Summary
➡ A police officer, Lieutenant Byrd, left his loaded gun in a public bathroom at the Capitol Visitor Center, a busy tourist spot. Despite previous incidents and failing firearm qualifications, Byrd was allowed to continue his duties. He was involved in an unjustified shooting of Ashley Babbitt, a visitor to the Capitol. A lawsuit has been filed seeking justice for Ashley’s wrongful death and government accountability.
➡ Judicial Watch is investigating the shooting of Ashley Babbitt and alleges that the officers involved acted improperly. The organization also claims that the shooter, Byrd, was given special treatment and that the investigation into the incident was not thorough. In addition, Judicial Watch is pursuing a $30 million lawsuit on behalf of Babbitt’s estate. The organization also uncovered information about a cocaine scandal at the White House, where the drug was found in a small locker and the evidence was later destroyed.
➡ The article discusses a scandal involving cocaine found in the White House, causing disruptions in the city due to street closures. It also mentions President Biden’s decision not to seek re-election, which has raised concerns about who will be the next Democratic nominee. The author suggests that Biden’s decision was influenced by pressure from other Democrats and questions his ability to serve as president due to cognitive challenges. The author calls for an emergency investigation into Biden’s fitness for office and suggests a snap national primary to select a new nominee.
➡ The speaker questions Biden’s ability to make rational decisions due to his perceived cognitive disability and criticizes the Democratic Party for ignoring this issue. They express concern over the potential replacement of Biden with Kamala Harris as the presidential candidate, calling it a political coup. The speaker also criticizes Biden’s governance style and alleged corruption. They promise to investigate the legality and validity of Harris’s nomination and the potential violation of voters’ rights.
Transcript
She and Aaron owned a pool cleaning business together and you know, she came to Washington because she wanted to support President Trump, participate in that rally. She traveled here alone and she was shot for no good reason by Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the United States Capitol Police. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California. So it was filed out in San Diego. And as I said, it was filed on behalf of, of the family of Ashley Babbitt, who is the, as I said, the US Air Force veteran shot that day on January 6.
And I’ll say it once if I won’t say it again, I will, let’s put it, I’ll say it once and then I’ll say it again, is what I mean to say. Ashley Babbitt was the only homicide victim that day at the January 6 disturbance. And the left media and the politicians pushing a January 6 narrative that’s anti Trump and anti Trump supporter in order to justify their abuses of law, don’t want you to know that. But that’s the darn truth. And we want the government to be held accountable for what its employee did. The lawsuit includes claims against the United States government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence issues.
Babbitt was a 35 year old Air Force veteran, a resident of San Diego, where she owned and operated a successful pool business with her husband Aaron. Ashley traveled alone from San Diego to Washington, DC to attend the woman for America first rally on January 6 at the Ellipse. Ashley loved her country as the lawsuit details, and wanted to show her support for President trumps America first policies and to see and hear the president speak while live, while he remained in office. Ashley did not go to Washington as part of a group or for any unlawful or nefarious purpose.
She was there to exercise what she believed were, were her God given american liberties and freedoms. After the rally, Ashley, like great many other patriotic americans attending the rally, walked to the Capitol peacefully, a distance of about one and a half miles, two undercover Metropolitan Police Department officials officers followed close behind Ashley as she climbed the stairs to the west terrace. Ashley entered the Capitol on the Senate side long after others had done so. Once inside, Ashley encountered a female Capitol police officer who directed her to walk south towards the House side. Ashley complied, walking alone.
Alone, excuse me, walking alone through the Capitol and ultimately arriving at the hallway outside the main door to the house chamber where demonstrators had gathered. From there, Ashley walked by herself east along the hallway outside the house chamber, then turned south, reaching the hallway outside the speaker’s lobby at the southeast corner of the Capitol. The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the speaker’s lobby. And I think in the lawsuit itself, I think we have a copy of the, there’s a photo of the speaker’s lobby area where Ashley was killed, and maybe the guys can pull that up while I’m reading.
After demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby, two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door sidelight. Lieutenant Byrd, who was a United States Capitol police commander and was incident commander for the House on January 6, 2021. So he was a senior guy, shot Ashley on site as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as a female. Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Lieutenant Bird and other officers in the lobby.
