protection? I mean, he’s obviously going to be a magnet for crazies. It’s so outrageous. It really is. So we got these initial documents showing skilduggery by the Secret Service and keeping the protection away from him. So we filed up with a federal lawsuit and it uncovered more documents.

63 pages of documents that are again devastating. Now, the Secret Service would like you all to believe they’ve got this process in place. Well, these documents belie that because they show and confirm what everyone suspected or generally knew. That the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alexander Maya Workes or the President can just on their own provide Secret Service protection. There has to be. They just decide. They just do it. Just do it. Because this is. We had this document. Part of what we uncovered was this document that showed Campaign 2024 candidate protection. Who receives protection. And they go through and describe how this process goes.

Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection. And there’s this board that they’re supposed to or can consult consisting of the leaders of Congress. And the documents show that they were passed information along. It looks like Mitch McConnell, who’s on this board, expressed some interest in having some protection from Mr. Kennedy. And they go through all these questions. But the document also confirms, as I said, the Secretary can just designate the protection and the President can. And what’s really devastating is the document highlights that it happened.

You know, they set up these rules and changed the law to provide protection. I got to get a little closer because I don’t see it on my document. Oh, what is the history of candidate and nominee protection? Major candidates and their spouses began receiving protection after the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. And you can see above, the US Secret Service is also authorized to protect spouses of major presidential vice presidential candidates within 120 days of the general presidential election. Some candidates have received protection earlier in the campaign pursuant to presidential memoranda. Heck, candidates for the presidency because it used to be just the President are given protection because Robert F.

Kennedy Jr’s father was assassinated, he’s running for president and they don’t want to provide him protection. How is that anything but malicious? Dangerous and vindictive. What is the Biden gang thinking? Are they that petty? Because I don’t know. Kennedy is running for office. He may hurt Trump, he may hurt Biden. I don’t know how many votes he would take away. I mean, if you asked Robert A. Kenny Jr. I’m sure he would say he could win, right? I mean, he’s running because he thinks he can win, I would presume. I think he deserves a protection. The fact that he hasn’t gotten it and we’re getting this bureaucratic runaround and I kind of missed the headline here.

What’s the headline? I’ve been losing track of my documents here. Every time I screw something up like this, I think I’m turning into Joe Biden. I know I’m not, but you know, ah, here’s the headline. Records show Secret Service ordered staff not to respond to head of RFK’s private security. So he’s. The head of his private security is sending the Secret Service email and it’s unclear whether he’s being sent and they don’t want to respond to him. No response required, nor should it. So they told them they directed no response. And of course they’re hiding key documents.

One of the things we deal with at Judicial Watch, we get a lot of information, but also a lot of information is withheld from us. And a lot of that information. The biggest loophole that I really dislike in terms of government withholdings of information that has been found to be something the government can do by the courts is what they call the exemption. It’s the exemption under FOIA that allows the government to withhold pre decisional material. So all the back and forth before a final decision is made and you can imagine that’s all the stuff that we would want to see.

And in this case you can see they do this analysis that they are, you know, they supposedly go through for protection analysis by the Secret Service. Like in this case, you see a threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate. And then the white thing, the white box is redacted, the B5. So they’re hiding the threat information they have about them and every other analysis they did in point by point, whether the candidate is the vice, is an independent or third party candidate for president polling at 20% or more.

So why is their analysis of polling information redacted now? It used to be all this, you know, those white boxes. The government’s gotten a little bit better on the PR angle. They used to black it out but that didn’t look good because no one likes, you know, they could, everyone could see quite obviously all the redactions. Now they just use the white boxes. It makes it look softer. Right. The transparency isn’t as nasty without the black boxes. So we’ve got this outrage with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It’s not because I’m saying you should vote for RFK Jr.

I think RFK Jr. Has been denied Secret Service protection for political reasons. It’s dangerous. It could get him killed and other innocents killed. And Biden needs to step in and do something. Based on these earlier disclosures that we’re talking about this week, with his lack of failing memory and cognitive challenges, I don’t know who’s running the White House. I really don’t. Are there adults there? They’re going to say, why can’t we just give them the darn protection? And I’m sure there are political hacks in the White House and in the Biden administration that they giving him political Secret Service protection would elevate his candidacy and make it seem more legit.

And if that’s their logic, then they should be. If they’re in a position of power, they should be thrown out. Deadly, dangerous, vicious, vindictive politician. And I tell you, Congress should be investigating this. Call in the head of the Secret Service. Call in the White House. Call in Maya Orcas. Ask him why it is they’re leaving Kennedy out in such a risky situation. It’s back. The hunter Biden. Excuse me, the Joe Biden dog story. The dog that was viciously attacking nearly two dozen by accounts, Secret Service agents and White House personnel was removed from the White House.

And Judicial Watch had uncovered first that the major, the other dog, had been biting many more people than had been acknowledged. He had to be removed. They brought in commander and commander just was out of control. And he’s bitten at least a dozen agents and maybe a dozen more White House staff and we still don’t know the numbers. And what’s frustrating to me is that we uncovered this happened in July, that he bit ten Secret Service agents who attacked them and nothing was done. He bit a Secret Service technician on the back. He was biting Secret Service agents on the arm and elsewhere.

And agents were in fear for their personal safety. And it’s completely outrageous what they did in terms of the COVID up. Excuse me. So now Congress has gotten involved, Right? Following Judicial Welch’s lead, Virginia Fox, who is on the committee, she chairs the Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a letter to President Biden dated October 11th. And the Honorable Julie Hsu, who is the acting Secretary for the Department of Labor. She begins the letter. The White House has the responsibility to set an example for ensuring workplace safety and health for its employees. Unfortunately, has recently come to our attention that it’s failing to uphold this responsibility.

I write to request information about workplace safety issues occurring within the White House. And she goes on to talk about how osha, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, governs workplace safety, certainly in the federal government. Recent reports concerning White House staff and the U.S. secret Service personnel regularly incurring dog bites indicate that occupational hazards are prevalent at the White House. The Press has reported 12 biting instances involving the President’s Dog Commander since 2021, including incidents resulting in employee hospitalizations. It’s actually Judicial Watch that uncovered most of this. I’m concerned these incidents are an indicator of larger occupational safety and health failures at the White House that go unreported and unnoticed at the press by the press.

The White House should not embrace an attitude of rules for thee, but not for me when it comes to workplace safety. Accordingly, I’m requesting the information that the White House and Department of labor have on file related to workplace accidents and injuries at the White House to ensure the White House is living up to its expectations of the private sector. So she wants to know, give me all the federal forms you’re supposed to be filing every time this dog attacked a federal employee on White House grounds. Good question. I still want to know why the Secret Service left their agents out the dry and didn’t do anything to protect them by complaining publicly about this or going to Congress or such.

And as Judicial Watch has disclosed, you know, we got word the commander was biting these, the Secret Service employees as a result of a tip. So for all we know, if it weren’t for Judicial Watch, we wouldn’t know any of this. Federal law enforcement officials being bitten by a dog repeatedly of the protectee. So glad Virginia Fox is doing something better than nothing, right? Little accountability. One of the other important cases we’re pursuing, it’s an historic case and it’s a national case that a lot of people are focused on, is our class action civil rights lawsuit against the city of Evanston, Illinois.

