➡ Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, is taking a case to the Supreme Court to challenge an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. They argue that this extension violates federal law, which sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and could lead to potential fraud. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, marking a significant step in the fight for election integrity. The oral argument is scheduled for October 8th.
➡ The article discusses the controversy around counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, arguing that it undermines voter confidence and invites fraud. It mentions two cases related to this issue, one of which is already before the Supreme Court. The article also celebrates President Trump’s election victory, describing it as a remarkable personal victory and a repudiation of the lawfare targeting him. It concludes by calling for a clean-up of the FBI and Justice Department, and for the opening of deep state files on politicized corruption.
➡ Judicial Watch, an organization focused on government accountability, continues to fight for election integrity and against discrimination. The article suggests that President Trump’s victory in the recent election was broad-based, with Republicans likely to control the House, Senate, and presidency. The author credits Judicial Watch’s efforts in cleaning up voter rolls and challenging unlawful practices for ensuring a cleaner election. However, the author also suggests that Democrats may have tried to manipulate the election results, and emphasizes the importance of fair and clean elections for the country’s future.
➡ The text discusses concerns about the 2020 election results, suggesting potential irregularities and questioning the increase in votes for Biden. It also expresses distrust in government agencies and fears of sedition and spying against Trump. The author criticizes certain governors and AOC for their opposition to Trump and their language, which he interprets as promoting insurrection. The text ends with a personal anecdote about an encounter with the FBI, implying a potential misuse of power.
➡ The writer discusses their experience with the FBI and the Justice Department, claiming they were harassed due to their advocacy for election integrity and against Justice Department abuse. They believe there is a political game around prosecutions and that there is an attempt to imprison Trump. The writer also mentions their organization, Judicial Watch, has been targeted by the left and censored by big tech. They express frustration with the Washington Post for what they perceive as unprofessional behavior and an attempt to censor them.
➡ The speaker, an expert in election processes, argues that counting ballots after Election Day is illegal and can lead to manipulation of election results. He criticizes media outlets for misrepresenting his views and calls for stronger election integrity measures. He also accuses the Biden administration of compromising the 2024 election through what he sees as unlawful prosecutions of Trump. He believes these actions could undermine public confidence in election outcomes.
➡ The speaker discusses concerns about censorship, particularly of conservative voices, regardless of who wins the election. They emphasize that the fight for fair elections, the rule of law, and the protection of rights and freedoms will continue no matter who is in power. The speaker also criticizes the media’s coverage of elections and mentions ongoing legal battles related to censorship and election controversies. They urge citizens to remain vigilant and involved in defending their rights and freedoms.
➡ The person in question is facing legal issues, with her case potentially being dropped unless another prosecutor takes it on. She’s also dealing with a lawsuit from Judicial Watch regarding her communication with the January Six Committee and the Biden Justice Department. Despite initially claiming she had no documents, she now admits to having them but refuses to hand them over. This could lead to further consequences for her and her career.

Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court case is accelerating. We filed a key brief the last few weeks, the opening brief and Judicial Watches lawsuit that’s before the Supreme Court where we’re representing a member of Congress, Congressman Boss and two presidential electors and trying to vindicate their right to challenge a dubious, or that’s a terrible way of putting it, unlawful election rule that allows the counting of ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election. And we did a quick video explaining the issue here. We will go to clip 15 to help you explain, help you understand it.

Judicial Watch is taking its election integrity fight to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal for a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors challenging an Illinois law extending election day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law. The lower courts had previously denied that Congressman Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois practice of counting ballots received for up to two weeks after Election Day. In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch argues despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton had this to say about the upcoming Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights and ensure election integrity. Illinois’s 14 day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. Last year, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after election day. Visit Judicial Watch.org to learn more. So this is the brief. This is what it looks like. What is it about? It’s longer than I thought it is.

How many pages long? It’s like it’s almost 50 pages or 45 pages long. Yeah, 48 pages long. Explaining why the Supreme Court should rule in our clients favor that federal law gives candidates or candidates have standing under the Constitution to challenge the lawlessness that’s going on in Illinois. And as we highlight in the brief, it’s really a straightforward issue. And you know, I’m sure we can always lose, right? But I’d be hard pressed to figure out how that would happen. And this is why it’s such a strong case. Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as federal Election Day.

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legal valid votes cast. Does it get any more straightforward than that? Candidates pour enormous resources into running for elections and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. So, obviously, if a campaign is going to last until election day, plus two more weeks. Two.

Yeah, I thought I put up three. Two more weeks. Of course, candidates need to know what’s going on. And if those two weeks are unlawfully imposed on him, he has a right to object through a federal court action like we’re providing for him here. So they have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest in, quote, ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. Now, Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court.

It’s obvious that candidates have standing to challenge and lawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources. It’s straightforward. And the government’s response, or Illinois’s response, is due, I think, relatively soon. And it has to be all done, I think, by September, because we also received news that October 8th is the date of the oral argument before the Supreme Court. That’s when the court actually comes back into session for its new term, that week, the first Monday of October. So our argument is going to be that Wednesday, October 8th. Judicial Watch’s legal team is second to none.

I may have talked to you about it already, but we’ve brought in Paul Clement to argue the case for us. Paul has had 100 arguments before the Supreme Court, one of the country’s leading practitioners before the Supreme Court bar. It shows you that we’re playing to win here. We’re not coming into this case lightly. And on top of that, we’ve got a great election law team. Bob Popper, senior official, former senior official in the Justice Department, is running our election law operation here in Washington, D.C. we have Russ Nobeal, who’s been shepherding this case as well.

Russ is a former attorney with the Justice Department, one of the nation’s preeminent experts on election law, and also my colleague, Eric Lee, who’s been with us. Of course, I should know how long Eric’s been with us, but he’s been doing so much work on election law, I tell you, I wouldn’t want to go up against Eric when it came to the facts. In any Matter of election law. So a tremendous team pushing this case forward, and we’re ready to go on October 8th. Right. And as I said in our release announcing the October 8th state, which was just state that, which was just set this week.

What did I say? Simply put, this is an historic election law challenge. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules, such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive after election day. American citizens concerned about election integrity want will tune in closely to Judicial Watch’s October 8th Supreme Court oral argument. And I think it’s going to be available online. Typically, these arguments are now available via audio, if not as the arguments are happening shortly thereafter. But secondly, this isn’t the only case related to election post election day counting of ballots that arrive after election day.