The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Lieutenant Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. The lawsuit further states Lieutenant Byrd, who is a United States Capitol Police commander and was the incident commander, as I said, for the house on January 6, shot Ashley as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight. Not one member of Congress was in the lobby, which was guarded by multiple armed police officers. Additional armed police officers were in the hallway outside the lobby and or the adjoining stairway.
Ashley could not have seen Lieutenant Byrd, who was positioned far to Ashley’s left and on the opposite side of the doors near an opening to the retiring room at a distance of approximately 15ft at an angle of approximately 160 degrees. Sergeant Timothy Lively, one of the armed officers guarding the lobby doors from the hallway, later told officials investigating the shooting, I saw him. There was no way that that woman would have seen that. Lieutenant Byrd, who was not in uniform, did not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence known to Ashley. Lieutenant Byrd did not give Ashley any warnings or commands before shooting her dead.
Ashley remained conscious for minutes or longer after being shot by Lieutenant Byrdez. Ashley experienced extreme pain, suffering mental anguish and intense fear before slipping into preterminal unconsciousness. The autopsy report identified the cause of death as a gunshot wound to left anterior shoulder with onset interval of minutes. The fact that Ashley was alive and conscious in extreme pain and suffering is documented in videos of the shooting. Furthermore, nothing about the wound track described in the autopsy report would be expected to result in immediate death or instantaneous loss of consciousness. And Ashley’s lungs contained blood, further confirming that she was alive and breathing after being shot.
Ashley was pronounced dead at Washington Hospital center at 315. The medical examiner determined that the manner of death was homicide. So this is an important lawsuit, and it’s important because an american citizen, Ashley Babbitt, was shot and killed in a way that was unlawful and proper by a United States Capitol police officer, the official police force of Congress. January 6 I guess President Biden is going to use January 6 as an excuse to justify his effort to jail his political enemies. This weekend has been used as a leverage, a fulcrum to leverage attacks on the political opponents of the left.
And Ashley Babbitt’s shooting death is an inconvenient truth in that regard. What the facts show there that she was unlawfully killed and that there was no accountability for Lieutenant Byrd or anyone else who is responsible for what happened that day in terms of managing and training and supervising the police on site there. And the left, media and partisans have sought to downplay Ashleys death suggest that she had it coming. And other smears and vicious comments that would never be used to justify the shooting death in similar circumstances of any other american citizen. I mean, there isnt a police officer whos honest in the land who would look at what happened to Ashley that day.
And youve seen the video of the shooting death, and if you havent, you can go look it up quickly. Unjustified. Completely unjustified. Now, the Justice Department refused to pursue criminal charges against Lieutenant Byrd, though in their conclusion, I dont think they said the shooting was justified. They just said that they didnt have enough to charge him, or that’s what they told us. Whether I believe it or not is another matter, given the politics of the situation, as I disclosed. And then on top of that administratively, he was investigated by the Capitol police, and they did nothing, too.
So no accountability. And this lawsuit is designed to provide accountability and a more full understanding of the truth of what happened on January 6. And one of the big issues is the conduct of Lieutenant Byrd. That was an out of control situation that he created, popping out and shooting Ashley like he did. And as the lawsuit describes, Lieutenant Byrds employer, namely the Capitol Police board, ultimately Congress, obviously the US Capitol Police knew or should have known that Lieutenant Byrd was prone to behave in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner. And we make the following allegations in this lawsuit.
Less than two years before January 6, 2021, on or about February 25, 2019, Byrd left his loaded Glock 22, the same firearm he used to shoot and kill Ashley Babbitt, in a bathroom in the Capitol visitor center complex. Now, the Capitol Visitor center complex is, if you’ve ever visited the Capitol, you got the big capitol, right? And in front of it on the east side of the Capitol is a giant plaza. And what they’ve done, at great taxpayer expense, is on that plaza facing the Capitol underground, there’s this huge visitor center where tourists enter for tours before they go up into the Capitol.
There are meeting rooms and conference facilities such down there as well. So thousands of people go through that facility every day. And he left it in a bathroom there. The loaded Glock was discovered during a routine security sweep later that same day. I mean, I wonder how many hours he didn’t have his gun without knowing it. I’d like to know that little detail. Approximately 15,000 to 20,000 people passed through the Capitol Visitors center, which serves as the main entrance for visitors to the US Capitol during peak season. Lawmakers and staff charged with oversight at the Capitol police were not made aware of the incident until contacted by a reporter.