They have a program to provide cash based on race. There are two groups of people that are eligible if they were residents of Evanston during a certain period of time, I think it was 1919 to 1969, or they had parents, grandparents or great parents, Great grandparents who were residents of Evanston and they’re black. They don’t have to prove discrimination. All you have to say is, I was a resident and identify as black or my parent or grandparent, et cetera, was a resident and identify as black. And right now they’re getting $25,000 or have gotten $25,000 if they fit that criteria.

Are Judicial Watch’s clients are white and would otherwise be eligible but for the color of their skin. So it’s a discriminatory program based solely on race. And as you know, reparations is the new hobby horse for the left. They want to redistribute wealth and undermine America through reparation systems. And reparation programs divide our country. And much of what they promote in terms of reparations is just race discrimination or distribution of race. Distribution, redistribution of wealth, using race as a pretext. All of which is unconstitutional and illegal in my view under federal law and as we allege in this lawsuit.

And so we sued and Evanston, which is well represented, I think they got a big, big law firm working against us here. They tried. They’re trying to throw the case out based on standing that our clients don’t have standing. So we’re trying to keep the case alive. So they don’t want to really address the merits of the claim. They just don’t want anyone to be able to sue. At least they don’t want our clients to be able to sue. And this is how we respond. Plaintiffs have alleged all facts necessary to state a timely claim that but for their race, they are eligible to participate in the program and receive $25,000 direct cash payments.

The program’s eligibility requirements are simple, straightforward and easy to satisfy. And plaintiffs have alleged they were and are, quote, ready and able to satisfy them at all relevant times. The program’s use of a race based ineligibility requirement is presumptively unconstitutional. And remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling government interest. So you can only engage in discrimination if you’ve got a compelling government interest. I don’t buy that. But nor is remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a compelling government interest. Among the program’s other fatal flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without requiring proof of discrimination.

Are there people who live in Evanston in that time period who are discriminated against? I’m sure, I’m sure. But that’s not the qualification. You don’t have to show you’ve been discriminated against. You don’t show you’ve been harmed. They’re just giving you $25,000 because of the color of your skin. And that’s not right under our Constitution. Evanston’s reparation scheme rejects a colorblind Constitution and unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as black or African American. The court should allow Judicial Watch’s class action civil rights lawsuit to proceed. So we’ll see what the court does. But as I noted, this case has gotten a lot of national attention because Evanston is the first official reparations program.

And hopefully we can get the court to shut it down, vindicate our client’s civil rights, and stop this venomous racialism before it gets out of the starting gate further. And you know, this isn’t the only area where we’ve been fighting the left’s attempt to blow up our laws against race discrimination, which, by the way, are enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Equal, you know, the phrase equal protection of the law. The left hates it because it gets in the way of their racialism. In Minneapolis, there was a public school, excuse me, a union contract with public teachers, the public teachers union.

And if there were layoffs, as you know, under the contract, any layoffs, let’s say the budget was cut and there would be layoffs. There would be. Typically, it’s a matter of seniority. The people who are last hired are the first out. That’s a typical public union, public employee, union contract, which I think is kind of outrageous in and of itself because I think it should be who’s the best worker. That’s the way layoffs should be done. But that’s not typically how it’s done. It’s usually seniority that provides you protection from layoffs in budgetary cuts or I shouldn’t say usually, but it would be a standard contract.

But in this case, there’s an exception. It’s first in, first out, unless you’re black or a member of, quote, an underrepresented group you skipped over and they go to the white person and they fire them or lay them off. How’s that legal? It isn’t. And that’s why we sued and the lower court. Initially, it’s a taxpayer lawsuit because taxpayers have a right in Minnesota to challenge unlawful expenditures of taxpayer funds. In this case, expenditures that would promote discrimination and racism contrary to law. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling that throughout the case.

So the case was resurrected, but the teachers union appealed it to the Minnesota Supreme Court. So now we’ve got to Go argue before the Minnesota Supreme Court why it is taxpayers can’t be treating people based on race and firing and firing, or laying them off and hiring them back based on race. It’s just incredible that there’s even an issue here. But that’s where the extremist left has gone. And that Minnesota Supreme Court argument takes place. I think it takes place on October 1st, so the week after next. We’ve had other cases too, where in Asheville, North Carolina, they had a scholarship program funded by the city that gave, that was limited based on race.

And we sued. Asheville, retracted the policy. In California, the left there passed two laws requiring gender, race, ethnicity and other quotas for corporate boards of directors and private companies, public companies, race, sex, ethnicity quotas, LGBT quotas, completely illegal under the California Constitution. And we won. We knocked them both out. There were two lawsuits we filed, we won. Both ended thanks to Judicial Watch. So again, it’s not just Judicial Watch complaining. It’s Judicial Watch doing, as I like to say, the heavy lifting to advance the rule of law and to protect the Constitution, which is under attack.

The 14th Amendment is under attack from the left. They don’t like equal protection under the law. They don’t like it, and they want to end it. And if that’s ended, the Republic ends. Judicial Watch. Our heavy lifting is getting some significant results, really historic results, in the form of an admission by the Justice Department that the transcripts of the audio of the interviews that Joe Biden was subject to in the special Counsel investigation of his mishandling of classified information and theft. The transcripts were messed with. They don’t reflect accurately what was in the audio. Now, we all kind of guessed that was going to be the case because it explained why they were so desperate to hide this information from us, why it is that Attorney General Garland is willing to go to jail in theory, over this, he could be found in contempt of Congress, assuming Congress gets its act together, at least the House does, for failing to obey a subpoena from the House to turn those audio tapes and other material over.

And what happened is late Friday, it was 11 o’clock at night last Friday, the government filed a brief. It was a extraordinary brief. Extraordinary. Not in a good way, extraordinary in a bad way. Meaning they put forth a lot of new arguments that really had no basis in law, as best we could see, to withhold these audio tapes from you, the American people. And included in this filing was a confession by a lawyer who did the right thing. You can imagine they were very nervous about what they found. But, you know, there is sometimes ethics that still emerges now and again from the Justice Department.

And the lawyer who admitted to this, you know, he tried to downplay it a little bit, but the admission was going to. Bethey must have known it was going to be pretty powerful in terms of its impact in the public discussion about this. The Nixonian messing around with tapes. I mean, this is the file. This is a simple foia. This is a simple. By the way, we’re asking for one document. The audios, I think they got two tapes, maybe it’s four tapes, but they just have a few tapes because they had two recordings going and they had two interviews.

So maybe they’re four tapes. Well, either way. And this is what they filed. This is what, 800 pages? Is that what you told me, Matt? 800 pages. After handling these documents, I don’t need to go to the gym today. And in the documents, they say, I’ve never seen anything like this. In the context of foia, we can’t have them. The audio is because executive privilege. Executive privilege doesn’t apply in this context to withholding documents. Executive privilege typically is for advice sought by and received by the President of the United States, not an interview or something. That’s.

First of all, the transcript is public, as they want to remind us every three minutes an interview of a president in a criminal investigation. He wasn’t seeking advice when Hur questioned him. Now, to go back. The reason they don’t want this audio released, it’s clear, is because it shows that Joe Biden has significant cognitive challenges and that Hur was fair in saying that. It shows that, you know, he has no memory based on these audios and his interaction with him. And that’s a political negative for him. I mean, I don’t know why he thinks it’s his.