We had a major victory in Mississippi where they count ballots for up to five days after election day. And that case, we were representing the Libertarian Party in Mississippi down there, and it was our case. The Republicans came in as well. But, you know, we’ve been pushing this issue and none of this would be where it is today but for Judicial Watches, heavy lifting. And the case was appealed. I think we lost at the lower court and we appealed it to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld our theory of the case and found the counting of ballots received after election day to be unlawful.

Well, Mississippi, big hearing, a big victory because that’s the only appellate court who I think have not only considered the issue but then found in our favor. There are 19 states that do it now in the Fifth Circuit, you’re not supposed to do it counting ballots that arrive after election day. So they’ve appealed it up to the Supreme Court. So not only are we fighting in this current case we have, but Mississippi is trying to get the Supreme Court to take another case which goes to the merits of the argument. So just to remember, the case that we have now before the court is about standing, meaning whether someone has the right to challenge the law at issue in court and should they get their day in court, the underlying merits of the case as to whether it’s lawful or not to extend election day by counting ballots that arrive after election day for what, five days, two weeks, who knows, Right.

That is being asked to go up to the court by Mississippi. Mississippi is seeking certificates. And so we urged the Supreme Court in response on behalf of our clients. I think it was just this week or last to say Mississippi’s law is unlawful. There’s no reason to even take up this case. And so the law stands. Congress Statutorily, this is the case we make. This is the case. What? Excuse me. This is what the Fifth Circuit opinion, upholding our theory of the law stated. Congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors.

Text, precedent, and historical practice confirmed. This day for the election, quote, unquote, is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. And then they reverse the court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. So Mississippi has challenged this decision. And so it could be that Judicial Watch has two Supreme Court cases this year if they take it up on election integrity. I mean, we’ve got this core issue about the rights of candidates to challenge illegal election procedures.

And then we have this other case about the underlying principle involved, which is whether it’s lawful to basically take ballots for who knows how long after election day and keep on counting them. I mean, under the logic of the supporters of this ability of states to count ballots that arrive after election day, what’s the limiting factor? Maybe you just keep the elections open until the next election. Right? There’s got to be an endpoint, and the endpoint is set in federal law. And I think it’s interesting because we’re having this fight about rigging elections, right? And this issue in Texas related to redistricting and all of that, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on that, but I find it more than a little bit interesting because we’ve litigated this in California, because we have a third case over California’s counting of ballots that arrive after election day, seven days after election day, they take ballots in and count them.

And we’re representing Congressman Darrell Issa to try to stop that. And that case is on hold while our Supreme Court litigation proceeds. But we found in the course of investigating and setting up that lawsuit that two Democrats won seats in the House of Representatives only as a result of the counting of ballots that arrived after election day. So there are two seats, I would argue, that should be flipped back to the Republican incumbents by the House enforce the rule of law on elections. And it’s disappointing they haven’t even raised that issue or looked into it. You could be sure Democrats would have if the shoe were on the other foot.

So, you know, for all the redistricting battles, there are two Democrat seats that arguably should be Republican seats could be switched at any minute or, you know, there’s no time limit to dealing with this. So these are sensitive issues. They go to how votes are counted, what counts as a lawful ballot, whether the rules matter, whether voter confidence matters. Because, you know, if they don’t know who won on Election Day, most people presume something’s up. They’re just waiting for the number of votes to come in to ensure the candidate of their choice, the election officials candidate that they are interested in winning, actually wins.

I would go a step further. I would suggest that the law requires the certification of the winner on Election Day, that they have to know who won on election day. In 2020, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency on Election Day. That result changed as a result of post Election Day counting. That is unprecedented in various swing states. And I tell you, if they had stuck to just counting the ballots that had gotten there on time and counting them in a timely way, he would have already been through his second term. But in the least, ballots that arrive after Election Day, they can’t be counted.

I mean, there could be some exceptions to that, but the exceptions prove the rule. Election Day means Election Day. And to count ballots that arrive after Election Day invites voter fraud, is contrary to federal law, and undermines voter confidence. So we got two major cases, one that’s hot, meaning the court is already taking it up before the Supreme Court. We’re going to argue on October 8th. And then there’s another case that the court may take up, deciding whether or not Judicial Watch’s victory will stand on behalf of the rule of law in terms of outlawing or finding unlawful the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day.

And I tell you, if there’s anyone else doing more for this, tell me about them, because I want to work with them through Judicial Watch. But there no one is doing as much work as we are on these election integrity issues. And I’ll tell you more about it later in the program. But this is historic work. A lot of this was one of the reasons 2020 turned out the way it did in terms of it being compromised and disputed because the courts didn’t want to provide standing to people challenging these rule changes as unlawful. And I’m hoping the Supreme Court clarifies it and allows this to go forward.

The big news this week, and I’m still tired. I don’t know. Are you still tired? I stayed up late watching the election returns. President Trump is going to be the 47th president of the United States of America. It is a tremendous victory. There’s been really nothing like it in American history in terms of what he had to overcome to gain his seat back or his office back. He faced large odds that no other president or candidate for presidency has ever faced. And he promoted or created kind of a broad national coalition that could have potentially long lasting solidity in our nation’s political life, where he increased support among certain key demographics.

And I’m not going to get into all of that with you because that’s what all the other networks have been doing for the last several days. But you generally know what I mean. It’s just beenit was an extraordinary feat. And here was President Trump on, I guess not election night, but early the next day, in the middle of the night, around 2 or 3 in the morning. Here’s a clip of what he had to say after his victory. Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness.

And now we are going to fulfill that mission together. We’re going to fulfill that mission. The task before us will not be easy, but I will bring every ounce of energy, spirit and fight that I have in my soul to the job that you’ve entrusted to me. This is a great job. There’s no job like this. This is the most important job in the world, just as I did in my first term. We had a great first term. A great, great first term. I will govern by a simple promises made, promises kept. We’re going to keep our promises.

Nothing will stop me from keeping my word to you, the people. We will make America safe, strong, prosperous, powerful and free again. And I’m asking every citizen all across our land to join me in this noble and righteous endeavor. That’s what it is. It’s time to put the divisions of the past four years behind us. It’s time to unite. And we’re going to try. We’re going to try. We have to try. And it’s going to happen. Success will bring us together. I’ve seen that. I’ve seen that. Yeah, big deal. It’s a big deal. It’s President Trump.