So this happened. And none of the leadership knew that this serious incident had happened. Unbelievable. His police powers had been revoked on more than one occasion prior to January 6, 2021, for failing to meet or complete semiannual firearms qualification requirements. Imagine that. I mean, again, if there are law enforcement watching this or former law enforcement or folks who are generally aware of the requirements for law enforcement training, I appreciate your responses to what I’m disclosing here because I think, and I think other viewers would appreciate it, too, because it’s really difficult to overstate how outrageous it was that Byrd was allowed to continue his duties, given these issues.
And it gets worse. In fact, Byrd had a reputation among peers for not being a good shot under the USCP’s range management system, the capital police’s range management system. An officer who fails to meet qualifications, qualification, excuse me, who fails to meet firearm qualification requirements is given one week of remedial training if the officer still fails to qualify after remedial training, police powers are then revoked until the officers qualify. Until the officer qualifies. His police powers were also revoked for a prior off duty shooting into a stolen moving vehicle in which the occupants were teenagers or juveniles.
The stolen vehicle was Lieutenant Byrd’s. Cardinal Bird fired multiple shots at the fleeing vehicle in a suburban area. Stray bullets from bird’s firearms struck the sides of homes nearby. An official investigation found that Lieutenant Byrd’s use of force was not justified. What was going on that he was allowed to continue, as I said, in his duties, which involved protecting the US Capitol and the visitors to the capitol. We’re seeking, excuse me, judicial watch details in its complaint that plaintiffs seek the full and just amount of $30 million plus costs and interest according to law and any and all further relief to which plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
As I said, it was filed out in San Diego and I think the government has 60 days to respond the lawsuit, it was filed by our lawyers out there. Robert Stick worked on it. I think hes the lead lawyer in the case and obviously our team here in Washington DC as well. But it was, its an important lawsuit in the sense that the governments finally going to be held accountable here and no one else in Congress was willing to look seriously what Byrd did. Republicans have been controlling the House for a year and they haven’t done jack on holding Lieutenant Byrd accountable, haven’t done anything.
And you know, as I said, we’re honored. Let me read what I said in the complaint here or, excuse me, in the press release. The only homicide on January 6 was the unlawful shooting death of Ashley Babbitt. Her homicide by Lieutenant Byrd is a scandal beyond belief. This historic lawsuit seeks a measure of justice and government accountability for Ashley’s wrongful death. Judicial Watch and our supporters are honored to represent Ashley’s steadfast widower, Aaron Babbitt and her estate in this legal action. Ashley was shot in cold blood and the rule of law requires justice for her. And I’m also, and I know her mother, Mickey is a regular now here in Washington, DC.
I see her all over town and I met her. I think there’s a picture of her and me. I put in Twitter just recently, guys, if you want a show. And she’s been out trying to get justice for her daughter as well. So, you know, pray for her mom as well, Ashley’s mom. And we’re just so honored to bring this claim for her and we’ve been very much interested in January 6 for the reasons I stated. January 6 was being, there’s a picture of me with Ashley’s mother at CPAC last year. She’s a wonderful woman. And, you know, and I’ve looked at the videos time and time again, and obviously more repeatedly recently.
And I, frankly, you know, just speaking as Tom Fitna, I just can’t believe they shot her. I can’t believe that police officer shot her. I mean, when you look at the video, I encourage you to look at the video again. The fact that nothing had been done in terms of accountability for that obviously bad shooting, that unlawful shooting, is just beyond belief. And every police officer is, you know, you have all these police officers dying in the line of duty, putting their lives on the line, doing all this wonderful work to protect the public safety. And this one officer engages in this misconduct, and he gets away with it to date.
And I wanted to go into a little bit more in the lawsuit. Here’s the lawsuit. That’s what the lawsuit looks like. You probably can’t see because it’s all white. And I’ll show you up close what it looks like. There you go. Now you really can’t see anything, can you? State of Ashley Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt, individually and on behalf of the state of Ashley Babbitt, plaintiffs, versus the United States of America, complaint for assault and battery, negligence, negligent supervision, discipline and retention, negligent training, survival and wrongful death. So it’s a survival action, right? The survivor can sue in circumstances, as we’re describing.