I mean, have you seen videos of him walking around and his reaction to questions and just being out of it? There’s a Wall Street Journal piece today, devastating analysis of his behind the scenes behavior which mimics his. I think I tweeted the first line of it up. I don’t know. Do we still have that, Sean? Yeah. Behind closed doors, Biden shows signs of slipping. So here’s the first line. Let’s go to the first line. This is in the Wall Street Journal. When President Biden met with congressional leaders in the West Wing in January to negotiate a Ukraine funding deal, he spoke so softly at times that some participants struggled to hear him.

According to five people familiar with the meeting, he read from notes to make obvious Points paused for extended periods and sometimes closed his eyes for so long that some in the room wondered whether he had tuned out. So they’re describing, not me running these weekly updates. It’s the President of the United States in meetings with senior levels of government, senior leaders of government. Now, the story goes on and on in that regard. Time magazine had similar language in their big interview with President Biden as well. And I guess the audio is just going to further confirm all of this.

Right? So that’s why they’re coming up with all these scam arguments to withhold this information from us under foia. But Judicial Watch filed the first lawsuit on this. Heritage followed up with the lawsuit a month later. And CNN And I think 12 or 13 other media companies are now with us in this lawsuit as well. But we broke open this case and forced them to come to come back with extraordinary political and lawless arguments to justify something that’s indefensible, which is the withholding of this audio. So executive privilege doesn’t apply. They say privacy applies. It doesn’t apply.

The President doesn’s not a private figure. The transcript’s out. He’s one of the most public figures in the history of the world. What privacy interest does he have in this? And isn’t the public interest in knowing why Hur did what he did? By the way, Hur gave him a get out of jail free card based on this analysis that his memory was false. And they’re denying his memory was false. False. The Biden White House. So we want to know what the truth is and the audio her relied upon in order to hide this from us. And the kicker is, they were telling us the transcript is good enough.

It’s an accurate recitation of what went on. And in the course of this brief, there is an extraordinary admission by a senior lawyer in the Justice Department. I have to get the whole thing. I mean, he’s not just a senior lawyer. He’s like the senior lawyer in the Justice Department. Let me go to the. So when they do so in FOIA cases, oftentimes they’ll have an official kind of go under oath to explain the basis or bolster the basis for withholding a particular document. I mean, never has so much ink been spilled to hide just one document.

Really. I mean, exaggerating, but I think it’s really true. So, Bradley, it’s not Weisenheimer. Excuse me? It’s Weinsheimer. He’s Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice. He serves as the highest ranking career official in the Department So he is the most senior lawyer in the Justice Department in terms of the career civil service. So there are political appointees obviously he reports to, but he’s the top of the top in terms of the career civil service in the Justice Department. And he makes this confession, and I’m sure it pained him to do so. On page 13 and 14 excuse me, not 13, paragraphs 13 and 14 after the interview.

Special Counsel’s Office these are interviews with Biden created written transcripts of the audio recording with the assistance of a trained professional court reporter. One transcript for each day of the interview I have read the entirety of the written transcripts of the interview. As I listened to the audio recording, I I compared it to the transcripts of the audio recording and specifically listened for differences between the transcripts and the audio recording. In a few instances, the transcripts indicate that some words from the audio recording are indiscernible. In listening to the audio recording and reviewing the transcripts, I agree that in those instances the words are indiscernible.

So the words are indiscernible. No one can hear what they are. And that sometimes happens in audios. The interview transcripts are accurate transcriptions of the words of the interview contained in the audio recording, except for minor instances such as the use of filler words such as um or ah when speaking that are not always reflected on the transcripts or when words may have been repeated when spoken, such as I, I and and but sometimes was only listed a single time in the transcripts. Besides these exceedingly minor differences based on my simultaneous review of the transcripts while listening to the audio recording, the transcripts accurately captured the words spoken during the interview on the audio recording.

With no material differences between the audio recording and transcripts. Well, that I don’t believe. None of the minor differences included any audible substantive changes. That is based on my review. There is no material omission material there. That’s a big word in the legal sense. Doing a lot of work there. Material omission of words between the audio recording and transcripts. Special Counsel Herr and FBI personnel who attended the interview and compared the audio recording to the transcripts also informed me of their determination that the transcripts accurately reflect the words spoken on the audio recording. Aside from the minor instances I described above, Special Counsel Herr emphasized to me that it was important for purposes of his investigation that the interview transcripts be accurate.

Now that is a confession that the transcript is inaccurate and has been tampered with in the sense that it’s not an accurate recitation Reflection and there’s nothing ordinary about it. I responded over the weekend. I had to do a quick response because of the breaking news. Here’s what I said initially. Breaking news, the Biden administration just admitted they messed with the transcript of Joe Biden’s audio interviews with the special counsel, Robert Herr. You may recall he doesn’t want to turn the audios over. He’s citing executive privilege. He’s citing personal privacy as well. And Judicial Watch is suit for these records, the audios in federal court.

And they just filed a brief last night, 11pm on a Friday, saying the audio transcripts are not accurate. They deleted words like or what he double spoke like an and or I, I kind of like a stutter. All of that obviously helps him politically and for his campaign. And it’s not ordinary, it’s not normal. Legal transcripts, interview transcripts, deposition transcripts are not supposed to be altered in this fashion. And it’s a real scandal. It’s a Nixonian scandal. Don’t you agree? So in addition to kind of fighting for the release of these records in the FOIA case that Judicial Watch is pursuing, that forced this admission to what everyone suspected that they were messing with the transcript to protect.

Joe, we just filed a new FOIA request to investigate that Nixonian tampering with evidence. And this is what I said in the press release. Wow. Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit forced the Biden team to admit what everyone suspected, that the transcripts, the transcript is not accurate, was changed in a way to help Biden. There’s nothing ordinary about this. And the transcript and accuracy issues seem to help Biden’s political campaign needs. We today initiated a new FOIA request on the Biden’s Nixonian on this Biden’s Nixonian tape scandal. So we’ve got the FOIA lawsuit now we have a new FOIA request to figure out what the heck went on in terms of the COVID up in the new FOIA law in the FOIA lawsuit we just filed or we’ve been pursuing, you know, and of course all of that was part of the censorship operations of Twitter at the time.

It fit in nicely with the FBI giving a heads up to Facebook and Twitter and such. Oh, well, there’s Russia disinformation coming down the pike. You should be on alert on it. And sure enough, this information comes out, this letter gets published and they start deleting and censoring the New York Post story and other information about the Hunter Biden laptop. And Judicial Watch uncovered more documents about this type of Censorship. Thanks again to another Judicial Watch lawsuit. It shows that state election officials in the days before and after the 2020 election were flagging online content deemed quote, misinformation and sending it to the center for Internet Security, a DHS government funded nonprofit, and cisa, the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security and the Election Integrity Partnership, which is a front for all the censorship operations.