He won, right? It’s his victory. Obviously there are people, the voters put him in office, but it was a remarkable personal victory for him. And congratulations to him. And this was my initial reaction the other day, a quick one. Remarkable victory by Donald Trump against a Whig system that saw his home rated jam prosecutions. The Biden Harris Secret Service nearly getting him killed. Big victory for the rule of law. He needs to clean house. Yeah, right. He needs the clean house. That should be job number one. Or two or three. Maybe job one, A, B or C.

Right. Because there are so many priorities facing our country in terms of crises that I don’t envy him having to get it all done because he does have a relatively limited time once he’s in office, before the political calendar starts changing in a way that makes it difficult to get things done even for a president. And our statement, our official Judicial Watch statement, kind of went through all the challenges he had to overcome in order to really achieve what I would say is the most remarkable political comeback in American history. And I think you’d have to kind of go through the annals of civilization to find not American history.

You have to kind of go through world history to find similar political comebacks. And there’s really nothing comparable because there’s been no civilization like Western civilization. There’s been no nation with the power that the United States has. You know, we should remember that President Trump or the President of the United States is the only candidate, obviously the vice president as well. There’s our two that faces the electorate, the electorate nationally, so that the only national candidate in this great nation we have. So it’s really quite remarkable. And as I noted in our statement, we of course congratulate President Trump on his remarkable election as 47th president of the United States.

The voters broadly and directly repudiated, repudiated the lawfare targeting Trump, as well as the dangerous government abuses and contempt for the rule of law endemic here in Washington, D.C. president Trump had to overcome unprecedented abuse by corrupt and partisan prosecutors, politicians and judges, all of whom tried to rig the election by smearing, raiding, investigating, prosecuting, trying, convicting and gagging President Trump. In short, President Trump needs to clean house. The FBI and Justice Department are irredeemably compromised and corrupt. And the government abusers who targeted Trump and other innocent Americans should be subject to criminal investigation. And as sunlight is the best disinfectant, President Trump should open wide the deep state files on politicized deep state lies and corruption, especially its war on the rule of law, constitutional government, our First Amendment and other civil rights, Judicial Watch, of course, and you know, this is ready, willing and able to help and sue for government accountability as we continue our mission to uncover what the government is up to and, and to enforce the rule of law for election integrity, immigration, and of course, against the crazed woke discrimination and racism.

So the threats aren’t going to stop. Right? And this is why Judicial Watch’s mission is as important as ever. Even, well, during any presidential administration. And what I’m hoping is that President Trump focuses like a laser on opening up the records, getting the info out on the corruption of the prior several years. I’m talking about deep state corruption that goes back from through Biden through his administration where they were targeting him from inside and of course, into the corrupt Obama administration. I used to joke, there’s my tweet, defund and defang the deep state. And of course, that’s a big deal for what Congress has to do.

But let’s go see, let’s go to the map and see where we stand in terms of what the results are. So you can see he has a pretty broad victory here. And this is, I think, the Associated Press map, which is a bit more conservative than others who have already given him, I think at least Arizona and Nevada perhaps, which would bring him, I think, to 312 electoral college votes, which is pretty extraordinary. And you can see the map itself is evidence of a kind of a broad base support for him in the Senate. It looks like Republicans.

It’s been confirmed that Republicans. Let’s go to the Senate map. So there are still a few Senate seats up for grabs in Nevada and Arizona, at least according to the Associated Press. But Republicans are set to get at least 53 seats. So they’re going to have a pretty strong majority. And in the House, it’s a bit more of a close call. My guess is, which is educated, is that Republicans will retain control of the House. So if it happens, as things seem to suggest, as the votes seem to suggest will happen, Republicans will control both the House, the Senate and the presidency, which provides opportunities for tremendous reform, as I said, to defang and defund the deep state.

And Kamala Harris, of course, was at, you know, I don’t want to do the obituaries on campaigns or spend too much time on it. But the coup was a failure, right? It was a failure. I mean, I’m increasingly convinced and this is there’s my tweet on it. I’m increasingly convinced and this is just my putting on my political analysis analyst hat is that the Democrats realized that they were going to lose early in the year. And they saw with President Biden and his diminished capacities as kind of confirmed to everyone during that debate. And they all knew about it anyway behind the scenes that things were going to be much worse election wise.

They were going to lose the presidency likely. But they had an idea maybe they could keep the Senate. Certainly they wanted to turn the House and they didn’t think that was going to be possible with President Biden. So they needed to get someone else in quickly. So hence, you had the coup and Kamala Harris is placed in. And, you know, everyone knows what her deficiencies were. But I don’t know if it mattered as much as the fact that there was this terrible inflation, extremism by the Biden administration, the lawfare, the efforts to kind of jail and target your political enemies.

So, you know, to me, the writing was on the wall. And I think the Democrats largely knew the writing was on the wall. It doesn’t mean they don’t spend the money, doesn’t mean they don’t try to win at the presidency. But I think they were just trying to mitigate the loss that was expected at the presidential level. And certainly the American people, in my view, and that analysis suggests. Right. That you have all been lied to, that it was a race when it really wasn’t a race. And as I highlighted when they started calling Trump fascist and Hitler two weeks ago, I mean, that wasn’t, quote, a new campaign strategy.

That’s what you do when you’re losing. You engage in that kind of extremist name calling. So in some ways, the writing was on the wall. Now, on the other hand, in 2020, you know, Biden was a terrible candidate, Right. And they didn’t know what to do, so they kept them quiet. And I would argue they manipulated the rules and engaged in shenanigans and unprecedented after election day counting that ruined the election. And they couldn’t do it again this time around. And I think they couldn’t do it again largely because or in part because of the work by Judicial Watch and frankly, other citizen activists.

The Republicans got their act together a bit more on election integrity measures. And that’s how the steal was stopped, because I’m convinced that one of the reasons they didn’t call the election, I don’t know if you were watching it on election night. I’m sure some of you went to bed before it was called, but it was called way late, especially given all the information out there that President Trump was the winner. And I’m convinced that they were kind of figuring out ways how could they steal it? Could they manipulate the results or suggest they still had votes outstanding in a way that would allow them to take it away from the real winner? And I don’t think that was possible because of the work that Judicial Watch did and the work others did.

