➡ The Epstein scandal is causing issues for the Trump administration, with many Americans wanting Epstein’s records released. President Trump has been resistant due to concerns of misinformation being used against him and others. There’s been internal conflict within the Justice Department and FBI over the issue. The suggested solution is to release all legally releasable records under the Freedom of Information Act to restore public confidence.
➡ The speaker believes that politically sensitive investigations should be handled by the president, not the Justice Department or FBI. He also discusses the Epstein case, suggesting that all records should be released for transparency and accountability. He criticizes the concept of ranked choice voting, finding it confusing and potentially manipulative. He encourages the president to follow Judicial Watch’s lead in promoting transparency and adherence to the law.
➡ The text discusses concerns about ranked choice voting, suggesting it’s complex and could undermine the principle of one person, one vote. It also raises concerns about a potential mayoral candidate who is a recent citizen and allegedly supports terrorism and communism. The author suggests this candidate could face investigation for potentially misleading affiliations during his naturalization process. Lastly, the text criticizes the handling of funds given to Gaza by the Biden administration, and the lack of transparency in who received the funds.
➡ The article discusses newly declassified documents that suggest a group of Democrats, including James Clapper and James Comey, attempted to undermine President Trump’s election campaign. The documents also allege that Comey leaked classified material to the New York Times. The article questions whether any legal action will be taken against these individuals, with some skepticism expressed about the likelihood of this happening. The article also mentions ongoing investigations into other alleged misconduct by Democrats.
➡ The speaker, Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, criticizes the government for not taking action against issues like censorship, border control, and corruption. He urges Congress to address these problems in the upcoming budget resolution. Fitton also questions the funding of activities they oppose and encourages the public to voice their concerns to their representatives. He ends by questioning who is truly running the White House, suggesting that President Biden may not be fit for the role.
➡ The speaker believes President Biden is unfit to serve and questions the lack of action taken by those close to him. They also question the legitimacy of Kamala’s nomination without primaries and the erasure of 15 million votes. They are actively investigating these issues, including the application of the 25th Amendment, and encourage viewers to stay updated by subscribing and liking their video.

The Epstein scandal continues to dog the Trump administration. And it all began with a memo that I thought was ill advised telling American citizens, a memo that was leaked, unsigned, initially, by the Justice Department and the FBI that told American citizens that, by the way, there’s nothing else to be done on Epstein, and you can’t have any evidence, any of the additional evidence that we may have that hasn’t been released yet that provided the basis for our conclusion. So Americans reacted quite negatively. And the polls are upwards of 80% of Americans want the Epstein records released.

Now, President Trump has been resistant to this Epstein issue because he’s been of the belief, and it looks like he had good reason to be of the belief now, given recent events, that there’s information in there that was planted or manufactured or being misused to try to target and smear him. And not only that, but he’s concerned that other American citizens could be targeted and smeared as well. And he talked about this issue earlier this week. And I think it’s number 25. Let’s go to 25. No, no, she’s. She’s given us just a very quick briefing.

And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they’ve seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden, you know, and we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through. We’ve gone through years of it, but she’s handled it very well, and it’s going to be up to her. Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release. Yeah. And so over the weekend, he had a bit of a crisis at the Justice Department and FBI because Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, or people close to them, were attacking Pam Bondi and the Justice Department over this memo, a memo that they both signed up on, were signed off on, and Dan was threatening to quit.

The credible reports are. Evidently, he hasn’t quit. He’s still at the FBI. But it was a crisis for the agencies and the President has been trying to move past it. But Republicans in the House want the documents released. Speaker Johnson suggested he wants the documents released. So I don’t think there is any moving past it, and I think the way to deal with it is to release the information that would be releasable under law through the Freedom of Information Act. Now, of course, Judicial Watch already has a major lawsuit in this regard. As I discussed last week, the day after the memo, said that there will be no more documents to be released.

