➡ James Comey, former FBI director, is accused of threatening President Trump’s life by posting a picture online with the numbers 8647, which is interpreted as a call to kill the president. Despite Comey’s denial and removal of the post, critics believe he knew the implications of his actions. This incident has sparked discussions about Comey’s past actions and whether he should face legal consequences. The decision lies with Pam Bondi, and many are waiting to see the outcome.
➡ The text discusses the author’s belief that President Trump should use his power as chief prosecutor to direct the prosecution of government officials he believes have wronged him. The author also suggests that the FBI and Justice Department are corrupt and should be investigated by an independent entity. Furthermore, the author celebrates a settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit for Ashley Babbitt’s family, which he believes contradicts narratives about the events of January 6th.
➡ A lawsuit filed over the death of Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by Lieutenant Byrd, has been settled for $4.975 million. Despite the settlement, the U.S. government denies any liability or fault. The lawsuit, which included claims for wrongful death and negligence, was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act to avoid further litigation costs and risks. The case may be over, but the quest for justice continues, with calls for a criminal investigation into Babbitt’s death and ongoing litigation for records about her.
➡ The speaker discusses their experiences with censorship on social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube, particularly regarding videos about election integrity. They express frustration over their content being removed, allegedly due to government intervention. The speaker also mentions a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the California Secretary of State for alleged retaliation and censorship. They argue that this case highlights a broader issue of government abuse of free speech rights and call for the Supreme Court to intervene.
➡ Evanston, Illinois started a reparations program in 2021, setting aside $20 million to give $25,000 to people identifying as black or African American. Judicial Watch, a legal group, filed a lawsuit in 2024, arguing that the program is unconstitutional as it discriminates based on race, violating the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit aims to stop Evanston’s program and warn other cities considering similar programs. The case is currently at a stage where Evanston is trying to get it dismissed.
➡ The government in Evanston is accused of racial discrimination by offering $25,000 payments to certain racial groups. There’s growing concern about increasing violence and lawlessness, particularly against federal officials and ICE agents, fueled by left-wing groups. This violence is spreading across the country, with incidents reported in Texas and California. The author suggests that President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act to protect life, property, and public safety, and to maintain peace.

First up, James Comey, the worst FBI director in American history. And that’s saying something corrupt, criminal, treacherous has just been caught, effectively threatening the life of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. And what happened is he posted online the following picture, 8647. Let’s go to. And he says he just happened to run across that on the beach. So we’re all about. We’re all supposed to believe that he just magically ran into this phrase 8647. And if you don’t know what it means, it means kill President Trump. Now, I know there are other definitions of 86 that defenders of Comey have suggested, but in that context, it doesn’t matter.

It’s. The word literally is 86, 47 means kill the president. When you 86 someone in this context, you mean to kill them. And do I think he just ran across this on the beach and posted a photo? No, I don’t. I think he knew what he was doing, and here’s what his reaction was, suggesting that he knew he had done something wrong. I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. Some folks, it is associated with violence.

It never occurred to me that I oppose. But I oppose violence of any kind. So I took the post down. And since then, he’s deleted his entire Instagram account. I don’t believe his account. He sounds. He makes it seem like he just ran across this number while walking down the beach. Do you believe it? I don’t. It’s like some episode of Lost. You walk down the beach and there’s some message written with seashells. Who is he fooling? Not me. And nor, it looks like, is he fooling President Trump or key members of the Trump administration. Let’s go to that video of President Trump responding to Comey’s death threat.

He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear. Now, he wasn’t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant. And he did it for a reason. And he was hit so hard because people like me, they like what’s happening with our country. Our country has become respected again and all this. And. And he’s calling for the assassination of the president. Obviously, he apologized and said he doesn’t. Well, he apologized for violence, but look, he’s a very big what do you want to see happen? What do you want to see happen? I don’t want to take a position on it because that’s going to be up to Pam and all of the great people.

But I will say this, I think it’s a terrible thing. And when you add his history to that, if he had a clean history, he doesn’t. He’s a dirty cop. He’s a dirty cop. And if he had a clean history, I could understand if there was a leniency. But I’m going to let them make that decision. Well, President Trump, per usual, was right on target there. Of course, Comey knew he knew better. He ain’t fooling anyone. And in my view, it should be just a matter of when he’s prosecuted, not if he’s prosecuted. Tulsi Gabbard seems to share my same concerns.

Let’s go to the video of Tulsi number 20, like him, who issued direct threats against the president of the United States, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law. Do you believe Comey should be in jail? I do. Any other person with a position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be. I’m very concerned for the president’s life. We’ve already seen assassination attempts. I’m very concerned for his life. And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.