So, yes, the steal was stopped. And I discussed that in this video here. Hey, everyone. Indeed, the steal was stopped on Election Day. I think, in no small part thanks to Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting, in just the last year and a half or two, we’ve cleaned up 4 million dirty names from the rolls. We also got that huge 5th Circuit ruling the other day that found counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful. You can be sure that all help ensure cleaner elections on Election Day, but there’s more work to be done, so be sure to support Judicial Watch’s election integrity work.

So our work, I think, was instrumental in making the elections cleaner this year. I have no doubt about it. Four million names, a warning shot from a major court that post Election Day counting, even if it was limited to ballots only received after Election Day. The idea of counting ballots after Election Day received a significant blow thanks to Judicial Watch’s work. And on top of that, you had the Republican National Committee following our lead on a lot of these election integrity issues, and they were actually willing and able to go to court on issues big and small to let the left know that anything inappropriate, illegal or fraudulent or in violation of common sense in the law would be challenged.

I mean, you saw up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where the bureaucrats tried to tell voters who were in line they couldn’t vote. There were some shenanigans down in Georgia as well, and Republicans were all over that issue. Does it mean the elections were pure? Of course not. I mean, I’ll get to that with Arizona. But this is how we save our country, by ensuring fair and clean elections and taking key steps to do it. And as a result, you know, and I went through previously with you, you may recall the various scenarios that either Kamala Harris wins outright on election night.

There’s no discussion of any additional vote counting in terms of having an impact. The decisions made on election night that clearly she won, or President Trump clearly wins on election night, which is actually what happened. And the good news is, of course, the concern I had was that if he was winning on election night and he wasn’t certified the winner, more or less, that this election would be taken from him again as it was in 2020. And the good news is, and it’s not because of thei’m not saying this because I share some policy goals, and I’m happy Trump won.

It’s because I’m happy for the country because I believe the left was prepared to engage in violence if it was close in order to pressure Democrats to somehow deny him and to provide cover for them to steal the election. And because his vote was overwhelming, he avoided that outcome. And Americans avoided That outcome. I mean, here’s the popular vote numbers, which is an interesting issue in light of the issue OFI was talking about removing 4 million dirty names from the rolls. Let’s put up that popular vote chart. The Democrats got what, 15 million less votes than last year? I think that’s the current number.

I don’t know what it is. Trump won the popular vote and Democrats got 15 million votes less than Biden did last year. Kamala Harris did. And the question is, where did those votes disappear to? And I don’t know the answer. Is there a legitimate answer? Yeah, this is the number. Look at the difference in the blue bar there. Between 2020 and 2024, Trump got a fewer, about 3 million fewer votes than he received last year. And look at that bar graph going across from 2012 through 2016 to 2024. You see the consistencies there. And then you got that big jump in 2020.

What happened? Did those votes disappear? Were they phantom votes? I think that’s an area ripe for investigation and discussion. Now, there may be legitimate reasons for it. It may have been that 2020 was a. Because of the massive mail in balloting. You had people, both legal and I would suggest maybe ineligible voting in ways that never would ever be matched again. But why were they only voting for Biden? It doesn’t make sense because I think, you know, Trump got a record number of votes for a Republican at the time. I mean, his vote numbers, I think would have been higher in terms of the popular vote.

So it’s a mystery. But, you know, the other question is, what should Trump do? And as he noted at the end of his remarks or the remarks we showed, he’s got a clean house. We’ve got these agencies that have been rogue that can’t be trusted to give him the time of day. I mean, I’m even concerned about the transition. Do you remember the transition from last time when he was coming in? They used the transition to spy on him at the highest levels. So, oh, we have to have an orderly transition of government. Don’t you believe it? They never believed in it.

They used the orderly transition of government to engage in sedition and spying on the incoming president and efforts to destroy him and undermine him from within. So I tell you, if I were Trump or his team, I wouldn’t meet with any of them. I exaggerate for effect, but you know what I mean, I’d keep the FBI away. I’d call them and say, you know what? You guys just leave the office and leave the keys on the desk and we’ll come in and figure out what to do. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.

And you know who was behind a lot of that? That smear operation, that sedition operation. It wasn’t just Obama, it was Joe, too, because he had a lot riding on it because of all the corruption. He had to undermine people who knew all about him, like Mike Flynn and others. So there’s still grave risk for President Trump from the deep state. And it’s going to take a while for him, assuming he’s as aggressive as he’s promised, to even get a hold of it. And in the meantime, he will remain in danger from sedition, spying and such.

I mean, for all we know, he’s under criminal investigation again by this gang. Don’t believe they’re going away. And of course, you know, and to be fair to the Democratic Party and people who didn’t support Trump, I mean, if you lost the election, you’d be upset, but you wouldn’t say, well, I’m going to give up now. Right. You would just reorganize and see what you could do to advance your policy agenda and maybe slow down or stop the policies you disagree with. And that’s what, that’s perfectly right in a republic. But what’s wrong is engaging in behavior that suggests your opponents and language that suggests your opponents are illegitimate and should be, quote, overthrown through coup like activity.

Use language that the left always uses to direct violence at their opponents. I mean, look at what these governors have been saying. Here’s the governor. Let’s go to the governor from Massachusetts. Let’s hear what she has to say about her plans to basically attack democracy. Right. If the Trump administration requests it, would the Massachusetts state Police assist in mass deportations? No, absolutely not. But. Well, that sounds like sedition to me. What are they going to do? Help illegal aliens here in violation of law evade lawful federal authorities trying to enforce federal law. Here’s Governor Pritzker, the governor of one of the most corrupt states in the country.

Illinois Democrat Governor. Let’s hear what he had to say. Here we are. Here’s the governor. Illinois essentially promising the majority of women are not the only to protect illegal aliens appointed in the election on Tuesday, as federal law requires many Illinoisans. Isn’t there a crime about the road ahead? And I’m here today to remind people that no matter the storm that we face, Illinois will always strive to make you welcome and safe and protected. While I was certainly surprised by Tuesday’s results, I was not unprepared. Having fought through the headwinds of the first Trump administration, the General assembly and I took proactive steps to plan for the potential of a second Trump presidency and protect our residents from the damage that it may attempt to cause.