The Justice Department was telling the court in our case that in fact, they were reviewing and considering the release and searching for records responsive to our FOIA request for the Epstein materials for possible release. So very confusing situation to Americans. And then on top of everything else, the president was subjected to a smear operation through the Wall Street Journal that published an allegation that Trump sent a letter to Epstein that was, like, typed out and had some very odd language in it that was not Trumpian at all, with a signature over a picture of a cartoon, picture of a naked woman.

And Trump said, this is just garbage. It’s a fake letter. And the Wall Street Journal ran it anyway. And so Trump, in response, he’s just furious with the whole thing. He told Pam Bondi the other day, go to any grand jury you need to go to and start getting the courts to unseal particular records about the Pamexcuse me the Jeffrey Epstein issue, because evidently there are records that are under seal that haven’t been released yet or can’t be released yet. So that’s kind of where we stand. And, you know, as I said before, there is a way forward release the records under foia.

And I put out this statement the other day, and it still holds true, and it will hold true forevermore until we get all the Epstein records. Let’s run that video. So I have a simple solution to the Epstein controversy facing the Trump administration. Judicial Watch has a federal Freedom of Information act lawsuit for the Epstein records. The Justice Department just told a court in our case last week that they’re still searching for and reviewing FBI DOJ Epstein records. Give Judicial Watch the Epstein records. Produce what they can produce under law. Tell the American people why they are withholding any information, if indeed that’s what they decide to do.

But get the legal process in place so the American people have confidence that all the records possible that can be released under law are being released. Simple plan. Let’s get it done. So I’m hoping the White House is paying attention. I’m hoping the Justice Department and the FBI are paying attention. Certainly, it’s not for want of shouting from the mountaintops. I was on a series of programs this week trying to educate the American people about this process for releasing government records. I was on Newsmax. I was talking to Sean Spicer. I was talking to C Span, of course, I did Steve Bannon’s program as well.

And then Oann, let’s go to my appearance with Rob Schmidt. Let’s Play a portion of that. Number 30 from Newsmax. Your reaction to the contention from Dershowitz that there’s just not a lot there, the culture, the courts are withholding documents. Go ahead. Well, maybe. But, you know, that contention can be tested by, as he points out, by releasing the information. And it’s. My advice to the administration is to follow the FOIA law, respond to our FOIA lawsuit with records as soon as they’re able to. We were just in court, and they told the court that they’re still reviewing records about Epstein from both the FBI and Justice Department.

They didn’t say when they’re going to be released or if they’re withholding anything. You know, that was the only detail. They’re still looking and reviewing, and they just have to move more quickly on that to put some of these questions to bed. You’re never going to convince everyone. No. And then I went to Sean Spicer’s program. Sean is the former spokesman for President Trump from the first term. He has a great little show. It was a great interview. I encourage you to watch the full interview because we talked about a variety of topics, but I specifically talked about Epstein with him just the other day, segment number 31.

And, you know, and on the transparency side, I would err on the side of transparency. You know, there’s material that obviously is not going to be made public one way or the other, and I’m not going to prejudge what that material might be, but there I could. You know, we’ve been around the block long enough to know there’s some material that we will never see and may not, and it would be inappropriate for us to see. But they’ve kind of put a complete stonewall down on the release of any records, at least through this official memo that was signed off on by the leadership of the FBI and Justice Department.

They got to lift that veil of secrecy and start erring on the side of the disclosure. And I know the president’s concerned that there may be people who had, you know, incidental contact with Epstein or business contacts with Epstein, and, you know, it’s not fair to put their names out there because, you know, you can’t have guilt by association. Well, you know, that’s a legitimate concern, but the American people should figure it out in the end. Yes, they can make their defenses. Many of these people are public figures anyway. They’re big boys. They can do what they need to do to defend their reputations.

And then, of course, I was on C Span, which is always a more interesting program. I’m always a little hesitant to do C Span because it means I have to sit there and listen to a bunch of callers attacking me typically. But there are a lot of callers who are supportive of Judicial Watch. And plus, it’s an opportunity to educate people, some of whom don’t want to be educated. Here’s my appearance on C Span talking about Epstein as well. Number 32. And he was and he was killed either by his own hand or someone else. And the American people aren’t persuaded that the answers have been put out there.