So in the lawsuit, we go into detail, and I encourage you to read the lawsuit completely, because it will explain just how off the bird killing of Babbitt was and how unjustified it was. Because, you know, when you’re filing a lawsuit like this, that issue is going to be, what are the general training requirements, certainly for the police agency here, you know, what the law allows, what discretion police officers have, et cetera, et cetera. And we describe just how awful that shooting was with some detail that I think is quite powerful. When Lieutenant Byrd shot and killed Ashley, he breached multiple applicable standards of care governing a, the safe use of a firearm, the perception and assessment of imminent threats, use of force levels and escalation, de escalation of force, the perception and assessment of relevant facts, the use of warnings, firing backdrops.
Think of the back. Think literally, what is the backdrop of what he was firing into a crowd of people, including other police officers, and obtaining timely, appropriate medical aid, among other breaches to be identified through discovery. Had Lieutenant Byrd adhered to these standards, he would not have fired and Ashley would be alive today. And we describe his negligent use of the firearm, or we allege it here, Lieutenant Bird breached standards of care in the following ways, among others, to be identified through discovery, unholstering his firearm before he even saw Ashley, and therefore before any expected prudent and lawful discharge, unquote, while leaving his position in the retiring room and advancing, moving to the doors of the speaker’s lobby, failing to maintain his unholstered weapon at low ready, and instead pointing his firearm at no fewer than three people on the other side of the lobby doors and in the direction of Ashley, and as many as seven uniformed officers positioned near her in the hallway and holding his finger inside the trigger guard and tapping his finger on and off the trigger for at least 14 seconds before he saw and shot Astley.
So not a good shooting, you know, and that’s a nice way of saying he killed her unlawfully, but it was a homicide and it was an unlawful shooting. I don’t know how else to describe it. It’s just awful and it’s shameful that our government hasn’t taken responsibility to for it, both in terms of holding Byrd accountable and holding itself accountable through the processes available. And then on top of that, there were three police officers who were present on the other side of the door. So you think of the door being closed, Ashley and some of the other demonstrators are on one side of the door, birds on the other side.
Well, there were three police officers on Ashleys side of the door who were standing in front of the doorway, who then left. And after they stepped aside, other demonstrators started breaking into the, you know, breaking the glass. And Ashley became agitated. You know, she had law enforcement background. Its clear to the video, at least from, to my eye, that she was upset by what was going on. She requesting that the officers do something, and obviously seconds later she was shot. And when you watch the videos, you’ll see other officers right behind. So Ashley gets, you know, she’s up in the window.
Byrd shoots at her like that. She falls back and there are officers immediately behind her as she shot, who could have been killed also by birdhouse if the shot had gone awry further beyond Ashley. And the officer who immediately is next to Ashley and closest to the door aims his weapon, clearly ready to shoot because he didnt know where the bullet was coming from. So the tragedy could have been even worse if that officer had shot to defend himself and others based on this crazed shooting by bird. And so the lawsuit alleges that those officers shouldn’t have left their posts like that.
And now judicial watch has been front and center of investigating not only the Babbitt issue. You know, we uncovered that Byrd was given special sweetheart treatment and allowed to stay at Andrews Air Force Base for a long period of time at taxpayer expense, that he didnt give any official statement to investigators. He didnt talk. He refused to talk. He was given a special dispensation to kind of go through a walkthrough with an unofficial statement. So they did no serious investigation, nothing similar to the other investigations. We’ve all, you know, if you’re a citizen who keeps up with the news, you know, generally what happens when there’s a police shooting where there’s an issue about, right.
There are grand juries in panel. There are a series of investigative steps that take place. And there’s no indication any of that took place with respect to Byrd, because, as I would suggest, it was a political operation that stepped up after Ashley Babbitt shooting, and that meant she wasn’t going to get justice. So pretty much everything we know about the Babbitt shooting is as a result of Judicial Watch’s litigation to date through FOIA. Now, obviously, we’re going to gain more information, disclosed it through the allegations in the complaint. That is, I would believe, to be educational and newsworthy and obviously useful for proving our case on behalf of the Babbitt estate and Aaron in court.