Again, it was a Judicial Watch lawsuit that exposed all of this includes the November 4, 2020 email from the CIS Misinformation Reports to the government official Brian Scully in the Department of Homeland Security their mal misdisinformation branch. What the heck is government having like a misinformation branch? It sounds like something out of George Orwell, doesn’t it? The report originated in the Washington Secretary of State’s office. The State of Washington. I wanted to flag the following tweet. Why would a tweet be sent to any federal official for flagging talk about communism. There is no evidence for the claim being made of a widespread mail in fraud operation to benefit Democrats in swing states.

Oh really? I think that’s a disputable point, isn’t it? What’s your definition of fraud? Changing the rules at the last minute, Counting ballots that you’re not supposed to be counting. Counting ballots away from observers counting ballots after their election day. And the response? The tweet reads a note to all conservative media people projecting Trump victories in swing states. Yes, Republicans turnout may be strong. Yes, that’s good news from a male in state veteran. The Democrats will wait to know how many votes they have to find, then they will magically appear. Why would that be an issue for the government to be policing? A tweet like that? That’s a political point.

First Amendment protective speech. On November 12, Scully sends an email with the subject line Hammer and scorecard tweets to individuals whose names are redacted. So you had the federal government sending around tweets that he didn’t like. Hammer and Scorecard. I don’t remember what that was about. I think that was. Those were questions about the computer tracking or you know, the computer, excuse me, the voting machines. On January 19, 2021, it just never stopped. Scully received an email with the subject line COVID 19 what to Expect in 60 Day Plan. I want to pass along SIO’s Stanford Internet Observatory.

Stanford’s Censorship, Operation Vaccine Misinfo, what to expect and 60 day plan. Draft white paper for your feedback. Find it attached. Feel free to tear it apart. It is Mainly based on our experience with eip, the Election Integrity Partnership censorship operation and the vaccine misinfo we’ve seen thus far. They were planning to censor vaccination information and issues about it prior to the widespread distribution of the vaccine. This is the government prepping the battlefield for censorship by working with these outside front groups. On November 2, 2020, a person at Facebook’s US Politics and Government Outreach, whose name is redacted, replies to misinformation reports at that CIS front group cc’s, the government official Scully at CISA and other officials at cisa with the subject of the email being Facebook post alleging submitting multiple ballots fraudulently.

The Facebook official states on it now. Thanks. Regarding review of the social media post. So basically the government goons or their fronts were telling Facebook to censor something and Facebook says we’re on it Just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it? Another response from Facebook regarding review of a social media reported. A social media post reported by a government official in Kentucky received and looking into this, confirming this is closed out and the Secretary of State has been notified. Of course, we don’t know what Facebook censored. The records provide disturbing evidence of a conspiracy by federal, state and private actors to censor Americans on social media during a presidential campaign.

And of course, you know the plan is in place, as I say, for Covid after the campaign, at the beginning of the Biden presidency, Judicial Watch will continue to expose the government’s involvement in what is an ongoing and unprecedented attack on Americans First Amendment rights. So you really need to pursue our material or follow up with our material here. We have a lawsuit that’s pending, at least it’s on appeal, over direct censorship by Judicial Watch from one of these state actors in California. A weekly update video featuring me was taken down at the request of the Secretary of State or her office in California or his office, I don’t know which, who was running it at the time, I don’t remember.

We got a lawsuit over that. And of course, if I’m being victimized, if Judicial Watch is being victimized, if Trump is being victimized, if New York Post is being victimized and censored. You’re being censored because you want this information. You have a right to it, and they’re depriving you of information you would otherwise get access to. So you’re a victim as well. Dear listener, dear viewer, dear follower, never before have so many Americans been censored. Never before. And it continues. As I said, the Supreme Court has punted on some of these challenges to these censorship issues.

And so you can be sure the Biden administration will take it as a green light to increase censorship in the run up to the election. And I use the term Biden administration loosely because we don’t know who’s running the Biden administration now, but he’s the nominal president. So we’ll keep an eye out on your behalf for your First Amendment rights, Judicial Watch, of course, always with the heavy lifting for the Constitution and the rule of law. You can read all about. This is my break for a commercial because we talk about it in my new book, Rights and Freedoms in Peril.

And the FBI is one of those agencies that have put your rights and freedoms in peril. And I talk about it in this video. Hey, everyone, be sure to get my new Judicial Watch book, Rights and Freedoms in Peril, in bookstores now. It’s your guidebook to the next Trump administration. It explains where we’ve been in terms of the threats to our freedoms and our rights and what President Trump and his team must do and the challenges they face. Elon Musk, Matt Gaetz, of course, the president himself as our republic has been assaulted for so long by the leftist regime Democrats.

Now, Rights and Freedoms in Peril is available in bookstores now. Important reading, essential reading if you’re concerned about the future of America. So thanks to the wonders of the supply chains, you can get this book in time for Christmas. It’s a great Christmas gift for yourself if you’re a patriot or an interested American, a curious American. A great Christmas gift for your children, your grandchildren, your brothers, your sisters, your spouses. It’s a great book, Rights and Freedoms in Peril available you go to Amazon, Barnes and Noble. You know how it works. You’ll have it before you even click purchase.

Right? You can get it, the digital copy obviously delivered immediately. Or this is a nice hard copy because you’re going to want to read and savor it and kind of look at the end notes and things like that to see where to see all the receipts. I bring in this fantastic new book. So I encourage you and I say, and I’m pushing this because it’s a great way to support Judicial Watch. Every time you buy the book, you help Judicial Watch both directly and indirectly by getting the word out about this work and why our country must be saved and needs to be saved, given the threats from the left.

The deep state has been protecting Biden, obviously from being exposed on his mental incapacity. I’d love to know what the CIA or the National Security people briefing Biden were telling their superiors during these briefings, were they informed? He was out of it. I think that’s something worth following up on, don’t you think? And of course the CIA helped protect Biden has always targeted Trump and we have new proof of it. In the Hunter Biden laptop issue we had these 51 former intel officials that involved CIA directors or former CIA directors, according to a new report from Congress, even contractors, people who were working for the CIA falsely imply that the Hunter Biden laptop was government disinformation.

And that material, that letter was released just before the debate. It was a Clinton, excuse me, Freudian slip. It was a Biden campaign operation. It wasn’t an independent action by disinterested people. It was set up by the Biden operation through Tony Blinken who worked with former Clinton supporter Obama’s appointee Mike Morell, obviously a Biden supporter, to provide cover for Joe Biden on the Hunter laptop which showed that Biden was a liar when he said he wasn’t involved in Hunter’s business and Hunter’s business was the business of racketeering. And that letter, that 51 former intel deep State letter helped provide further justification to suppress and censor this information.

Just before the election and Hunter even, I mean Joe even mentioned it in the debate, we found out that the CIA rushed approval of this letter in a way that I’ve never seen before. Judicial watch headline FOIA lawsuit emails show CIA rushed approval of infamous Hunter laptop letter by 51 former intel officials. Before the election we received eight pages of records from the CIA showing Mike Burrell, former acting CIA director under Obama requesting CIA permission to publish a letter by former intelligence community leader stating that they believe the laptop emails exposing Hunter Biden’s connections to Ukraine were Russia disinformation.