The left and Democrats want to get Trump killed. I’ve told you this before and I’ll tell you again. It’s further evidenced in Comey’s death threat to President Trump, Quite obviously a death threat. Remember Bennie Thompson, the senior official, senior Democrat leader in the House, offered a piece of legislation to deny President Trump Secret Service protection if he was convicted by one of their lawless judges in their kangaroo court proceedings with the thinking that he would go to Rikers without Secret Service protection, which would be a death sentence. The Biden administration deprived him of Secret Service protection, adequate Secret Service protection, restricting his activities and leading to not one but two near death experiences by the president.

And we’re supposed to believe that this leading anti Trump activist, James Comey, who had it in for Trump from the get go, just innocently posted this. I don’t buy it. And maybe he has a defense, but my view is he should tell it to the jury. And we’ve been investigating Comey for years. And one of the outrages of what happened to Trump is that Comey was never prosecuted for the abuses of him, of his targeting Trump, where he literally, personally spied on him as he’s coming into office, authorized interference and operations against the president and previous to that, his campaign in ways never seen before in American history.

He stole and leaked President Trump’s FBI files. And Bill Barr, the attorney general for President Trump, didn’t bother to prosecute him. Outrageous. And I had a little video on this. I think it was two. Was it what video was it? Or the 2019 video? Let’s go to that. Comey was spying on Trump. The reason he was writing the memos was to create a record so that he could destroy him. I’m paraphrasing, admittedly, but that’s pretty clear what was going on. This report confirms they went in to confront him with that ambush interview because they were trying to make a case against him.

You had the FBI director under Obama playing spy. We’re talking about spying on the Trump campaign, spying on President Elect Trump, spying on President Trump. Comey was the chief spy and he was designated as such by Barack Obama because they met about this very issue a day or two before in the Oval Office with Barack Obama, Biden, Susan Rice, all the king’s horses, all the king’s men in there. And Comey was the go to guy. That’s right. I’m getting mad. Watching me from several years ago. I may not play videos from that long ago. It’s disturbing how much older I’ve gotten since then.

But we don’t forget here at Judicial Watch about this corruption. And so when you’re considering whether Comey is, quote, innocent as President Trump says, he’s not an innocent guy. He’s a dirty cop. And him threatening Trump’s life is not only perfectly consistent for his behavior, but of the Democratic left generally in recent years where they’ve embraced violence and the threat of violence in order to achieve their results. And as I noted in that previous video, it’s not just Comey. It was the whole gang that targeted Trump. And they all knew, and particularly Comey knew that there was never any basis.

As I highlighted in this major speech to CPAC a few years ago, Judicial Watch protected Trump and our republic from the worst corruption scandal in American history by exposing the FISA abuse, the Comey corruption and the seditious conspiracy against Trump by the FBI and doj. Obama, New Clinton, New Comey. New Biden, new Brennan, new McCabe, new Strzok, new Clapper, New Schiff, New. The FBI knew the Doj knew, the CIA knew, the State Department knew. They all knew Trump was innocent, but they smeared and spied on him anyway. Worse than Watergate. Trump is a crime victim, let’s remember that.

And he’s a crime victim again as a result of this gang, specifically Comey’s death threat against him, a threat issued while he was overseas, increasing the risk and again, elevating through his Instagram account. You know, Comey’s on tv, he’s a public figure. So it wasn’t like some guy in the far off never reaches of the Internet posted a threat. He’s a serious public figure. Now, I don’t take him seriously, but this corrupt city does too often. And he abused and seemingly violated the law to put the president’s life at risk. Now, our friend Susan Crabtree reported online, Twitter the other day or on X, that for threats such as this, the Secret Service normally just goes immediately to the person who made the threat.

They don’t wait days to pursue online threats made against the President of the United States. So my guess is that Comey’s already been interviewed or he’s about to be interviewed, like not three days from now, but, you know, if not this evening, but over the weekend. And so the question is, is there going to be a prosecution as a result of that interview and the evidence gathered by the Secret Service or the FBI understanding? FBI is providing some backup support. And as President Trump noted that he didn’t want to say anything because it’s Pam Bondi’s decision.

And, you know, in the way things have worked in Washington, D.C. before, too often it is Pam Bonney’s decision. The United States Attorney General, as appropriate, makes prosecutorial decisions of this nature. But that’s purely at the discretion of the President of the United States, who is chief prosecutor. And I said it once and I’ll say it again, if I were President Trump, I would direct the prosecution of these gangsters in government that abused him. And in the case of James Comey, the FBI director he had to fire because of his corruption and abuse. He’s president, he’s prosecutor in chief.

He can direct the prosecution of James Comey right now. Now, he may not choose to exercise it for fear of causing a political fight over that or for some practical reasons, but he does have that power. And my thinking is he should exercise it forcefully, especially in matters like this. His life is on the line. His Secret Service agents around him, death threats, they could get killed as well. Citizens around him could get killed as well. We saw that with the assassination in Butler, the assassination attempt, an innocent American was murdered that day as well, people injured.