And I don’t think everyone’s convinced. I, I wish I could say, yeah, I’m convinced he committed suicide. I think that’s probably most likely, but I’m not convinced it’s the answer. I want to share something that Laura Loomer said about this investigation as reported by Politico. She says there should be a special counsel appointed to do an independent investigation of the handling of the Epstein files so that people can feel like this issue is being investigated and perhaps take it out of AG Pambondi’s hands because I don’t think that she’s been transparent or done a good job handling this issue.

First, Tom, do you agree that this should be a special counsel? And second, do you think that the attorney general has still has your confidence as attorney general or should she step down? No, I don’t think she should step down. I long been of the view that politically sensitive investigations like this should not be reside within the Justice Department and FBI. I don’t trust either agency institutionally and I’ve said this publicly and about other sensitive investigations that should be taking place. The president should be running them. He should be appointing prosecutors and investigators that report to him in the White House.

Maybe they can use other law enforcement that aren’t don’t have the apparent conflicts of interest that the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate matters such as this, a presidential prosecutorial investigative unit. And whether you want to call it a special counsel or presidential prosecutor, but Epstein lawfare, you know, Auto Pengate, whatever you whatever you want to call it, I don’t think the Justice Department and the FBI or have the confidence of the American people to get to the bottom. But President and then I was on with our friends over at Oann Dan Ball, who was energetically questioning me about the Epstein issue.

There’s no files. There is files. We can’t release them. You can’t release nothing. What’s going on? Well, they’re not listening to me, which I’ve been doing Judicial Watch has been doing is literally through court, encouraging transparency. We sued not only for the victim’s files, but prior to that we have a lawsuit for all the Epstein records. And what was really strange, Dan, is that they were leaking this memo that says, no Americans are going to get any more information about Epstein. The next day they’re at the court, telling the court in our case that they’re still reviewing and searching for DOJ and FBI records about Epstein.

And my solution is pretty simple. Release the records through this FOIA lawsuit that Judicial Watch has. Why? Because that process guarantees accountability for the records that are being released and explanations for the records that are being withheld. And so the American people will have an idea how many records there are, what’s being withheld, if any, and why, where do they search for the records that typically comes out through a FOIA lawsuit? Right. Just proceed normally. Don’t send out any more weird memos. So you get the point and we’ll see what happens. The president, as I said earlier, authorized the Attorney General to begin seeking court permission to release material that would be impossible to release without court permission, such as grand jury materials.

I don’t know what that covers necessarily, ultimately, but I can tell you what Judicial Watch is doing. We have the Freedom of Information act lawsuit for all Epstein records. We have a second Freedom of Information act lawsuit we filed on the death for records concerning Virginia Giffre, who was one of Epstein’s most well known victims. And so this process is continuing. I mean, the federal government is in court right now, the Justice Department, over our request for FBI and Justice Department records on Epstein. So either the records are going to be released or they’re not going to be released.

But either way, it’s going to be a process through which the government will be held accountable under law. And so I would recommend, and I will say it once, I’ll say it again, that they just start following the transparency law. FOIA is your friend to get beyond this because you’re going to get Congress, I suspect I was very surprised last week to seeor this week, I guess, Mike Johnson do something or say something. I thought he was going to. That was completely opposite from what I thought he was going to say. I thought he was going to say, oh, no, we don’t want Maxine, I’m sorry, what her name is now? Oh, Maxwell.

Excuse me, her last name. Maxwell. The woman who’s in jail now, Epstein’s former associate testifying before Congress. He said, oh, yeah, I’d be in favor of that. And he called on the president and he called on the administration to release all the Epstein records. And you know, I do know Speaker Johnson well enough to know that’s a position that he’s taking. That’s based on the public overwhelming his colleagues with calls for Epstein records. So that tells you where the public is, that Speaker Johnson immediately said, we got to start releasing the information. So it’s going to come out.