Morell’s request for pre publication review was approved in just six hours by the CIA. Six hours. They can’t, they can’t just get the pre publication review operation at CIA. Can’t decide what to get for lunch in six hours. Congress separately found that this pre publication request was sent all the way upstairs and even shown to top leaders of CIA, including it looks like the CIA director under Trump who looked to be, even though an appointee of Trump, an anti Trumper in essence. So we sued for the records and this is the email we received for Mike Morrell sent at 6:36am in the morning to the CIA Publications Classification Review Board with a copy to Mark Polly Miropoulos, a former CIA senior intelligence officer.

This is a Rush job. It needs to go out as it needs to go out as soon as possible. He literally called it a rush job. This is five days after the New York Post article on the laptop. The emails further show at 8:01am on the same day a CIA official whose name is redacted sent Morell’s request to an official whose name is also redacted. Below is a high profile high alert action item for the 19th of October. Why is it a high alert? What’s the emergency other than an election? Former DDCIA Michael Morell so a recognition of his powerful prior position submitted for review the attached manuscript Public statement on Hunter Biden emails.

Morell advised us that this article was co authored with former DO officials Mark Polymeropoulos and that many former senior and working level officials from across the IC will sign and then be made public public. PCRB has determined the manuscript contains no classified information. So that’s two hours they figured out. Nothing to see here. We don’t have. We have this board that meets to figure out whether or not there’s anything classified and we’ve met before business hours in response to this request from the Biden operation at 11:44, five hours and eight minutes after Morell sent the request, someone says you can notify Morell and then it goes out an hour later.

So that’s six hours in total. Morales told World Record. The pre Publication Classification Review Board completed its review of your article. The board determined it contains no classified information. Agency approval for publication of this material does not represent agency endorsement or verification of the work. These documents are astounding. That the CIA would turn around a campaign document like this for Joe Biden’s team in six hours is insane news. That was my statement. Absolutely insane. I can’t believe this. I mean we have some significant experience at Judicial Watch with pre publication review issues. The idea that they would turn this around effectively in less than two hours at the break of dawn is.

It’s. Do I need to tell you what that means? It means it was wired. This seems to be demonstrable campaign interference by the CIA and should be concerning and alarming to all Americans. Again, we got this out with a federal lawsuit. Now Congress had a big report on this and they highlighted how CIA people who were still working for the CIA were signers. This was kicked around upstairs to the CIA and it was only Judicial Watch that exposed how quickly it was turned around for Morell and got that level of detail. So I’m glad Congress got that report out and it shows you how the way Things I think are should work.

You know, it’s not perfect. Congress does its heavy lifting. Judicial Watch does its heavy lifting. They get some information, we get different information. And together it means the public has a fuller understanding of this major corruption scandal which is the CIA coming in and helping the Biden campaign with this quick turnaround on a document implying that the national security establishment has concluded that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russia disinformation operation, when in fact it was no such thing. And they all knew better. Purely political. They weren’t in a position to say one way or the other.

And of course this is part of Judicial Watches. Again, this litigation is one of, I would say, I guess it’s got to be nearly two dozen lawsuits at this point. I mean, we sued for records on the IRS investigation of Hunter. I mean, we sued about allegations that Hunter and Joe were involved in bribery schemes. We sued the National Archives for the Biden records scandal, documents and all sorts of other issues related to the COVID up and the efforts to help Joe. But here we have information that the CIA rushed a sensitive review on behalf of the Biden operation.

And they knew what was happening because as soon as it was published, as Congress noted, people in the CIA got nervous about the political implications. They knew it was political. I mean, the guy sends it over at 6am He Effectively the decision’s made by 8am and the only government side of it was the delay that didn’t get him the official response until a few hours later. Just incredible. The other big news this week, moving on from the Olympics is the finding by judicial watch that 113 non citizens voted in the D.C. presidential primary this year in 2024.

So the law, this is the first election that aliens in Washington D.C. could vote in. We already uncovered that over 500 registered to vote citizens noncitizens are eligible to register to vote in supposedly only local elections like the D.C. council and mayor. And they don’t ask if you’re here legally or not. So it’s not like these are longtime foreign national residents that are only able to vote green card holders, which I would find objectionable too since they’re not citizens. But at least they’re here legally. They don’t care if you’re illegal. You can vote. So we found over 500 registered to vote in a prior judicial watch FOIA and they just told us how many voted.

113 aliens voted in the presidential primary election. Now what was curious about the document was they said they voted in this presidential primary election. Well, if they voted in the federal election, it would be a crime. It ought to be a crime locally, but it ain’t anymore. So something’s got to happen. There’s got to be an additional investigation. We had asked for the records back in July. All public records identified the number of noncitizens who voted in the June 2024 primary. We asked for details where they are and they gave us a list. 113 people. We didn’t.

We have the list. Anyone can ask for the list, I guess, if they want, but we didn’t put it out there because it provided us all the names and addresses of people. We’re not going to put their names and addresses up on the Internet. But it is a public document. So the government has the information. So it’s not like it’s not going to be available to anyone else who wants to get it. So I don’t know. And it doesn’t delineate of those 113 aliens who voted in the presidential primary who are here legally versus who are not here legally, legally, but they’re all non citizens.

Based on the updated post primary data from the spreadsheet, the most recent material we received and we found that the turnout rate in the primary among non US citizens was 19% compared to the turnout rate among US citizens of 25, or nearly 26%. So if alien, what does that show? This shows two things. It could be that they violated the law in allowing them to vote in the presidential primary, although we’re not sure about that. So we’re trying to get some answers there. But it also shows that if aliens are registered to vote, they’ll vote in substantial numbers.

Here they’re registered to vote legally in many places you can be sure they’re not able to vote legally or register to vote legally and they’re still registered to vote. Data shows that it happens. In Ohio, it was just announced that they had to remove OR are removing 500 names from the voter rolls of people that they found to be here as non citizens. So they were voting, but they were registered to vote. They’re not supposed to be on the rolls. It happens, as I keep on saying, it’s a numbers game. Tens of millions of people are here who are not citizens.

A percentage of them are going to register to vote and then a percentage are going to vote. It’s easy. And we’re supposed to pretend it doesn’t happen. And the left says, well, you can’t prove it happens or it happens rarely, we don’t know because there’s no way to Check. And if they wanted to, and if they want to check, the left throws up hurdles. You know, I’m calling the Biden border invasion these days the Biden future voter importation program. I mean, that’s what it’s about. They want amnesty for these individuals. And by that, that means a pathway to citizenship and voting.

And as we see here in Washington D.C. the extreme left does not believe the franchise should depend on whether you’re a citizen or not. So as far as I’m concerned, 113 votes of citizens could have been canceled out as a result of these non citizens voting. And I think that’s an outrage. And I don’t care if it’s legal or not. I don’t think it ought to be. Congress hasn’t acted to stop it, even though they could. As I said in the release, the fact that 113 foreign nationals voted in the presidential primary in Washington D.C. see, is a national scandal.

It’s our nation’s capital, for heaven’s sake. It’s an insult to every American voter the very notion of citizenship. And given what they told us in the documents, it may be a violation of federal law. I mean, and there are a lot of jurisdictions around here in D.C. for instance, that allow noncitizens to vote. And I think they allow it up in Vermont too. So we’re going to keep on keeping on trying to figure out what’s going on and exposing this. The left board wants us to think that resistance is futile to their dangerous anti American agenda.