So this isn’t just about President Trump. It’s about other innocents in the vicinity of a president during an assassination attempt. And so I would just get on the horn and tell Attorney General Bondi, if I were President Trump, prosecute him. Directing you as president, if you don’t want to do it, I’ll find someone else. Now, my guess is, in these circumstances, Pam Bondi’s going to do it. Pam Bondi is going to do it, but you never know, right? And so President Trump, the best way to ensure that something is done in many cases is to do it yourself.

Right? And he can do it literally himself by ordering the prosecution. And this kind of raises the bigger question of the Justice Department and the FBI, who runs the show there. And I highlighted last week, and it bears repeating, that we need to really put those agencies under the microscope. You know, James Comey is a perfect example. He was director of the FBI and ran the agency like some sort of Stasi against the political enemies of the deep state, working hand in glove with the Obama gang and essentially partnering with the Hillary Clinton campaign to target Trump.

Now, I haven’t seen any move by the new leadership of the FBI, Cash Patel, who I consider to be a friend, Dan Bongino, to curtail the FBI’s powers in the sense of defanging the FBI, laying people off in mass numbers, like is happening at USAID in the Department of Education. If I were director of the FBI or I were president, I would direct the FBI director to essentially make the FBI in terms of there’s a. If indeed there is a statutory minimum for the FBI to operate, I would say to Cash Patel, let’s get down to that, because there’s nothing the FBI is doing that can’t be handled by another federal agency in terms of law enforcement, or, frankly, even counterintelligence, if necessary.

And the same goes with the Justice Department to a lesser extent, because there may be some more statutory basises for allowing some more people to work at the Justice Department. And the other issue is who investigates the FBI over these abuses. I’ve talked about the targeting of Trump under the Biden administration, Justice Department and the FBI. Who investigates the investigators? I don’t think they can do it themselves. And so the president should stand up a separate entity funded with Justice Department dollars, but reporting to him in the White House, appoint a prosecutor that reports to him directly, partners with Attorney General Bondi as the prosecutor deems fit, and just prosecute Investigate.

Call grand juries and the president as the chief prosecutor, or the prosecutor in chief, as I call him, he can decide in the end what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. He can even suggest areas of investigation and actually more than suggest direct areas be investigated as it relates to the criminality of the weaponization by the Obama, Biden, Clinton gang against him. Think of all the other things that need to be investigated. The issue of the invasion, who’s responsible for that? The issue of censorship of Americans, who’s responsible for that? The Biden criminality, the Biden crime family.

What’s the Justice Department doing on that? I would just charge as if those pardons didn’t exist because I think they’re null and void. Let them raise them as defenses and argue that they’re null and void. You can’t issue a pardon to someone for no crimes going back 10 years. That’s not a pardon. It doesn’t mean anything. And this is the sort of thing that a president can get done. And it would be very difficult for Pam Bondi to get done, or frankly, Kash Patel to get done. I don’t trust the FBI to investigate the FBI. I just don’t.

And I don’t trust the Justice Department to investigate the Justice Department. I could have a half a dozen friends in both agencies. It doesn’t matter. It’s the institutions that are corrupted. And I don’t think the American people trust them either. I mean, they’re stonewalling on document after document in response to our FOIA request. Still, there’s no significant criminal investigation, as best I can tell, of the lawfare, against Trump and other innocent Americans. Time’s a wasting. Time’s a wasting. Of course, Congress is completely AWOL on this, so the FBI should be effectively shut down, at least. My personal view is that others may have different views.

I recognize that, but I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them. Same goes for the irs. IRS has been abused time and time again to target Americans. It’s reason alone to shut it down. And this is the kind of thought process and thinking and leadership, you know, if I do say so myself, leadership necessary to protect the Republic. We’ve developed these deep state agencies, these administrative agencies at the federal level, whose goal, among other things, is to be ready, willing, and often able to target Americans on the basis of their political beliefs, Third world tyrannical activity.

And if someone’s using a gun repeatedly against you, and the gun being the IRS or the FBI or other agencies, you take the Gun away now. Does it mean they’re going to stop their criminality? I’m not naive. But let’s take the weapons out of the hands of the toddlers who are running the deep State. And that’s a charitable interpretation of their behavior. This is the communist approach to governance. Jail and kill your enemies. And Comey is a malicious example of it really is. More great news. Today we can announce that the wrongful death lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed for Ashley Babbitt’s family has been settled with the federal government, the United states government, for $4.2 million.

$4,975,000. And it’s a great victory for Ashley and her family. It is necessary. It’s a fair settlement. And we had filed this lawsuit for her family back in, I think it was 2022. And we’ve been battling in court for years, investigating, litigating, exposing what went on with her. What I would. Well, it’s not what I would call her literal homicide. And thanks, frankly, to the Trump administration being in power, they settled this case with us. And what a day for justice as a result. As our press release sets out, this fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashley Babbitt’s family.