And you know, the question is, is it going to come out in a process that reassures the American people that things are being done properly? And I would submit our court lawsuit and maybe I’m not trying to be self promoting here for Judicial Watch, although why not? We’re paying for this microphone. Right. But it’s a key way to ensure the American people that at least the rule of law is being applied to the release of the records. No more like leaks, no more binders being dropped. I think that’s just the wrong approach because it doesn’t allow for people to get full answers about what’s being withheld and where the records were reviewed and I mean, where they were searched for and other issues related to their production.

So it’s really a simple solution. And I’ve been highlighting online, I say it’s a simple plan to get these records released. Now, does it mean politically the issue is going to go away for the President or will it go away for the administration? I don’t know. I don’t know. All I know is that the American people have a right to the records. And you can’t go wrong releasing records and being transparent. And the president is instinctively one of the most transparentI think he is the most transparent president in American history. So I would encourage him to follow Judicial Watch’s lead, take advantage of this Freedom of Information act lawsuit.

And of course, the Justice Department and the FBI are supposed to release records under the law because it’s required to and just do what the law requires. So this Epstein mess is, as I said, it is a mess. It’s a bit of a crisis for the administration because there’s so much criminality associated with the targeting of Trump. And Trump would argue he’s been doing all sorts of good things and some of which were, some of which is tremendous. As a conservative, I’m all excited. As someone who supports the rule of law, we’re all excited about his efforts to control the border and shut down the border invasion, which has effectively happened.

And he’ sand because of actions by his Justice Department and FBI, I think ill advised actions. He’s got this scandal on his hands. It may be unfair, but it’s life and he’s got to deal with it. And thankfully Judicial Watch has a lawsuit that will provide the people answers if the government follows my lead and Judicial Watch’s lead to some of the questions they have about Epstein had a mayoral primary up in New York this week and they. Well, we don’t know what the final results are because of ranked choice voting, which in my view is an abomination.

I think ranked. Maybe I had a. Do we have the tweet on ranked choice voting here? 20 number 20. Yeah, that’s something else. So ranked choice voting, I can’t explain it. Which tells you that we shouldn’t have it. I’m going to be blunt. It’s a confusing way to vote. Essentially you rank your votes and depending on who gets the least votes and if you’re lucky enough to have chosen the right second or third or fourth vote on the list in terms of your ranking, you might have your vote moved around and given to someone else subsequent.

And to describe it is to condemn it as confusing. It allows essentially, in my view, people to get more than one vote in one election. If you pick right and guess right, you get to kind of stay around for round two and three as they divvy up the votes. As people have their lower ranked choices moved, either eliminated or or allocated. And many people get their ballots eliminated immediately and don’t get their votes because they didn’t vote initially for one particular person or the wrong group of people. They get immediately eliminated. I mean, let’s say they’re confused.

Let’s say you come in and say I just want to vote for one person for the primary. Why do I have to list all these other people in my order of preference? I don’t even know what that means. It’s like I can’t calculate. I can’t even play checkers. How am I going to figure out what happens if I vote this person in rank number three versus ranked number two? And the left loves it, right? Because what I think the left wants to do is leverage ranked choice voting choices by they want to have their leftist allies put on the ballot and get votes that they can allocate as they, you know, up the chain to hopefully further their leftist candidate further other leftist candidates.

That’s why they like Ranchous voting. Does it mean it’s unconstitutional? Not because that’s the reason they want to do it. I think it’s unconstitutional because it allows people to vote more than once, practically speaking, or have their votes Counted are weighed more heavily in a way that undermines what I thought was the constitutional principle of one person, one vote as delineated by the Supreme Court. And you see why they like it because they’ve got as the putative winner of the primary because it takes weeks to figure out who won under ranked choice voting. I don’t know if a literacy test is prohibited, typically speaking, in order to vote.

Ranked choice voting is much more difficult to understand than learning how to read. As I said, you can be a pretty sophisticated voter and still don’t know how ranked choice voting works. So no literacy tests, no ranked choice voting. That’s my thinking now. You know, and I think without saying you should vote for or against anyone. There’s a candidate now at the primary level who is likely to be the democratic primary person, primary candidate for mayor, who is a terrorist supporter. He’s been a citizen for what, four or five years? Not even, probably just four years.