But you know better. Fighting for America is never futile. It is our duty. It is our duty to stand strong for our children and the generations to come. It’s the American way. So get up. Stand up for freedom. Stand up against the extremist left. Stand up for our borders and our sovereignty. Stand up against corruption. Stand up for transparency. Stand up for our children. Stand up for life. Stand up for the rule of law. Stand up for free speech and your other God given rights. Stand up. Stand up for the Constitution and the American Revolution. For liberty it represents.

We have no choice but to win. You must all be heroes for the Republic. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you. Thank you. One thing Judicial Watch has been doing virtually alone is exposing the corruption and the concerns we have about the way the Secret Service is run. And we’ve highlighted how DEI is corrupting the Secret Service, how they’ve changed the standards or they have varied, strange standards depending on whether you’re a man or a woman in the Secret Service in terms of fitness requirements as I’ve highlighted that, you know, the fitness requirements for active agents who kind of run around with guns are very different for men and women.

A woman who operates at the highest level of fitness under the test would be in the lowest level of fitness if she were a man. And you saw the video of President Trump at Butler? I don’t know. Do we have that video? We posted something on shorts the other day, didn’t we? Well, anyway, you saw the video of the women who were protecting the president with their lives, and I’m not downplaying their heroism, but the agency should not have put them in that position because it looks like to me, they didn’t fit the bill in terms of being able to provide the protection Americans would expect for President Trump or any other protectee of the Secret Service.

So you have this DEI system every day, every way. Dei, as we highlighted, is the number one priority for the Secret Service. And then just today or the last day or so, it’s broken. Thatand further confirmed, the Secret Service is denying Trump adequate security. He’s had to cancel at least one major event. He’s been warned by the Biden administration, the Iranians want to kill him, and so he’s asking for military protection, the type of military protection that Kamala Harris gets and President Biden gets. And I understand why. I’m not saying they shouldn’t get them. But given the threats and the fact he was almost killed twice, you would think they would want to go out of their way to provide him the extra protection, but they don’t, because it hampers his campaign, and, dare I say, it places him at risk.

And the left has made it a mantra to place President Trump at risk. They want to jail him, and too many on the left want to kill him. And that’s how I interpret the refusal of the Biden Harris administration to provide him adequate protection. It’s not just incompetence, it’s politics. And the Secret Service itself is a mess. So not only is it, you know, the politics, but you’ve got to wonder who’s running the show there. So Kamala Harris had some event. She went up to Massachusetts. I think it was a fundraiser or some type of political event.

So she has a big Secret Service contingent, and there was video that emerged of them, Secret Service agents and other personnel breaking into a private business. Let’s go to that video. There’s the agent. She sees the security camera, looks around, See, she comes back. Yep. She comes back here. She comes back, gets the chair and tries to cover up the video with tape, a Secret Service agent. There we go. And they break into the office to use the john or otherwise hang out. And so this just happened. When did this happen? July. Just happened in July.

And Judicial Watch asked for documents about the scandal even the Secret Service was embarrassed about. It happened on July 27, and we asked for documents shortly thereafter. All emails and text messages of members of the Vice Presidential Protective Detail regarding the break in by Secret Service Officials of the 413Salon in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. So we basically want to know what went on and who knew what and when. Simple FOIA request. And we’ve gotten the hand to the face from the Secret Service again and we’ve had to sue. The New York Post reported on August 11, the Secret Service apologized to a salon owner in Massachusetts who alleged.

Alleged. Confirmed that individuals broke into her business to use the bathroom. During the agency security work. For a nearby Kamala Harris fundraiser, a Secret Service officer covered a camera outside her salon with tape. So the scandal’s bad enough and now they’re covering up. And they tried to cover up the scandal quite literally by putting black duct tape over it, the camera. And now on top of that, they’re denying us access to the information about what happened that day. As I say, the Biden Harris Secret Service broke into a business and tried to cover it up, and they’re still trying to cover it up.

So as I said, Judicial Watch has been second to none in trying to figure out what the Secret Service is all about. We’ve sued over to dei. We exposed how Joe Biden’s dog. This is in the book. You got to get the book to see the details here. You’re not going to believe the stories about Joe Biden and his dogs. And they’re kind of unpleasant to read about in some ways. What’s outrageous about it is that Joe and Jill’s dogs attacked and bit 25 Secret Service agents. And no one would have done a thing about it but for Judicial Watch uncovering it.

And we wonder why the Secret Service is dysfunctional. Imagine if you go to work and your boss lets his dog bite you. He says, oh, sorry. And you go in, the next day, he bites you again. Oh, sorry. And nothing’s done. That’s today’s Secret Service. And they’re breaking in. We had an American Revolution to protect our property from improper search. Well, actually, it was like quartering troops. It’s more on point there. It’s outrageous. And as we’re hearing today, they still don’t have the proper protection for Donald Trump, I don’t. You know, I know you’re worried about what some people are worried about whether he’s going to win.

I’m worried about whether he’s going to live, given the way the Secret Service has been operating. But don’t worry, Congress comes back two weeks after the election and they’ll handle it then. We just filed a lawsuit in Oregon because their voting rolls are a mess and need to be cleaned up. As you may know, Judicial Watch has been the national leader in using a law known as the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law that requires states to take reasonable efforts to clean up their rolls and conduct a program as such. Now, the rolls don’t have to be perfect, but you’ve got to take basic steps to clean up the rolls.

And these are the basic steps. As best I understand, as I understand it, someone doesn’t vote. Let’s say Tom Fitton doesn’t vote and I live in Oregon. Oregon’s supposed to send me a vote in a federal election. Let’s say I don’t vote this year. Oregon’s supposed to send me a postcard or a notice of some type, say, hey, Tom, you didn’t vote. Are you still there? And if I don’t respond with a yeah, I’m still here, keep me on. And I don’t vote for the next two elections. So I don’t necessarily have to respond as long as I vote in the next two federal elections.

Four plus years, practically speaking. Right. They can take me off. It means I’m awol, I’ve gone, moved out, likely dead or whatever. And they’re not even doing that in Oregon. They’re not doing the basics. And Judicial Watch is exposed in state after state where that isn’t happening. We’ve sued. California, settled the case, 1.2 million names removed. New York settled the case, 450,000 names removed. Pennsylvania, we sent them a warning. One county removed 69,000 names. Many more were removed as a part of a settlement. Kentucky, Kentucky, excuse me, 500,000 names removed. After a consent decree, North Carolina removed a bunch of names.

In total, approximately 4 million names were cleaned up in the last year and a half, two years, as a result of Judicial Watch’s litigation. And but we’re just not going to stop because Illinois, their roles are a mess. California, their roles, even though LA county removed 1.2 million names, the rest of the state is still a mess. So we’ve sued there and just this week we’ve sued Oregon because their roles are a mess. Here’s the Lawsuit. Actually, Oregon’s roles are more than a mess. They’re one of the worst in the country. One of the worst in the country.

Judicial Watch announced today or earlier this week a lawsuit on behalf of the Constitution Party of Oregon and two lawfully registered voters against the Secretary of State out there in her official capacity. I announced it in a video earlier today. Everyone, huge news. Judicial Watch lawsuits led to the cleanup of 4 million dirty names from the voting rolls in just the last two years or so. But there’s more heavy lifting to be done for cleaner elections. That’s why Judicial Watch just sued the state of Oregon to force it to finally clean up its voting rolls, which are a mess.

Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls, and Oregon hasn’t been doing that. In fact, our new lawsuit just filed for and with the Constitution Party of Oregon and Oregon voters details how 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%. Frankly, Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. You know, dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon, as I said, has some of the worst voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up as soon as possible.

In the meantime, Judicial Watch has lawsuits to clean up voting rolls in California and in Illinois. Simply put, millions of ineligible names need to be removed from the voter rolls under federal law. And Judicial Watch has been, is, and will be in federal court making it happen. Yeah, so in Oregon, we’re probably talking several hundred thousand names that need to be cleaned up. I mean, they aren’t removing the rolls in the bulk of the counties, removing or cleaning the rolls in the bulk of the bulk of the counties. And people move in large numbers. America is still a free country.

So people move around a lot. Right. We don’t need a license to move, even though the left is trying to eventually make that true, that you, they don’t want you moving around. But we’re still a free country. We can move and people move by the boatload. And so that’s why the rolls become outdated after pretty darn quickly unless you keep up with it. Like in Illinois and California, we’re still talking about potentially millions of names haven’t been cleaned up that still need to be cleaned up if they just did the basic work. Same in Oregon. There are hundreds of thousands of names.

And I want to go through some of the details here in our lawsuit page seven. So what Drives the left crazy is the fact that we just don’t, like, make allegations and kind of guess our way through things. Our legal team, which is run by former attorneys, our lead attorney on the election law side was a senior official in the Obama Justice Department in the Civil Rights Division helping enforce voting laws. So we’re not just making it up as we go along, unlike what too many others do. When talking about elections, we look at the data.

That’s government data, data produced by the state, produced by the federal government, produced by the census. And we see the problems and then we try to pursue them. And if they’re not responding, if the states don’t respond to our highlighting the deficiencies, we go to court. So what happens is the states are supposed to transmit voter registration data. I think it’s annually, but at least regularly, to the Election Assistance Commission, which is a federal agency that provides election registration data nationally and publishes it. So we look at the official data the states disclose. The data Oregon transmitted to that agency shows that 19 counties removed zero voter registrations from November 2020 to November 2022 pursuant to section 8D1B, which is a section of the National Voter Registration Act.

And then I list the counties, or judicial watch list of counties. I didn’t write this. Our lawyers wrote it. And these are big counties. I think Omah is the biggest county in Oregon. Isn’t that the county around Oregon, Portland? Anyway, this is not. These aren’t podunk counties. These are major counties in Oregon who aren’t cleaning up the rolls. 10 other counties removed 11 or fewer voter registration. This is the kicker. Look at that paragraph 28. In all, these 29 counties reported a combined of 2.4 million voter registrations as of November 2022. Yet they removed and reported specifically removing a combined total of 36 registrations in the last two year.

Reporting 36. I mean, my guess is looking at that number 2.4. Lawyers will probably get nervous if I start guessing numbers. I would guess at least 4 or 500,000 names are inactive or should be removed, and maybe a little bit less than that. But they’re not removing the names. I think about 150,000 people move around in the state or out of the state. So let’s say only 100,000 actually moved out of the state. Or let’s say 50. Right? You’re talking hundreds of thousands. Okay, I’ll be more broad. Between 200 and 500,000 names. That’s my guess. But it gets worse.

And this is kind of detail that shows you why my guessing is probably right here. According to the Census Bureau, 14.5% of Oregon residents are not living at the same residential address as they were one year ago. So let’s do the calculations. What’s 14%, 15% of 2.4 million? Right. 360,000. 360,000. And let’s say not all of them have moved out of state, which would mean their registrations may be invalid in their local jurisdiction, but not in the state generally. I don’t know if there’s a local registration requirement in Oregon, but the point is we’re talking hundreds of thousands of names.

By the way, I didn’t figure that out. Just talking to you in my head. I had my colleague. Did you figure it out in the back in your head or did you use a calculator? He used the calculator. And there’s another astonishing stat. Then I’ll move on here. So another indicator of the fact that Oregon isn’t cleaning up its rolls is that they have more people on the rolls than are eligible to vote and living there. And by that I mean let’s say you have 15 voting age citizens in your, in your county, but you have 20 people registered to vote.

Now that’s a big problem, especially if those names aren’t removed for years. That’s what’s happening in Oregon statewide. Listen to these numbers. In October 2024, plaintiffs compared the total number of registrants active and inactive on Oregon’s voter rolls with the most recent five year American Community Survey estimates from the Census Bureau on the citizen voting age population in Oregon’s county. This comparison indicated that 35 of Oregon’s 36 counties had more voter registrations than citizens over the age of 18. In other words, these 35 Oregon counties, again, 35 of 36, every county but one showed total registration rates exceeding 100%.

And how much was it in terms of the excess? They have 119% voter registration limit. So they have 100% registered, which is, by the way, most states don’t have that registration number at 100% or even close to it, but it’s 19% on top of the 100%. So we’re talking a fifth of the. Well over a fifth really. Right. Of the list is bad. Now, are all of those names eligible to be removed immediately? Nope. But a substantial number are. And again, it’s an indicator, a significant one, that the rolls are a mess and they’re not doing what they’re supposed to do under law.

The inactive registration rate is exceedingly high, meaning people who’ve been on the rolls for so long they’re quotes considered inactive. Now they technically can register, can still vote because they’re still registered to vote. And the danger of having names on the rolls that aren’t cleaned makes those are names of potential voters. There’s a pool of potential voters among those old names that can be used for voter and election fraud purposes. That’s the reason we want the rolls cleaned up. And it also ensures that someone isn’t voting in two places at once. If they move out and they live in California, they’re on the rolls in Oregon.

Boy, you know, they could still be getting ballots potentially and voting two jurisdictions and it might be hard to figure out that’s the case. So typically about 10%, 10, 11% of the rolls in a state are old. Okay. And again, in and of itself, that’s not a problem as long as there’s regular steps to keep it taken to keep the rolls around that number and manageable in terms of putting them on a pathway to removal. Through this process I talked about earlier in Oregon, the inactive registrations are 20%. 20% of the rolls are essentially dirty in Oregon.

It’s incredible. And again, Oregon isn’t the only state we’ve got a lawsuit in Illinois, got a lawsuit against California. I mean, many counties in Illinois, they don’t even bother removing dead people. I mean, that’s kind of like election list cleanup, voter list cleanup 101, figuring out a way to figure make sure you get the dead people off the rolls. They can’t even do that in Illinois. Judicial Watch, through our litigation on a lawsuit against Fannie Willis for documents about her collusion with Jack Smith, the Biden DOJ, and the Pelosi January 6th committee, we have proved that she was colluding with the committee despite protesting earlier that there were no documents.

And here is my my initial reaction to the disclosures that I posted earlier this week. Well, Fannie Willis just confessed to having records of her communications with the January 6 Pelosi operation, the Get Trump operation. She only confessed to this yesterday thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit. Of course, when, when we first sued and began asking for these records, they told us they had no records. Well, it turns out that wasn’t true. In fact, the only reason we got the confession yesterday was because a court last week found her in default. She didn’t bother to answer the lawsuit under law as she was supposed to.