Ashley should never have been killed. And this settlement destroys the evil, partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer. Judicial Watch’s team spent years investigating, litigating, exposing the truth about Ashley’s homicide. And credit goes to the hundreds of thousands of Judicial Watch supporters who fought for this cause. President Trump was an absolute rock in supporting Ashley’s family and advocating for justice. So what a wonderful team effort by Judicial Watch’s team, with the support of Americans, and, of course, Ashley’s widower husband, Aaron Babbitt, who we filed the lawsuit for. And, of course, we’ve been helping and praying and supporting also Ashley’s mother, Mickey, and I can tell you they’re thrilled about this settlement.

And you can be sure the left, because there’s been stories previous to this, because I couldn’t talk about the amount or the settlement. I mean, it just happened, literally. Today. The government signed the settlement papers today. Here I’ve got the settlement here. This is what it looks like. And the lawyer for the Justice Department signed it doesn’t look like they used an auto pen today on June 6th. And. But it had been previously reported someone had leaked it, that the settlement was. And of course, we had a court battle earlier on that required us to disclose that we had settled in principle.

And the left went crazy. They Started smearing and defaming Ashley and her memory, attacking her family, attacking Trump, attacking January 6th. It’s all about this. And this settlement blows out of the water. The lies about January 6th, you know, their whole narrative depended on only police officers being hurt that day. And there were police officers that were hurt that day. But what got in the way of that narrative about how terrible January Sixers were? Poor Ashley was killed for no good reason by Lieutenant Byrd. Let’s play the video of Ashley being killed again. There’s a gun.

There’s a gun. There’s a gun. I can’t believe he shot her. To this day, I can’t believe he shot her like that. I think she was crawling through that window. I think, you know, looking at the videos for safety. And we published online the last 19 minutes of Ashley’s life, and it looked to me watching what went on, they could have saved her life if they had moved more quickly to save her life and provide her medical support. So we filed the lawsuit in 2024, not 2022, as I misremembered. And we filed today. I don’t think we filed this actual document with the court, but the document, it reads, it’s called a stipulation for compromise, settlement and release.

Now, of course, the lawsuit initially was filed for $30 million, but. But the settlement now is for 4.975 million. And it’s a settlement, right? It’s a compromise. And this is how it describes. This is how the settlement is described legally in the document to settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, including claims for wrongful death arising directly or indirectly from the acts of. Or, excuse me, from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in the stipulation. The stipulation is not and should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants, or employees.

And it is specifically denied that they are liable to plaintiffs. The settlement is entered into all by parties. Excuse me. The settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims act. And that was the law under which we sued for Ashley’s family and avoiding the expenses and risk of further litigation. So in consideration for the plaintiff’s agreement to accept the terms and conditions of the settlement, the United States agrees to pay plaintiffs the amount of $4,975,000. There you have it. That’s how settlements are Reached standard. It’s relatively standard language.

So the government is admitting liability. But, you know, my view is you can draw your own conclusion from the number $4.975 million that they gave to settle the case. It’s a compromise number. They admit nothing, but they were prepared to go to trial on this case before the Trump people came in. We’re going to be in trial in 2026. The lawsuit included claims against the government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence claims. And the lawsuit was very useful and still is useful potentially for anyone who wants to actually pursue further law enforcement action against Ashley Babbitt’s killer, who should never, in my view, been anywhere near that scene, let alone even having a gun.

He left his gun in the bathroom in the middle of the Capitol Visitor center, which is where all the tourists walked through to visit the Capitol. He was involved with an improper shooting near his home. He couldn’t even get a shotgun from civilian authorities because of his record. And it had to be lent to him by the U.S. capitol Police. We also exposed how during the shooting he put out a radio. Shots fired, shots fired. He was the only person who fired a shot and they covered his name up for months. They hid him from the American people.

Judicial Watch exposed how he was given special accommodations. He was allowed to stay rent free at Joint Base Andrews, a United States base, a military base. The Defense Department was involved in the COVID up of who he was. For months this shooting was treated like no other police involved shooting in recent memory. And I don’t think there was ever a serious criminal investigation of that shooting. Death of Ashley Babbitt, the only official homicide victim that day put up another Picture of Ashley, 14 year veteran of the United States Air Force. And she came to D.C. by herself because she loved Trump, supported Trump, and she ended up in this situation where she got shot by this out of control police officer.

So yeah, the government was right to settle the case for $4.975 million with Ashley’s family over what happened. Does it mean this issue is over? Of course not. We’ve got litigation for records about Ashley. And I know, you know, people who were there. The shooting occurred at. Let me tell you what the people said who were there. The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the speaker’s lobby after demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby. This is from our lawsuit. Two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door side light.

Lieutenant Byrd, who is a United States Capitol police officer, police commander, and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, 2021. 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 were assessing her intentions or even identifying her as a female. Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Byrd and other officers in the lobby. The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed. When she was shot by Lt. Byrd, multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her.

Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. He’s still up there. You know what they did? They made him a captain. Despite his record, despite this unlawful, awful shooting, they made him a captain. Basically an endorsement of the killing of an innocent woman by the leadership of Congress and the police administration, the U.S. capitol Police. There was an ambush, as far as I’m concerned. So the major lawsuit over Ashley’s Death is over 4.9, $75 million settlement for her family. The litigation for records about Ashley continues by Judicial Watch. And the question is, is there going to be law enforcement action? Is there going to be a reopening of the investigation, a criminal investigation into the death of Ashley Babbitt? And again, I want to thank our team for doing this.

The lawyer who is running this case, Robert Patrick Stick, spent thousands of hours investigating this, Aaron Babbitt, great, great guy, Mickey, who’s been not only advocating for justice for Ashley, but her mom, Ashley’s mom, Mickey has been. No matter what’s happening in D.C. you can be sure Mickey will be there advocating for Ashley. And she’s been a trooper in terms of advocating for the rights of the January 6th defendants, who then, thankfully, have been pardoned by President Trump. So just a great. And of course, you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, we’re only able to do this because of the support of our members.

So if you’re giving donations to Judicial Watch, this is the type of work that it supports, justice for Ashley Babbitt. And, you know, one of my fondest memories, at least as it relates to this case, is talking about this issue before a crowd at cpac. I think it was last year, and I simply was kind of. It’s hard to tell from the video, but I was kind of overwhelmed by the powerful response. Let’s play that speech excerpt. I got very upset again recently about January 6th. I was rewatching the video of the needless killing of Ashley Babbitt, the Air Force veteran shot for no good reason by Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the US Capitol Police.

Now, I’ve watched those videos. I can’t believe he just shot her dead like that. I just can’t believe it. And few in this corrupt city give a rat’s tale about that awful shooting. But millions of Americans care, and her family cares. I think her mom, Mickey, is still here at cpac. Is Mickey here? Well, give her a round of applause anyway, God bless her, it. And that’s why I’m so pleased. Judicial Watch just filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the US government on behalf of the family of Ashleigh Babbitt. As our lawsuit states, the facts speak truth.

Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Judicial Watch is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. I tell you what, if it takes 30 more years to get justice for Ashley, that will be time well spent. So we did get justice for Ashley. And is it sufficient? It’s never going to be sufficient. She’s still bad. She’s the victim of a homicide. But this settlement certainly is a wonderful way of vindicating her. A veteran wife, daughter. And there are a few more important things that Judicial Watch has done over the decades I’ve been here at least than to try to get justice for her.

So this settlement, again, thank you, Aaron. Thank you, Mickey. Thank you, Robert. Thank you, Judicial Watch supporters. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you to Trump Justice Department, and thank you everyone else who is a citizen who’s been praying for justice for Ashley because we got a good piece of justice for her just today. So God bless Ashley and God bless America. We talked a lot about censorship here on this program because we’ve been censored. I’ve been censored. I just had an election video censored on TikTok. I was banned from TikTok and then they let me back on, or maybe they didn’t let me back on.

But anyway, I’m back on and I only have a few hundred followers, so it’s kind of a baby account in that regard. But I posted a video of my talking about our election work, our challenge, our lawsuit challenges to states for counting ballots that arrive after election day. And they censored the video. The Chinese communist run or controlled TikTok censored the video, took it down, violating community standards. I still don’t know why it’s been taken down. But it’s not just TikTok. It’s bad enough that, you know, the irony is TikTok is actually following the lead of other, at least in the past, of other social media platforms run by freedom loving Americans, allegedly.

And YouTube took down a video of me. This literally one of our weekly update segment videos of me talking about Judicial Watch’s election integrity work in the days and weeks before the election in 2020. And it was done at the request of the California Secretary of State’s office. And we found out about that as a result of a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit. We sued because, as I said, we sued California Secretary of State and they settled a lawsuit with us to clean up the rolls. I talked about them cleaning up the rolls. Evidently they didn’t like what I was saying and they retaliated against us and took action by asking YouTube to take our video down, which they did just weeks before the election.

I think it was on August of 2020. See, I started off calm, now I’m getting myself angry about it. But it’s outrageous. In the federal courts in California, in my view, have mishandled this. And now we’re asking the Supreme Court to step in and step up to vindicate the rule of law against this government abuse. We filed the brief with the Supreme Court asking them to take our case, Judicial Watch v. Shirley Weber, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State in the State of California. This is the brief. It’s interesting. So when you file cases with the Supreme Court, you basically have to go to these special companies that print the briefs out in the style and format the Supreme Court likes.

I guess the judges all want to be able just to read the briefs and things they need to read in these little booklets. I don’t know if we file them online as well, but. So anyway, this is the actual brief and it’s a good brief. I encourage you to read it because it tells a horror story about our civil liberties, about government retaliation in the days before an election to punish us for telling the truth and basically helping people and educate people about election integrity threats. We filed the lawsuit in September of 2022. And so now it’s almost three years later before the supreme.