Illinois will continue to be a refuge for those whose rights are being denied elsewhere. Women seeking reproductive health care, immigrants searching to work hard for a better life, LGBTQ Americans looking for. Sounds like insurrection in May, right? And people with disabilities whose civil and human rights are under attack. I mean, it sounds like someone wants to set up their own little country in these states. I mean, no one is suggesting anyone do anything other than follow the law on any of those issues. And there’s a process to even enforce the rule of law. And they have zero interest in acceding to the lawful directives and interpretation and application of the law by the federal government.

Because I don’t hear like, well, we will comply with the law and if there are violations, potentially we will exercise our rights. I hear insurrection language. Right? Insurrection language. And of course, aoc, who, you know, I know many people criticize her. I think she should be taken seriously because she’s a leader of this so called resistance. Even using the word resistance, by the way, suggests that you don’t use the word resistance in a democratic republic or a constitutional republic. It’s typically the loyal opposition right or the opposition party or the minority party. Resistance suggests that the owner, the rulers, or those in power are illegitimate.

And this clip from aoc, she goes full communist. Listen, our main project is to unite the working class in this country against a fascist agenda, period. We have had an enormous setback in this election because the fascists won a lot of working class support, which has happened before in history. And we can talk about that. This is going to be a very scary time. And again, I cannot emphasize how important it is that we, as an aligned people, be very cautious about attacking one another. Yeah, I mean, that’s just pure communism she’s talking there, organizing working people against a fascist state.

I mean, that’s like 1950s style Soviet propaganda from a senior. She’s senior. She’s a senior person in the House and a leader in the House. And you see the governors join her, joining her in less extreme language. Right. Gavin Newsom is announcing, you know, his opposition to the Trump administration even before the Trump administration comes in. Same in New York. And you see that language calling him a fascist, which is, again, language that the left uses to direct violence at specific people and their opponents. If someone’s a fascist, that means they don’t deserve the protection of the rule of law.

So it’s extremely dangerous. As I noted, you know, they denied Trump Secret Service protection, adequate Secret Service protection during the campaign, and nearly got him killed. And it was for politics and certainly constrained his campaign. That’s one way to rig an election. He overcame that. Rigging of his campaign or rigging of the election. I mean, the news is breaking as I go and talk to you right now, that the Biden administration finally, two days after election, was it? Yeah, Two or three days after the election, they announced, oh, well, there was this big Iranian plot to try to kill Trump.

And even though they knew that plot was afoot, they still denied him full and adequate protection. So I tell you, when Joe Biden says that Trump should come by the White House and they’re, you know, you know how I might react to that. And I don’t blame Trump for going there. There are reasons beyond, you know, beyond maybe my personal peek at seeing this gang almost get him killed and putting him in jail illegally. So that’s why, you know, I said, in terms of what happens next, transparency, accountability, integrity, FBI and doj, they can’t survive in their current form, maybe not at all, certainly with respect to the FBI, because if they still do at the end of Trump’s term, it’s going to happen all over again.

Trump will obviously still be targeted and retargeted, and any other rising Republican will be, too, or conservative. I mean, I know what they’re capable of doing because they did it to me. In part, they did it to your Judicial Watch. I mean, some of you may not know this, but it was in 2022. The Biden gang, the Biden FBI, they came knocking at my door. I had literally just gotten home from surgery for skin cancer. I’m lying on the couch. Knock, knock, knock on the door. Knock, knock, knock on the door. Six, 6:30, it was at night.

It was two FBI agents giving me a subpoena. And later I was hauled in before the grand jury. Judicial Watch had to deal with this document subpoena. I had to deal with a document subpoena. And they harassed me for four hours over our advocacy for you, the American people, on election integrity, on the rule of law, and against Justice Department abuse. It was pure retaliation. And I’m just a witness. They want to put Trump in jail, and they still do. I mean, and to show you the political game around these prosecutions, there’s announcements and leaks this week.

Oh, well, there’s a policy that we can’t prosecute sitting presidents. So we’re just going to shut all those cases down that Jack Smith’s been running. Well, if they were so important, why would you shut them down? And here’s the statement that Smith filed on the court docket the other day in the case that is still like real active, which is the January 6th case against Trump. As a result of the election held on November 5, the defendant is expected to be certified as President elect on January 6 and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The government respectfully requests that the court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate outcome going forward, consistent with Justice Department policy, which is to not target presidents.

Of course, the policy should be not to target former presidents, but they changed those rules for Trump. Now what’s going to happen in New York is Judge Merchan, he’s got a hearing or a decision to make about whether the immunity knocks out his sham case against Trump over non crimes in New York, the so called 34 felony convictions, which are about as legitimate. I don’t know. I’m so mad I can’t even close that metaphoric loop. Do you think Judge Merchand’s going to not try to imprison Trump? I would say it’s 50 50. And there’s going to have to be incredible swift action taken by Trump’s legal team to stop that abuse from going forward.

I don’t know what’s going to go on in Georgia. Looks like the courts may shut all that down because of misconduct by the prosecutor. Is Jack Smith going to hold all of this in abeyance toll? The statute of limitations? What are they going to do? Are they going to target the others around him, Scare everyone else from working from the Trump administration by pretending they have the ability to prosecute them while keeping him away even though he’s integral to the case? Trump should not only fire Jack Smith, he should look into anyone else who abused their authority, hold them accountable.

And let’s be clear, there must be a criminal investigation of the Justice Department’s abuse of Trump and other innocence immediately. I mean, I posted something on Twitter the other day where I retweeted at my speech, one of my speeches I gave talking about the the FBI harassing me and my family. I want justice and I’m sure Trump wants justice too, and I hope he gets it. And these agencies need to be held accountable. And if they’re not, the abuses will continue as surely as night follows Day One of the reasons I know that Judicial Watch is effective is it’s like the old phrase, we love him for the enemies he has made.

And Judicial Watch has many enemies among the cadre of corrupt politicians here in Washington, D.C. that have inhabited powerful positions. Bill and Hillary know who we are. I don’t know if Obama knows who we are. You certainly know. You can be certainly sure that the Biden White House knows who we are. I don’t know what Joe Biden knows, so I’m not even going to venture President Trump knows who we are. But the left surely knows who we are and they are desperate to censor us. They hate us. And we’re repeatedly targeted and we’re one of many who are targeted by the left, to be fair.