But rather than turn the records over, as the court, I think strongly suggested, she was using a loophole of exemptions and privileges to hide the records from the American people. Now we’re going to push back hard in court. Our heavy lifting will continue. But in the meantime, this really does confirm. A, she was in collusion with the Pelosi operation to get Trump. B, she has no respect for the rule of law. C, she has no respect for your right to know. Yeah, that’s a pretty good summary and we did a little special report on it as well here.

Let’s run that. A Georgia court forced Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis to confirm additional documents exist about communications Willis had with Special counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6th Committee. Willis admitted additional documents exist. However, she cited various legal exemptions for her reason not to release the documents. Judicial Watch sued for Willis, who spearheaded the prosecution against President Trump for his challenging the 2020 election results in Georgia, previously denied having any records. Just a week prior to Willis’s confession, the Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia entered an order granting a motion for default judgment against Fanny Willis in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit for communications Willis had with Special counsel Jack Smith and the January 6th Committee, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton had this to say about Fanny Willis.

Fanny Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit. Judicial Watch looks forward to getting any documents from the Fannie Willis operation about collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s congress on this unprecedented and compromised get Trump prosecution. Fitton also promised his followers on X heavy lifting, Judicial Watch will push back in court against this disingenuous secrecy. Yeah, so she gave us the response on Monday, late in the day.

That was the deadline. And you know, the court ordered her to give us the documents or explain why they’re being withheld. And she gave us a half baked response. And I don’t think it’s sufficient to comply with the court order. Obviously, Judicial Watch’s lawyers will look at it more carefully than I will as the layman Judicial Watch president complaining about the response. And as I said, you know, we’ll push back, but you know, we’ve been doing foia. I’ve been doing FOIA long enough to know a deficient response when I see it. First of all, she didn’t respond.

It was the office of her unnamed person. I don’t know who did it. According to the record, it is the office of. What is it? Excuse me. Oh, I don’t have it. Oh, wait. I was looking at the wrong page. Forgive me, everyone. Yeah. Open Records Department. What’s the Open Records Department? We don’t know. This is what she specifically said or whoever the anonymous staffer wrote. Members of the District Attorney staff having conducted a search as directed by the court, the office provides the following regarding all documents, communications sent to or received from or relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith or any employees in his office.

A diligent search indicates that no such documents or communications exist. Regarding all documents and communications sent to or received from the United States House January 6th Committee or any of its employees. A diligent search indicates that any such documents and communications are legally exempted or excepted from disclosure. And then she cites the laws. But they did turn over one document that had been publicized already by the House, which proved that they were lying, which was a letter to Betty Thompson, who was the chairman of the rump January 6th committee, in which Willis herself signed a letter as part of an official request from her to access records that may be relevant to the criminal investigation.

So Fannie Willis told something false to Judicial Watch, which is that they had no records, and she confirmed, thanks to this court order and Judicial Watch’s diligence, that that was false. They do have court records. They do have records showing what I interpret to be collusion with the Pelosi January 6th Committee to get Donald Trump. Isn’t it interesting? The January 6th Committee is happy to help. It looks like Fanny Willis. They can’t be bothered to investigate what the heck the FBI was doing, invading its capital through confidential human sources. Right. So this is a major development, and it’s a key piece of evidence.

Now we have that there was collusion stretching from Fulton county to D.C. to get Trump on unprecedented charges, and she’s now citing privileges on a case that’s dead in the water. All these privileges they’re citing are, you know, there’s a lawful basis typically to just to cite them. I’m putting being charitable and generous, but they’re discretionary in a sense. There’s no requirement to hide these records from the American people, assuming there’s a legitimate basis to do so. And I’m not assuming that at all. Oh, you can’t see this. It will harm our investigation. It will give away our secrets.

That’s often an excuse, not a reason to withhold records. And we don’t believe necessarily they did a diligent search. So when they say they have no Jack Smith records, I don’t believe it. I mean, they already lied to Me and to Judicial Watch and the American people that they didn’t have any records at all, that they had no records at all. And now they just confirmed that they do have records. And remember, as we highlighted in the earlier reports, she was found in default. She didn’t even respond to the lawsuit in court. I didn’t want to follow the rules to reply under law to us.

And the court found her in violation of the open Records law as a result of being in default. Fanny Willis is a lawbreaker. It’s official. Again, the court finds defendant Willis, in her official capacity, is in default and has been since the 11th of April, 2020. She never moved to open the default on any basis. She never paid costs, and she never offered up a meritorious defense. As far as I’m concerned, she’s waived all of her privileges. You don’t show up in court and you’ve got these privileges you want to throw out. No, no, no. I don’t think the court should let.

Judicial Watch in a state court forced Fanny Willis to confirm additional documents exist about or collusion with the partisan Pelosi January 6th committee to get Trump. But Willis, signing legal exemptions for a prosecution that’s essentially dead in the water, now wants to hide these records from the American public. And so we’re going to be pushing back against the secrecy in court now. So we have to respond and, you know, try to hold her accountable, try to get these records, more information about them, but we don’t even know how. They didn’t tell us how many records there are.

And, you know, in federal FOIA cases, at least, you know, the government, when they withhold records, they have to give you some information, enough information in terms of details about the records individually and which exemptions apply and how, in order for us to be able to ask the court to overrule the exemptions, because they have all the secrets now, and so they need to disclose more information, I would argue, to Judicial Watch so we can adequately fight back, assuming that she’s even allowed even to assert these exemptions to withhold information. So this is an example of even when they don’t give us the information, the records, the admission that the records exist is huge because they told us they didn’t exist.

And now we have confirmation. There’s more than just one letter, a letter they didn’t even want to tell us about. Congress disclosed it. And there’s more. How much work were they doing with the Pelosi operation to get Trump? Was Congress misusing its resources to have a prosecutor target the target of its investigation, Donald Trump, to harass him during the campaign. No wonder they all want pardons up there. No wonder Schiff wants a pardon. No wonder Bennie Thompson wants a pardon. Is Pelosi going to get a pardon, too? So, a great victory for Judicial Watch, a great victory for the American people in terms of getting information about what I believe to be the worst corruption scandal in American history, the misuse of prosecutorial resources in federal and state courts to target President Trump and his allies.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. And it’s information we would never have known but for Judicial Watches. Heavy lifting, persistence, diligence. So those of you who support a Judicial Watch, this is what happens. With your support, we’re able to accomplish these successes for the rule of law and accountability. Now, does more need to be done? Yes, and we’re committed to doing it. There’s always more to be done. We can’t prosecute Fanny Willis, but we can hold her accountable through this process and educate the American people about what she’s been up to. And hopefully people who are in positions to take action to hold her more accountable in different ways, they take notice.

I mean, Congress has been following our lead here. They’re demanding these records, too, because they saw what was disclosed to Judicial Watch and what the court ordered here, or what was not disclosed to Judicial Watch. As far as I’m concerned, she’s in contempt of Congress, or at least Congress is going to argue that it looks like. So some great news there. As many guests, she’s playing stonewalling, right? She’s stonewalling Judicial Watch and the American people. But on the other hand, she’s also disclosing as a result of Judicial Watch’s strong legal action. So good news. Thanks for watching.

Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. Sa SA.
[tr:tra].

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