But you can be sure that as this case proceeds, if it’s allowed to proceed, because you never know what the court’s going to do. But we’ll get more information through discovery, as we discussed earlier, that we’re going to find out more about what happened around that shooting death. So when it comes to, like, the full story on January 6, you can trust judicial Watch, you can’t trust Congress. I mean, that January 6 report is an abomination. The rump committee set up by Pelosi that involved no participation. Bye. The republican party, yes, I know she appointed Republicans, but they werent representing the Republican Party.
They were there at her sufferance. And the republican leadership had no role in that investigation, as is typically in congressional investigations. And, of course, we now know, or I shouldnt say we now know, its obvious January 6 has been used to justify trying to jail Trump, trying to take Trump off the ballot. The one party state approach, thats what the left wants now, by the way, a one party state that when you go to, that when you go to vote in November, they want only one candidate on the ballot. I dont even think they do that in Russia.
I think they have candidates in Russia that they allow on the ballot. They harass the heck out of them. But this is the revolutionary state were in, where the left is revolting against the very idea of free and fair elections and is rushing America towards a one party state by trying to keep Trump off the ballot based on what happened on January 6. And so the story that Ashley Babbitt was improperly killed by a police officer doesnt help that cause, doesnt it? And thats why she hasnt gotten justice to date. So we’re going to pursue this $30 million lawsuit for Ashley Babbitt.
If you like what judicial watch is doing here, I encourage you to support our work. You can go to judicialwatch.org, comma, donate to our cause. You not only help with the lawsuit for Ashley’s estate and Aaron Babbitt, her widower, but, you know, all of our other important litigation that we’re pursuing and our educational activities, such as what you’re hearing now. You know, we can only do it with your voluntary support. You remember that Biden White House cocaine scandal? I’m sure you do. Right? That was interesting. They found the, I call it a dimebag. I think I said a dimebag.
And people online said, well, you don’t know what a dime bag is? I don’t know. That’s what I call it. It’s a tiny little dime bag of cocaine was found inside the White House. And there were numerous reports as to where in the White House it was found. And it turns out, according to the documents we just uncovered, thanks to a Freedom of Information act lawsuit, they were found in the cubby hole, excuse me, there was little lockers. When you enter the White House, let’s say you want to enter the White House to visit the Oval Office.
So you go through the doors, the marines are there. Secret Service agents are all bunched around there, by the way. And as you go in on your left, there’s a little anteroom, small room. I mean, two or three people in there. It’s a bit of a crowd. And you’re supposed to place your cell phone in there. And they found the coke in one of those little lockers that, you know, you put your cell phone in and take the key and keep it. And judicial watch had seen what went on with this, with this cocaine scandal. There was obviously a big to do about it.
And the Secret Service pretended they couldn’t find, I shouldn’t say, pretended, concluded they couldn’t find where they didn’t have enough evidence to figure out who did it. And most people presumed it was a member of Biden’s family. Given the security situation at the White House, that it’s almost impossible to get any drug quantity like that into the White House unless you are able to bypass security or have the necessary protection in order to get it through without being stopped. And so we asked for documents under the Freedom of Information act, and we finally got them. And they include, for the first time, photos of where the material where the cocaine was found.
And there you go. That’s the little cubby where you put your cell phone as I talked about. That’s the little dime bag. That’s what I keep on calling a dime bag. I’m going to keep on calling it a dime bag. Description of where it was found. What else do we have there, guys? Another picture. These are all from judicial watches. Foia. Okay, now let’s stop there. So that’s the west wing lobby entrance. So you enter that lobby and you go through those doors. To the left is the anteroom. Almost immediately. Let’s bring back that picture there.
If you enter those doors, to the left, immediately is the little room where the cocaine supposedly was found. That’s what at least the pictures indicate. So it’s a small, you know, it’s a small area. And I want you to imagine just past those doors, typically there are three or four large marines, secret Service guys looming. So they’re watching everything that’s going on. So I’d like to know how that coat got there and what’s interesting about the. And then if you go through, there’s a receptionist on the right. Once you get through that doorway as well, and you kind of wait out front, there are some couches.