And on September, it’s actually, I thought it was in August, but it was a September case. It was September that the. September 2020. It was September of 2020, the end of September that the censorship occurred. Judicial Watch posted on its YouTube channel a video entitled Election Integrity Crisis. Dirty Voter Rolls, Ballot Harvesting and Mail in voting risk. The 26 minute video featured me discussing the vote by mail processes, changes to state election procedures, ballot collections, sometimes referred to as ballot harvesting. Another abomination and states failures to clean up their roles, among other topics, including the failure of California to clean up their roles.

Fitton’s Comments My comments were informed by successful lawsuits brought by Judicial Watch against the Los Angeles county and the Secretary of state California in 2017 to compel the county and the state to comply with the National Voter Registration act voter list maintenance requirements. For instance, in June 2019, this is at the time Judicial Watch was informed that Los Angeles county had sent notices to 1.6 million inactive voters on this voting list after a settlement agreement had been reached. Pretty good indication that the rolls weren’t clean if they had to send out 1.6 million names, isn’t it? Judicial Watch uncovered the California Secretary of State’s monitoring of Judicial Watch’s videos for months leading up to the 2020 election with the help of a public relations firm closely connected to the Biden presidential campaign.

And we uncovered that through our own foia. So we were investigating the censorship and lo and behold, we found out that we were a victim of government retaliation and subsequent censorship at the behest of the government by YouTube, which is run by Google. So what is the legal issue for the court to explain or to handle at the Supreme Court level? And I’m trying to think, are you going to be interested in it? I think you might be interested in it, right? Because I think it goes to the heart of what we tolerate and what the law tolerates in terms of government abuse of its citizenship of its citizens.

Let me read you a little bit of the brief. Contrary to 11 well, I’m quoting from the press release here, so let me get the page here. Contrary to 11 other appellate circuit courts in the country, the Ninth Circuit, which is the appellate court that ultimately handled our case because we filed it there in California, has made it more difficult for citizens and groups trying to hold government agencies responsible for retaliating against these citizens or groups for First Amendment protected speech. They didn’t like what I was saying. They didn’t like what Judicial Watch was saying. They didn’t like what you were hearing and wanted to stop you from hearing it.

So in many ways you’re a victim of this censorship and this adverse retaliation against Judicial Watch. Until this case, every regional circuit, so all the other appellate circuits had held that an adverse action in the First Amendment retaliation context is one that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity. Chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity. So what does that mean if a person of ordinary Firmness found out the government was watching what they were saying and was prepared to go to their social media platform of choice and ask that their content be taken down.

Would that chill their speech? You bet your bottom dollar it would. And that’s what happened in California. The ninth Circuit strayed from its sister circuits, excising the chilling effect inquiry from the universally accepted standard. It ruled that the secretary’s course of action was not adverse, completely new standard, and therefore not actionable, so we couldn’t sue. But they didn’t define what adverse action meant or analyze whether the course of action would chill a person of ordinary firmness. So basically, what you’re telling the Supreme Court and what Judicial Watch is telling the Supreme Court in this brief is that there’s a split.

You have the ninth Circuit. It’s making it easier for the government to abuse citizens. Every other circuit court that looked at similar issues as ruled in a way to make it easier for citizens to stand against government abuse. The Supreme Court should not give a green light to California or any other government to retaliate against Americans for exercising their free speech rights. Simply put, California’s retaliation against us led to YouTube removing and censoring our accurate election integrity video just before presidential election. What does that sound like to you? The Biden PR firm was working with the California Secretary of State’s office to monitor us.

And once they found that we were saying things they didn’t like that could be unhelpful to them or made them angry, they had our video deleted by asking YouTube to take it down. Sounds like election rigging to me. I don’t know what it sounds like to you. And we’ve been separately uncovering instance after instance, detail after detail of broad censorship by the deep state, the Biden administration of American citizens. And I encourage you to go and look at our various lawsuits and litigation about it. It’s not just Washington in which Judicial Watch is where Judicial Watch is active, where there’s corruption and abuse, Judicial Watch, we’ll sue wherever we can under law.

And one of the big things being pushed by the left are, are reparations, the topic of reparations where they want to provide monies for perceived wrongs or actual wrongs of the past based on race, which generally is unconstitutional. You can’t give out tax money based on race based on generalized theories of discrimination in the past. Or in the case of the reparations movement where they talk about slavery being the basis for reparations. Now in Evanston, Illinois, they suggested to try to wedge reparations through the system that alleged discrimination back in the middle of the century was a basis for reparations now for people only who were black and who fit other qualifications, but the key one that they had to be black.

And it’s wildly unconstitutional. And we filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against Evanston and there’s a big court hearing on it next week. And here’s a description of the lawsuit in one of Judicial Watch’s educational videos. The left is obsessed with race based reparations. Leftists use reparations and other handouts to redistribute wealth to favored groups, purportedly to remedy systemic racism and historical inequalities. The nation’s first race based reparations program was created by the city of Evanston, Illinois. In 2021, the Chicago suburb began earmarking what would become $20 million to pay $25,000 to persons who identify as black or African American.