He supports terrorism, he’s a communist, a self avowed democratic socialist. I mean, look at this, look at this statement he makes. Shows you the extremism. Turn on the video. Can you hear it? Oftentimes we’ve even found as legislators when we go into these courts, the term violent crime is even used when people are stealing packages. Violent crime is even used when people are accused of burglary and there happens to be a housing unit in that same dwelling. So violence is an artificial construction. And we have to be very clear to what is happening here with these district attorneys.

That is violence. That is violence of the highest degree we have. Oftentimes we’ve even found. So that’s, that’s what you’re hearing. There is a communist revolutionary. And what’s interesting is if you support terrorism, he says he supports a global intifada. He pretends that intifada doesn’t mean what it means. He was supportive in promoting protests targeting Jews, promoting Hamas talking points and Hamas style terrorism, defending the indefensible, literally promoting communism on his tweet fee. And it’s problematic for him legally and potentially as a citizen, recently naturalized for him to have done so because you can be denaturalized as a foreign national or former foreign national if you, a former foreign national, if you are found to have been misleading in Your affiliations, desires, etc.

When you became a citizen. So he could be subject in theory to an investigation for denaturalization based on his extremism in support of communism, terrorism, etc. I mean, I’m exploring the issue. I don’t know if he should be subject to investigation. But it’s no laughing matter. It’s no laughing matter. And I don’t know about you, but if you support terrorism, there ought to be generally some type of investigation. You don’t have a First Amendment right to support terrorism. You don’t. And to call on the mass murder, to call effectively for the mass murder of people you don’t like, especially if you’re someone who just became a citizen, it raises questions about whether you pulled a fast one in order to become a citizen.

And that’s why there are these denaturalization procedures in place for such situations. And I don’t know if the Justice Department or I don’t know which responsible agency, maybe the U.S. citizens, immigration, USCIS, USCIS citizen and immigration Services. Right. We’ll launch an investigation. But it’s worth thinking about and examining what the law is, his statements, his conduct, his background, because it’s troubling to have someone recently be naturalized as a citizen promoting terrorism. Whoa, whoa, whoa. That’s not supposed to happen. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, New Yorkers. And this isn’t because he’s a candidate.

New York’s going to, you know, New York voters are going to decide whether they want him to be mayor or not. I mean, this is a rule of law issue that’s kind of been being highlighted on a national level. And the question is, is the rule of law going to be enforced as it relates to naturalization against this prominent figure who seems to abuse the rule of law and may have done things that warrant investigation? And I don’t think he should be immune from investigation just because he’s running for mayor. Frankly, the fact he’s running for mayor makes it all the more important that there be a serious consideration of whether he’s followed the rule of law on immigration.

You agree? If you do, share your thoughts below. Before I forget, we were in court just the other day. I’ve been telling you about this Gaza cover up out of the State Department and the USAID where they’ve been hiding the recipients of cash from USAID in Gaza. And the only legitimate reason they’ve said or legal reason, I wouldn’t say legitimate is because the people who get the money will be put in danger. By who? The Israelis, because they’re terrorists. Obviously that’s the reason they don’t want to turn it over. And rather than turn over the information, this is money the Biden gang gave to Gaza.

They were literally in court the other day telling a court that Judicial Watch waived its rights to get access to the specific names who got the money from the kind of the overarching grant recipient. This is what happened. They said, well, you can’t find out who the big grant recipient is, citing these fake reasons. And then they said, oh, ok, you can find out. And it’s Catholic Relief services. They gave $7 million, but Catholic Relief Services gave the money then to I think four groups in Gaza. They’re withholding that information from us. And they convinced the court that we had waived our right to that information.

The court agreed. So now we’re going to have to file another FOIA and another federal FOIA lawsuit to get access to who the Biden people were giving USAID this, who the Biden people were giving money to in Gaza via usaid. It was a Biden cover up from the beginning being enabled and furthered by this Justice Department. And it happened last week. No, it happened this week. Excuse me, it was Wednesday. I was thinking it was last Friday. It was Wednesday. I mean, it was our fifth, I think our fifth or fourth. Maybe it was our fifth because I’ve been, I wasn’t able to make this hearing as client.