And to the left, again, you go down the hall, and I think it’s like a 32nd walk. You’re in the oval office. So this is as close to the center of power in the world as you can get. And they don’t know how it got there. Now, the documents also suggest, and maybe I should have led with this, that they destroyed the cocaine. Let me get to that part. A July 2 incident report indicates the investigation lasted twelve days and that cocaine and sodium bicarbonate were identified within the item. Also, DNA test results did not identify an individual responsible for the placement of the item within the west wing of the White House complex.
The report states that on July 14, the cocaine was placed on the property evidence book for destruction. So they’re going to destroy the evidence even though they haven’t figured out who brought the cocaine there. I mean, isn’t it just a cold case? Why would you destroy the evidence? I don’t know what, to be fair to the Secret Service, I don’t know what their rules and procedures are here, but I’ve been around the block long enough, working at Judicial watch for 25 years, believe it or not, and having watched and analyzed numerous federal administrative and criminal investigations, that this is an, this would be an unusual move for this material to have been destroyed and inappropriate.
What I also found interesting about this, these documents, and I want to go back earlier because I wanted to talk about the disruption here. This isn’t a joke. I mean, a, they didn’t know what the substance was immediately, so they had to evacuate the White House. And not only that, but it disrupted the entire city because the documents show, I don’t think I have the quote here. The documents show that they closed 17th street, and I think they closed H Street. So the 17th street, by the way, is a road that goes, I’m trying to think how to describe it.
If you’ve been to Washington, you, you know 17th street. If you’re facing the front of the White, the White House facing north, 17th street is on the left and it’s the major exit way for people exiting downtown, excuse me, to get out of town or come into town. So closing 17th street is extremely disruptive to the city. And I think H Street was also closed. H Street is a block or two north past Lafayette park. Lafayette park was where all the communists were trying to kill Trump in 2020, and then they were trying to storm and the communists were trying to get into the White House and seemingly destroy the White House just a week or so ago as well.
So thats where people congregate in front of for protests and such. And its a nice park. Its Lafayette park honoring Lafayette, the french hero who helped America win the revolution. And H Street is beyond that. So thats kind of a hike away from the White House as far as Im concerned. But if that was closed, and I think it was, at least in part, that’s the main way to get from downtown to Capitol Hill. So it’s terribly disruptive. So the city was shut down in part over this little bag, and they can’t figure out who did it.
And we have the documents, as I say, obtained them. The records were also given to the Daily Mail, who also did a story on this. These photos and documents detail the disruption and expense of the Biden White House cocaine scandal. Few Americans, and I dare say you included, buy that the Biden administration can’t figure out who brought this cocaine into the west Wing. Indeed, the lack of documentation about the investigation of who is responsible is striking. What’s interesting is that supposedly they were interviewing and analyzing all these people who had access to the west Wing at the time.
I don’t have any of those documents here. I don’t know where they are. I think this is the last from what I recall. I don’t think they plan to give us anything else. So was this a non investigation? It sounds like it to me. Once again, secret Service being abused and misused by Biden to protect him from the consequences of yet another scandal, in this case, the cocaine in the White House. The big news this weekend, in case youve missed it, is that President Biden has declined and decided to seek reelection. He posted a weird letter on Sunday.
No ones seen hide or hear of him in several days now, leading again to a deepening of the crisis because many Americans are concerned whos running the store. Heres the letter he posted, just an incredible letter in many respects. And, you know, in the center part of the letter, he promotes, obviously, his work on as president. But heres the kicker. It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your president. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party. He puts the party first and then the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as president for the remainder of my term.
And then he says, I will speak to the nation later this week in more detail about my decision. Now, Covid supposedly has caused the president to social distance, and using that as an excuse not to communicate with american citizens is really quite unusual, especially given the gravity of his momentous decision and a decision that I don’t think was voluntarily made. As I noted in the statement I issued on behalf of judicial watch today, I’ll read it for you today, right now. And just cut to the chase. President Joe Bidens resignation from the presidential race is the result of a corrupt, arrogant, and anti democratic process.