It began approving cash payments two years later. Called the City of Evanston Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program, the scheme purports to remedy housing discrimination in Evanston and explicitly conditions eligibility on race. Applicants need only show that they identify as black or African American and that they or a black or African American ancestor lived in Evanston at any time between 1919 and and 1969 and were at least 18 years old at the time. Applicants need not prove that they or their ancestors suffered any actual discrimination by Evanston. The children, grandchildren and even the great grandchildren of persons who lived in Evanston as many as 106 years ago can receive a payment.

Whites, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone identifying as anything other than black or African American need not apply. Renowned economist Dr. Thomas Sowell describes demands for reparations as a stroke of genius to keep blacks separated from other Americans and an aggrieved constituency to support black leaders in politics, organizations and movements. In 2024, Judicial Watch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the program on behalf of individuals who would be eligible to receive a $25,000 payment but for their race. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. This provision makes treating people differently based on their race presumptively unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit as a class action because it estimates that there are tens of thousands of persons who, like our clients, would be eligible to participate in the program but for their race. The as U.S. supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2007 case, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating based on race. Evanston’s program discriminates on the basis of race and is unconstitutional as a result. Judicial Watch’s historic lawsuit not only seeks to stop Evanston’s unconstitutional program, but also puts other cities, counties and states considering reparations programs on notice that race based programs will not go unchallenged in the courts because no one is above the law.

Isn’t that some great work by Judicial Watch? Not only the content of the video, but the legal action. I mean, it came as the result, after the result, the lawsuit of significant legal work and investigation. These lawsuits just don’t fall out of trees. It takes a lot of work to get them done. And now we’re at the stage where the city of Evanston is trying to get the case dismissed using what I believe to be specious legal reasons that I’m not going to give the time of day here. And you lawyers can go look it up on our website if you want to figure out why our case should continue.

But it’s a straightforward case. We represent people who otherwise would be able to apply for the $25,000 cash payments, but for one reason, they’re not black. And why is it, I have to explain why that’s wrong? Why is it Judicial Watch has to explain why that’s wrong in federal court? And so this is an important milestone, at least in this litigation. And the left has been watching our case very carefully because they’re fearful of pursuing other reparations programs if they’re going to get knocked out by the courts. And so they’ve been looking at this case carefully.

And frankly, the fact this case is out there alone has stopped reparations programs from proceeding in most every other jurisdiction in which they’re being considered. It goes, it should go, as I say in our release, it should go without saying that Evanston’s reparations program is clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional and our class action lawsuit should proceed. And of course, this isn’t the only DEI critical race theory woke racist, woke discrimination litigation that we’re pursuing. We’ve successfully battled this issue in court after court. One court we did weren’t successful, but we put it on the radar in 2022.

In August of 2022, for instance, we sued Minneapolis Public Schools on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teacher’s contract that provided discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing without deciding whether the racially discriminatory teacher’s contract was unconstitutional. So the liberal Supreme Court shut it down based on standing. But you know what the contract, you know what they. And it’s still an operation in Minnesota or Minneapolis, it’s the public. It was a key aspect of the union contract. The teachers union wanted. I think they were striking over it unless they got it.

And what happens is typically in public union, public employee, union contracts, there’s job protections for people based on seniority. So normally people who, in a well run, efficient, normal system or company or entity, if someone gets laid off, there’s a position, you do it based on whether they’re the best person for the employer and whether letting them go would be in the best interest of the company for whatever economic or other reason. And it’s not based on seniority. You’ve been here for 20 years, but if you’re doing a poor job, you’re going to go out. If there’s layoffs.

But in government it’s usually senior people are protected almost automatically, especially if there’s a contract involved. So it’s not unusual to have seniority protections when it comes to layoffs in public employee union contracts, however objectionable they are as a public policy. So that’s what they had in this union contract. But on top of that they had seniority protections unless you were white. So let’s say you were the most senior white person for layoffs, they would skip. You weren’t necessarily protected. The next person in line who was black would get protected. And when it came for hiring people back after layoffs, priorities were given to people based on race again, supposedly disadvantaged minorities, completely racist.

So you get senior protection from layoffs, seniority protection from layoffs. In Minneapolis, in the public union, public employee, teachers union contract, unless you’re white, you’re skipped over. And then maybe after all the black colleagues of yours are protected, maybe then your seniority kicks in. Insanity. And so I hope the Justice Department takes a look at this because it’s illegal. I mean, we tried the sue to stop it. The left wing Supreme Court of Minnesota didn’t want us to do it. You know, they came up with a reason to kick our taxpayer client out of court. So hopefully there’s some follow up.