But you know, we’ve been censored repeatedly by big tech at the behest of government, at the behest of dishonest leftists. We’ve been targeted by this Justice Department many, many years ago. We were even targeted by the irs. So we’ve suffered the slings and arrows of government abusers and their allies on the left and we’re seeing more of it. Just this last week I got a call or my colleague, our press officer, received an email from the Washington Post. A reporter at the Washington Post earlier this week. And normally when you get a request from the Washington Post, obviously you pay attention because it’ swhowever terrible we think the Washington Post is.

It is a powerful media entity and you want to know what they’re doing, especially if they’re going to be reporting about you or your organization. So we paid attention to the request and the request came in at 5. Let’s go to the Because I posted what they sent to us. So they sent this to us on Wednesday, October 30th at 5:16pm and they said they wanted a comment for an 8pm deadline. So from the get go, it’s unprofessional. They’ve got an 8pm deadline. They send us an email after hours, after hours wanting a comment. And look at what they were asking about.

I’m working on a piece about the role of podcasts. I don’t even know what are playing in casting doubt on the integrity of the 2024 election. The piece includes interviews with researchers which you can be sure are leftists who say podcasts are an especially effective medium for such claims because of how techn challenging it is for companies to do content moderation. So content moderation is the left wing code for censorship. That’s what content Moderation is. And the Washington Post being a leftist activist group that sometimes does journalism, this is what they described they were doing targeting Judicial Watch and others.

Their analysis found that the Charlie Kirk show and Charlie is one of the most effective conservatives in the country. He runs Turning Point usa, the nonprofit. He has a PAC and other political action oriented groups that he’s also running Powerful Voice because of his social media presence as well. And the story specifically mentions an exchange Kirk had with Tom Fitton on an Oct. 18 episode of the show titled Fixing Elections is Easy, which is why the left fights so hard against it. In the conversation, Kirk asks Fitton whether the election is fixed. And Fitton responds that the voting process is structured in Arizona and Pennsylvania to steal the election if need be.

And then they quote me further. If you normalize the counting of ballots after election day, which is what I’ve been talking about. Right. And the 5th Circuit is at least partly agree with me, that sure makes it easier to be fraudster for fraudsters to come in and manipulate the outcome. So I saw this and I got mad. You know, it’s five o’. Clock. I work later than many other people do, but I don’t like working later and I don’t like having to work late to deal with a crisis like this. A left wing reporter for a powerful media group throwing out garbage inquiries like this obviously to try to destroy and censor us.

And this is my response to stop trying to get me and Judicial Watch censored by invoking leftists who hate the First Amendment and free speech. Your inquiry is another reason Bezos. Is it Bezos or Bezos? Bezos. Bezos needs the clean house at the Post because there’s been controversy about Bezos acknowledging that the Post is full of leftists and no one takes it seriously. This is why no one takes the Washington Post seriously. Because of agenda pushing leftists like this reporter. And as I respond. So the Post then published this story. Let’s bring the story up. In an episode of the Charlie Kirk show.

Last week, the host who leads the pro Trump youth group Turning Point usa asked his guests whether the election is fixed. Tom Fitton, head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, responded by falsely claiming. So that’s the smear. Falsely claiming that it is illegal for votes to be counted after election day. How is an opinion false even though some states explicitly mandate that practice? By the way, this was written after the 5th Circuit ruling. I mean, so it’s really egregious that she smeared me in this regard and Judicial Watch and Charlie he said the voting processes in Arizona, in Pennsylvania, is structured in a manner to steal the election if need be.

Is there any doubt? I talked about the post Election Day counting. It’s outrageous. It undermines voter confidence and invites fraud. How is that even a controversial comment? If you normalize accounting, and this is an accurate quote, I don’t understand what’s controversial about it. If you normalize the counting of ballots after Election Day, boy, that sure makes it easier for fraudsters to come in and manipulate the outcome. Fitton’s comments echo false claims. Again, there’s that word false that Trump made in 2020 when he said he had won the race because he was ahead. It’s not a false claim.

It’s an argument that should have been taken seriously legally. He should have probably pursued it legally, more aggressively than his team did. But it’s still a legal argument, partly vindicated by this decision that at least in the lease says counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is illegal. So this is a smear operation. And here’s what I responded to. That’s how I responded to it on Twitter or X. You know, we obtained this 5th Circuit victory and it didn’t stop the activists. Here are the reporters Kate Zachary, Naomi Nix and Jeremy B. Merrill. Those are their handles from smearing me by dishonestly characterizing as false.

My expert Judicial Watch opinion Accounting ballots after election is unlawful under federal law. Now, I purposely put in the word expert. I know the left doesn’t want to take that seriously because the left hates everyone that they disagree with. But I’m an expert and Judicial Watch is an expert on election processes. I’ve been doing this for 26 years at Judicial Watch. I’ve testified to Congress on the issue. Judicial Watch has one of the top legal teams on the country on issues of election integrity and law. And so if it’s my opinion that federal law prohibits the counting of ballots received after Election Day, which it does in all sorts of circumstances.

And if it’s my opinion that even counting ballots after Election Day is illicit, it ain’t false. It’s my opinion stated in good faith. Let’s go back to the tweet, because I forget what else I yelled about both the Washington Post and the New York Times. So there was a New York Times story similarly pushing for censorship of content almost, I think it would appear, the day before the Washington Post story. So here are the interview segments that Jeff Bezos activist employees he really needs the clean house over there. Don’t want you to see the segments. I had the Interview part of the you should watch the entire interview with Charlie.

Charlie Kirk, but here are the sections that the Post smeared me over and I want you to see the complete comments so you have a fuller understanding of what I was the points I was making in my conversation with Charlie Kirk about elections and I was on talking about the book rights and freedoms in peril. Let’s go to the tape. It’s the question of is it fixed or is it fixed? Right. So it’s the fixed can be have two different words. So. So they’ve structured the voting process in places like Arizona or up in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania to make it easier to steal the election if need be.

So if you normalize the counting of ballots after election day, boy, that sure makes it easier for fraudsters to come in and manipulate the outcome. And they don’t care if voters get nervous about it because it’s all about winning. In 2020. He had the votes to win on election night. Right. And that result was changed as a result of unprecedented, I would argue, unlawful counting that occurred for days after election day. And I tell you, if we don’t know who won on election night, I think it’s going to be very unpleasant in terms of what the outcomes are in terms of voter confidence.