Biden was forced to pull out of the presidential race as a result of a dangerously, as I say, corrupt pressure campaign led by Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and like minded Democrats, which has effectively disenfranchised 14 million Americans who voted in the democratic presidential primaries. Few Americans will buy the DC establishment scheme to remove Biden from the presidential campaign over cognitive issues while ignoring his inability to serve as commander in chief, Vice President Kamala Harris the majority of the cabinet, along with the american people, need to step up and invoke the 25th, 5th Amendment. And Congress should do an emergency investigation into Biden’s fitness for office.
The assassination attempt on former President Trump adds increased urgency to ensure we have a fully capable president. This is truly a national security crisis. And to make matters worse, we have this coup against democracy, as the left likes to say. We’re not going to know who the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of president of the United States will be until August, if they get their way. It’s election interference, pure and simple. There’s nothing about this process that’s normal, appropriate, or honest. A snap national primary or primaries to pick a new nominee would seem to be the most democratic approach to Biden’s decision not to seek reelection.
At a minimum, a careful state by state and federal legal analysis is a necessary first step to help determine whether Biden can be replaced on the presidential ballot at this late stage in the presidential campaign. And judicial watch is already investigating this election integrity issue. That the votes of 14 million Americans would be casually tossed aside by democratic party elites is a major corruption and election interference, scandalous. So lets not pretend this is normal. Lets not be distracted by the democratic party in almost soviet style schemes, essentially installing a candidate for the presidency outside the democratic process.
And I know, I dont want lectures about how America is in a democracy. Im using democratic in the sense of, of people voting for a candidate of their choice. And so this will be done with no votes in the ordinary course, as has been done in the modern era, in selecting presidents. Now, this used to be done back in the day, but again, in the name of democracy, we have eliminated party conventions, largely being able to pick candidates absent extraordinary circumstances. And so I don’t know exactly what the law is, but I do know what, what the concerns are that we’ve had a campaign.
President Trump spent millions of dollars in a battle against Biden. American citizens were asked to vote for Biden, reassured and assured repeatedly up until the very minute he said, I’m not doing it anymore, that he’s in the race, that he’s the candidate, and all of a sudden, that’s gone. And there’s no substitution thats democratically placed. You know, in the United Kingdom, they had a snap election, national election, and they picked a new government. The Democratic Party can get a snapped primary election to ensure that voters, at least in their party, have a say. And to do it any other way is that the new rule, primaries dont matter because if they dont like the result or the candidate seems to be going south a bit in the polls, you just throw them out.
How is that fair? How is that appropriate? Either you have primaries and you stick to the candidate absent a death or disability, or you don’t. And again, this is not a political issue. Some people might think Kamala is a better person to run against, excuse me, Trump, depending. And Democrats might think she’s a worse person to run against Trump. It doesn’t matter. The question is, who decides who’s the candidate and how is that process? How does that process comport with the ideals that we have in terms of selecting the person who’s going to be our president? So Kamala Harris is going to be the nominee for president, having gotten no votes from any american citizen to be that nominee in the year 2024.
And as I said in his statement, we all know how this worked. Donors pressured Biden. Obama pressured Biden. Pelosi pressured Biden. Schumer pressured Biden. The Democratic Party and their media acolytes carpet bombed the White House to force him out of the campaign. And why is he out of the campaign? It’s not purely politics. It’s because of his cognitive challenges. So a lot of Republicans are rightly asking how it is he can be the president. He doesnt have the cognitive ability, he doesnt have the health resources to run as president. But dont worry, we can trust him to be president.
Thats not how it works. And thats why the 25th amendment or additional pressure on him to resign, in my view, should be applied because I think we’re in crisis. It’s not because I don’t like his politics. I don’t like his policy. I mean, Trump was nearly killed. Is Biden in a position to run the Secret Service? It’s his responsibility. Ultimately, of course, he’s nothing. Is Biden capable of making decisions related to life and death as commander in chief? Of course hes not. No one believes that. Now, do I trust Kamala to make better decisions? Not necessarily.
But at least I know theres not a cognitive disability that precludes her from making decisions in a rational basis, even if I might disagree with them. And Im not going to say, oh, well, its better to have her as vice president than president because its easy for the campaign. No, thats not the way its going to work with me. I understand why partisans might like that, but I like to think Im taking a principled approach here, a rule of law approach, a constitutional approach. Because we’re in a crisis right now. Our country is being destabilized by Biden’s cognitive disability that has yet to be addressed by the powers that be.