But in Asheville, they had a, a scholarship fund that they were restricting to blacks only or minorities only. We sued and they stopped it. They settled by stopping it. In California, they had quotas for members of corporations for certain public companies and the boards would have to have certain quotas. There were two laws passed requiring quotas based on race, sex, LGBQTI standards or whatever the current iteration was at the time. We had two court cases and we won both shutting down those race, sex, etc. Quotas as being illegal under the California Constitution. Great victory there. And San Francisco had another literally crazy program that gave money only to black transgendered men.

So men presenting themselves as women, I think that was the requirement. But anyway, it was based on race. Yeah. Only it was in favor of black, biological, black and Latino males who identify as women. And so what? We sued and San Francisco just shut the program down and promised never to start it up again. And that’s how the lawsuit settled. But just, you know, we just have to be ever vigilant because the left hates laws against race discrimination because they see racial discrimination and division as a vehicle for destroying America. That’s what it’s about. That’s what reparations are about in my view.

It’s a way of redistributing wealth. It’s warmed over Marxism, you name it. I can talk for a long time as to why reparations and left wing woke discrimination are so dangerous to the American way. A Judicial Watch is in federal court, state court, you name it, defending the American way, which is that everyone should be treated based on the fact they’re a citizen and equally and not given special favors because of their race or other immutable characteristics. It’s called equal protection of the law. The left opposes it. And if you don’t have equal protection of the law, you might as well move to China or Russia.

But that’s what they want America to be. That’s what they want America to be. So hearing about their motion to dismiss next week, I don’t know if the court’s going to rule from the bench or wait to issue an opinion. Typically, from what I recall previously, this judge waits to. Typically waits to issue an opinion. But it’s going to be interesting next week to see the government come in Evanston to defend woke race discrimination. Specifically woke race discrimination. That’s the government policy in Evanston in this day and age. They’re discriminating nakedly on the basis of race.

$25,000 payments to people who fit various categories. The number one which. The number one category being black. It’s completely outrageous. So I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s been an increasingly violent and expanding left wing insurrection against the federal government over the last few weeks and it’s metastasized so much in the last week. People are getting harmed, including the lefty communists who are trying to kill federal officials, ICE agents. And the rule of law is it’s almost anarchy in certain circumstances. And in San Francisco, I watched this video of what happens when these lefty commies try to intimidate and violently attack and seemingly threaten to kill this person.

Obviously thought he was this ICE agent driving this vehicle, obviously had reason to believe he was going to get seriously harmed. And you’ll see what happened. Let’s watch this. You see here these leftists trying to get ICE law enforcement killed, also trying to get themselves killed. These communists are going to cause more violence in their effort to destroy the country. Watch what happens at the end of this video. Yes. So that one leftist got run over at the end and then someone was killed, evidently trying to. After he was firing upon an ICE facility in Texas.

Looks like a leftist was killed and then a dozen leftists. I think there’s some pictures of them here. Here’s how many of these, or 10, I think now those who are charged are 11 or 12, including one who’s on the run, were trying to lure ICE agents out in order to shoot them to death, as alleged. And then just recently, there was an ICE raid of a pot farm. They grow marijuana legally, which is just outrageous to me. But that’s another debate, right? They found 10 unaccompanied alien minors, so legal kids who were there looks like might have been working illegally.

And they were confronted violently. And, you know, it’s an insurrection, and it’s broad and it’s across the countrytexas, California, other areas of the country. And if I were President Trump, I nationally would invoke the Insurrection Act. The left is encouraging this nationally. It’s happening no matter where ICE is conducting operations to reverse the invasion. And as far as I’m concerned, President Trump should use all the tools available to him under the Constitution and federal law to protect life, property and public safety, preserve the public peace. And it’s not happening under the current circumstances because even in places like Texas, where it’s friendly to President Trump, the numbers of violent aliens are significant.

When they are, there’s some more mugshots of them, and they’re being egged on by the politicians from the highest levels. Newsom is egging them on, inciting violence. Mayor Bass, the lefty mayor of la, is inciting violence. Politician after politician at the national level is inciting, condoning and justifying violence against ice. And it’s going to get. And I’m worried what’s going to happen is that one of these incidents right now, there’s a dead person because of this incitement, this ideological war against America by the communist left. Their goal, as you saw with that first incident, they’re putting their own lives in danger.

They want people to be killed. And you’re either going to get protesters killed in a terribly. In a terrible way because of law enforcement trying to defend themselves or military trying to defend themselves, National Guard or Marines or. Which is frankly more likely. We’re going to have law enforcement killed in a large number. There’s going to be an incident where a number of law enforcement get killed by these leftist insurrectionists. And I think the President should do everything he can to protect that and end that. You know, he’s already taken some key steps by deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles.

He should just make it nationally an insurrection. The detail why it is an insurrection. There’s strong arguments that it is and provide the necessary support, no matter where it’s taking. His ICE needs to operate in order to preserve the rule of law and our sovereignty. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. SA.
[tr:tra].

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