How is that controversial? You know, outrageously. YouTube a year ago wouldn’t have let me raise those issues about 2020 because they said you can’t ask questions about elections and they would kick you off. They’ve changed that since then. Straightforward analysis. I mean, the whole argument over election integrity is we want stronger rules in place because it makes it easier to set up the steal if need be for any party. And it’s the left that opposes all these election integrity measures that want to count ballots forever in a day, that oppose voter id, want noncitizens to remain on the voter rolls.

That is the position of this Biden Harris administration. Told the Supreme Court to let them do it. And what’s the response from the Washington Post? Take Fitton’s video down. Take Charlie Kirk’s video down. Don’t let them talk about post election day counting. Don’t let them ask questions about government abuse, government misconduct. Don’t let them ask questions about Biden Harris’s election victory. Don’t let them ask questions about the next election. And frankly, the good news is the article being published the week before the election shows they’re upset because there hasn’t been the censorship they had last time around.

And that, thankfully, is largely due to Elon Musk, in my view, and obviously Republicans have been putting pressure now that they’re back in control of the House on the issue as well. But Musk has really set the standard in many ways to allow a fuller debate on these issues, making it harder, not stopping completely, but making it harder for censorship to continue. But it’s obviously a coordinated effort because the New York Times had a story the night before stated October 31st. Maybe it was the same day. Maybe it was the same day. Yeah, it was the same day.

So they had two stories, New York Times, Washington Post puts out two stories saying that people aren’t being censored enough by YouTube or on the quote podcast. The election falsehoods took off. Take off as you on YouTube as it looks the other way. So YouTube is still a mess when it comes to certain election controversies. I mean, you may have seen how they vandalized content. I know they vandalize our content with disclaimers that, you know, go look here for the truth on elections and things like that, suggesting the content’s off. That’s censorship and suppression. And they don’t reference Judicial Watch in this material.

But they talk about how this whole story is based on research done by a radical extremist left wing group called Media Matters that hates conservatives and wants to ensure that they have no voice on anywhere in the media. And they try to controversialize all comments by conservatives in order to get them censored, suppressed, destroy their advertising, you name it. And I’m like, well, we weren’t mentioned here, but I wonder who else is on the list that Media Matters was targeting. And sure enough, let’s go to the Media Matters story. Oh, here we are. I’m on the list.

Judicial Watch is on the list. And dear viewer, dear listener, if you are supporter of Judicial Watch, it means they, they’re thinking of you as well. And they’re suggesting. What’s the title of this report? YouTube Let right wing figures undermine the 24 elections even before any votes were cast. Pushed election misinformation. Right, which is code for information that should be triggered. I mean, censored. They want to trigger censorship. So scroll down and see what they were saying about Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton argued, quote, the 2024 election has already been compromised and announced plans by his organization and sue states to overcome the election rigging.

I don’t know what that last one was. Maybe it’s from a speech I made in 2021 that they seem to reference or somewhere. I don’t know what they’re talking about. So what’s the issue with saying the 2024 election has already been compromised. It’s a straightforward complaint about the Biden Justice Department. Oh, by the way, saying that the Biden Justice Department compromised the election with illicit prosecutions of Trump. They say that’s false and there’s no evidence of that. That’s the less mantra. And including like supposedly regular media entities regularly say that you’re not allowed to say that that’s false.

And the reference they’re doing is they’re pointing to a speech I made to cpac, to cpac, which is the conservative meeting, big convention that takes place every year here in the D.C. area. And here’s how I opened the speech. And here’s the speech, at least part of the speech they didn’t want you to see. But frankly, you got to begin with some bad news. It’s too late. The 2024 election has already been compromised by the Biden Democratic Party’s unprecedented prosecutorial assault on the civil rights of President Donald J. Trump. There is a storm front, a storm front of selective, vindictive, political and anti constitutional prosecutions going from Miami up through Fulton County, Georgia to here in D.C.

and of course up into New York. And the front has expanded to other states where lawyers, Republican Party officials and volunteers are being harassed, sued, disbarred and prosecuted for exercising their God given First Amendment and other rights to dispute an election. You know, let me be clear. Moving the jail, the leading presidential candidate, seizing his assets, destroying his business and keeping his name off the ballot are all about turning America into a one party state. By the way, isn’t fraudulently using the 14th Amendment and falsely accusing Trump of insurrection to keep him off the ballot? Insurrection in itself.

If those abusers want to play the insurrectionist game, then virtually the entire deep state, left media and DC Ruling class will have some questions to answer. Good little speech, huh? I’m glad Media Matters attacked me and attacked Judicial Watch because there’s some good points there to consider before the election because the election has been compromised by these abuses of Trump. And the only question is will that the compromise nature of the elections undermine the outcome in a way that that people aren’t confident that what happened was legit? How is that, quote, misinformation? They want to censor us.

Okay. And this is an issue that I’ve raised. I don’t know if I’ve raised it on this program before, but I want to raise it again with you, even either way, because of the election coming up. Now, you may be upset about the outcome of the election, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. And this message is in terms of those of us concerned about conservative public policy outcomes and the continued protection of our Republican form of government, the US Constitution, and our rights and civil liberties, our freedoms, our sovereignty, et cetera. Those issues won’t go away if Harris is elected, obviously, and they won’t go away if Trump is elected.

The left isn’t going to stop trying to destroy the Supreme Court, the rule of law, the First Amendment, promote open borders, allow aliens to vote in the elections. They’re not going to stop any of that. They’re not going to stop their diversity mania to destroy America through repackaged Marxism in a way that separates us by race and division and segregation. The left ain’t going to stop now. The challenges will be different depending on who the president is. The challenges will be different depending on who controls Congress. But the concerns we have as to what needs to be done to defend the republic and kind of restore the rule of law or strengthen it.

The left isn’t going to stop messing with efforts to ensure fair and clean elections, and the left isn’t going to stop opposing that. So no matter who’s president, no matter who runs Congress, same goes to whatever elections are happening in your local community or in your states. The issues never go away. And I would argue your obligation as a citizen to be a watchdog, to be vigilant, never stops. So the censorship issue, obviously they’ve got this timing issue. It’s before the election. They’re trying to scare big tech platforms into censoring me. Censoring you? Censoring other conservatives, Charlie Kirk, who else is in this? I can see pictures.