And the Democratic Party wants to steamroll right over the issue. They don’t care about democracy. They don’t care about elections. And again, that’s not a partisan point. It’s a factual point. Where are they? How do they, how can you care about an election while throwing out the primary votes of 14 million Americans? How can you care about democracy when you decide to replace a candidate for president of the United States through fiat? I hereby declare that Kamala Harris is the new candidate. That’s what Pelosi is saying. That’s what Clinton is saying. Thats what all the democrats are saying.
Although I dont know if Obama is saying that yet. He may have a different idea, but Im sure hell come back, hell come round on that. And of course, there are these legal issues about removing him from the campaign or from the ballot in the various states. Its much more complicated when you get into that area. But I don’t know. Are there legal issues with changing out the candidate like they proposed to do? We’re going to take a look at it. That’s where we stand. In the meantime, we still have this terrible Biden corruption that’s being pursued against Trump.
We have the corruption of his Justice Department, protecting him and his son from the full consequences, legal and otherwise, related to the powerful evidence of their criminal activities. I know everyones writing their little history lessons on the Biden presidency, and its all been, you know, largely democrat or left leaning analyses. I mean, hes been acting as a dictator embracing this communist approach to governance where hes been engaged in fiat management of the government, trying to jail his political opponents. Thats not a presidency to be celebrating. So as far as I’m concerned, the left and this corrupt DC establishment shouldn’t be allowed have their cake and eat it, too.
They want to try to change out the candidate for president. It necessarily follows Joe Biden can’t be president at all. So that’s where things stand as of today. You know, I said a few weeks ago that I heard from a source that Biden was leaving and I thought he was going to leave the presidency. At least that was my word. I guess I was a few weeks late or early on that prognostication. Right. But now he’s out of the campaign, just a few weeks before the convention, a few months before the election. It’s chaos. And I was talking to one of my colleagues today, he pointed out, he goes, oh, the new word of the day is rally.
All the Democrats are rallying around Kamala Harris. I mean, that’s just party discipline. That has nothing to do with good governance and as I say, democracy. But you can trust judicial watch to actually defend democracy, defend the rule of law, and hold these politicians accountable for what they aim to do in any way we can. Just today it’s reported that Kamala Harris is the official nominee for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party. And just like that, we’re supposed to move on. 15 million votes have been obliviated. Is that even a word? Sounds like one democratic party.
They don’t care about the democratic party voters. They just throw, she’s the first major party nominee in the modern era. I think you’d have to go before, I think you’d have to go to 68 at least. But even then, they had individual primaries that no voter has voted for in a primary. It’s purely a political coup. And the left gets angry when I call it a political coup. There’s been reporting that Barack Obama threatened Biden. According to Seymour Hirsch, the long time journalist. He said, joe, leave or were going to invoke the 25th amendment. Ive got Kamala, Kamala and Pelosi and Schumer all on board.
So it was a threat. And if that happened, it was a crime. I talked about it here. Hey, everyone, theres breaking news that the 25th amendment was used, used as a threat against Joe Biden by Barack Obama, Harris and Pelosi to force them out of the campaign. If true, it would be a crime. But obviously the Justice Department isn’t going to do much of an investigation. But you can be sure judicial watch will. We’ve already launched an investigation into the 25th amendment crisis related to Joe Biden. So we’re already on it. So I think it’s an open question about the validity of Kamala Harris’s nominee for the presidency.
Nomination for the presidency. I think it’s an open question about whether the rights, the voting rights of those Americans who participated in the primary have been violated. So I think there has to be a careful analysis of federal and state laws in that regard. I mean, it may be in the end she’s the nominee and that’s just the reality of it. But why is it we just have to sit back and not ask questions? We’re going to ask questions. That’s what we do. How did she get the job? It’s a coup when someone in power essentially is told they can’t remain in power under threat of government action.
Force. That’s what government action is. It’s force. So we’re going to investigate it. We’ve already got foias out. The left doesnt want us to do it. Congress doesnt want to do it. Some Republicans want Trump Biden to stay and dont care about the 25th amendment. Thats fine. Thats a political argument. I think that shouldnt be the issue. The issue is, can he make decisions that arent going to harm Americans? And I dont think he can because hes cognitively disabled. 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.
Author