Ben Shapiro, Cash Patel, Tim Pool, Tucker Carlson, Rudy Giuliani. They want to censor them. Do you think they’re going to stop on Election Day? No. And Judicial Watch has been not only kind of pushing back, obviously, as I’m talking about in this program, but we’ve been litigating on the issue, exposing the improper censorship, suing to stop the improper censorship. And we’re not going to stop. And Media Matters, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Biden White House, the Harris White House. Assuming it comes to be some deep stater in the Trump administration who doesn’t like what we’re doing, some state government official who doesn’t like what we’re doing, we’re not going to back down.

We’re going to continue to stand strong for the rule of law, clean and fair elections. If we don’t have clean and fair elections. Everything else is for naught. If we don’t get to select who runs the country in a way that’s legit, we’ve lost. So we will continue with the heavy lifting, no matter the opponent, and we’re able to do it. And the reason they’re targeting us is because we’ve got such strong support from you, the American people. And I hope it continues. Oh, yeah, by the way, it’s still going on because I was thinking about that Washington Post piece.

There was just a story up in Pennsylvania that they were messing with voters waiting in line in Bucks county improperly telling them to go home. And the left is like yelling at us for exposing that and yelling at Trump for being upset about it. I mean, the Washington Post is just horrible. Did you see this? I don’t know. Do we have the video still of you? You it so Hugh Hewitt is a radio talk show host, writer, He’s a contributing writer, op ed columnist for the Washington Post. And he was on with two leftists on the Washington Post talking about the election controversies that may ensue.

As you know, disputes arise related to the election here. Let’s just go to the tape here. Me or does it seem like this week Donald Trump is laying the groundwork for contesting the election by complaining that cheating was taking place in Pennsylvania, by suing Bucks county for alleged irregularities. And this is on top of his continual assertion that if he loses, it’s because of cheating. Yeah, that’s what he’s been laying the groundwork for. This just not in the last week, but in the last umpty ump months. No election can be fair unless Donald in Donald Trump’s mind, unless Donald Trump wins it.

And I think we are going to see him both rev up his supporters to contest elections outside of courtrooms and go to every courtroom he can in America where it’s relevant to make whatever arguments he can, no matter how far fetched. We saw Jonathan last time, but it didn’t work out. It may not. That may not happen this time. And now I’ll let you go, Hugh. Well, I’ve just got to say we’re news people. Even though it’s opinion section, it’s got to be reported. Bucks county was reversed by the court and instructed to open up extra days because they violated the law and told people to go home.

So that lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee and it was successful. The Supreme Court ruled that Glenn Youngkin was successful. We are news people even though we have opinions and we have to report the whole story, if we bring up part of the story. So, yes, he’s upset about Bucks county, but he was right and he won in court. That’s the story. I’ll let you keep going, Jonathan. No, I’m just. I don’t appreciate being lectured about reporting when Hugh, many times you come here saying lots of things that aren’t. I will come back. I’m done.

This is the most unfair election ad I have ever been a part of. You guys are working. That’s fine. I’m done. Well, I don’t blame Mr. Hewitt for leaving. And evidently he quit writing after that. That’s how awful the Washington Post is. And that’s the company that’s targeting your Judicial Watch. And that’s what they think of anyone who dares to dispute anything in the election. Elections. It’s snark, nasty partisan, leftist ideology that is guiding coverage of our elections. And you need to understand that as these debates ensue, the author of Rights and Freedoms in Peril, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

I love watching Chad do what he does. You and I have seen this merry go round before. Yeah. I mean, you can set your clock. You’ve got Thanksgiving, budget, shut down, politics, Christmas, and then we go into January. This is a planned crisis to guarantee that spending continues as it’s been spent, as it’s been spent previously. So the Biden regime will get funded essentially even into the Trump administration for a month or two as a result of this. This is why conservatives are disappointed repeatedly in this process, because we don’t get the cuts, we don’t get the policy wins.

So Schumer gets this deadline politics, and the right isn’t able to leverage it into policy wins. It’s unfortunate. And also the left is so disciplined, Tom. They stick together. The right almost never does. And this is what happens as a result of a lot of hard work. At least in this case, though, the Democrats didn’t get everything they wanted. Certainly Nothing like that 1500 page monstrosity. Let me ask you about the incoming president. His team filing an amicus brief over the Biden border wall sale. This is a crazy story. Let me share part of it. This brief, according to this headline in Newsmax, filed in the Southern District of Texas, argues that Trump has made clear his support for building a system of border barriers at the southwestern border and that building the border wall is the clear and emphatic policy of the incoming Trump administration.

I am aghast that one administration would decide to sell material that could obviously be used by the income and for Pennies on the dollar. Why are they doing this? It’s petty and juvenile. How else can you explain it? It shows contempt for the concerns American people, the American people have about the border. When you look at the legal pleadings here, there’s a serious issue about whether what they’re doing is even legal or not. Hmm. And this is just the Biden administration. I don’t remember the Clinton was. At the end of the Clinton years, they were taking off the keys from keyboards.

Absolutely. This is the equivalent of it. But it’s much more serious because now if some of this stuff is sold, it’s hard to get back and it costs taxpayers more money to replace. Let me ask you real quick about the Fani Willis case down in the great state of Georgia. She’s been removed. What say you? Where are we? Why did that happen and what happens next? Well, the appellate court overruled the lower court by saying, you know, you just can’t pretend this issue is okay because Nathan Wade is barred from the case. She still has this appearance of a conflict, the appearance of impropriety, that makes it impossible for her to continue in her office.

To continue. So that case really is effectively dead unless it’s resurrected by another prosecutor. The state could squelch it at this point. And on top of that, we’ve got our own litigation. Judicial Watch does over her communications with the January Six Committee and the Biden Justice Department. She was found in default in that case. Said she didn’t have documents. Now she says she does have documents. She doesn’t want to turn them over to us. So that case is going to continue. So she’s. She’s in a corner in terms of a. She’s been. Her case is dead, and there’s going to be accountability for what she did, at least through our case.

I think that this is only the beginning of what could possibly happen to her. Her career and this particular case, I think, is out the window. There’s no way. I don’t care if you’re DeKalb or Cobb or any other county, you’re like, you want no part of this. Good to see my friend Tom Finn joining us. Merry Christmas. Thank you. Merry Christmas, buddy. Appreciate you. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

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