I think this was our fifth federal court hearing. And the judge is like, you know, summary judgment granted. Judicial Watch. Go back to the drawing board. I’m going to buy the Trump Justice Department. That’s what Bondi is doing when she does this. She’s attaching this cover up to Trump, which is outrageous because I, you know, I know Trump well enough to know that he would, the last thing he’d do was want to keep this material from the American people. There’s no more excuses. That’s out. I tell you, I am so outraged about that because it’s a simple issue, just a few names.

We all know what the USAID was doing in Gaza. We all know about how these transnational groups were providing sucker for the terrorists there. And we’ve been getting the runaround from the State Department and the Justice Department on the simplest FOIA you can imagine. And they were playing a shell game with us and shell game with the court. It’s as bad as anything, you know, we had to put up with in the Trump in the Biden administration or the Obama administration. It’s as bad. Yeah, it’s as bad. I mean, there are things, one or two things we’ve gotten that we might not have gotten from Joe or Barack.

You know, not happy to report it to you, but, you know, I wish I could tell you great news. The Biden Cover up on Gaza cash through USAID to Lord knows who has been ended thanks to the Trump Justice Department and Marco Rubio’s State Department. They’ve given us the information. No. Instead they went to a court and told us throw Judicial Watch out of court and make them come back and ask again so we can tell them no again. I’ve been talking about this Russiagate stuff and there’s so much that’s been released, you know, and generally.

And it’s good it’s been released. I’m not complaining about the disclosures. Many of these records have been withheld from Judicial Watch. Through our FOIA lawsuits, we uncovered pretty much everything that we know about the abuse of Trump under the false Russiagate smears, Comey lying, stealing records, etc. Etc. The FISA abuses. We got the FISA records, we exposed Christopher Steele and the dossier and how the FBI was giving him money. I mean, they were giving money to Steele for the dossier along with Hillary. It was a joint operation. And then we exposed and detailed and highlighted the various meetings Obama was in to pursue and push these Russia smears in a seditious way against Trump.

And so we now have more information that shows that all of that should have been prosecuted. There was more than enough evidence, there was evidence already out there that was public, more than enough to prosecute the Obama, Hillary Biden gang. And now we’ve got more evidence coming out and everyone’s getting excited about it. But my response is where are the prosecutions and am I confident the prosecutions will emerge? I was on Newsmax the other day talking about it, so I’ll let that speak for itself. Let’s run that. They declassified some terrible documents talking about Democrats and what they did.

Radical left lunatics. It’s incredible what we’re finding. Absolute proof of guilt and we’ll see what happens. But, but Clapper and Comey and that whole group of criminals, they’re criminals. It was a whole scheme to try and demean Trump so that I couldn’t win an election. That is a criminal group of people. They’re sick people and they’re criminals and they should be taken care of. President Trump speaking for a lot of Americans right there who are demanding accountability for this years long Russia hoax scam. This after newly declassified emails, bombshells really that are coming out. The DNI, James Clapper back in 2017, manufacturing and intel assessment on supposed Russian interference, directing officials to quote, compromise the normal process, saying that they all needed to be on the same team despite concerns from then director of the National Security Agency, Mike Rogers.

Clapper responded in an email saying about Russia inclusion. That’s our story and, and we’re sticking to it. As if the facts didn’t matter. It was all about the narrative. Meantime, newly declassified memos also contain allegations that the then FBI chief, James Comey leaked classified material to the New York Times through a friend. He used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Trump. It’s all very sick, the story adds. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews at the FBI that he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend with New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.

And let’s not forget about Adam Schiff. We now know that a whistleblower, a Democrat working for them on the Intel Committee, told the FBI in 2017 that the then congressman approved leaking classified material, which is against the law, all in an effort to frame Trump. If true, it would be a felony. So are we going to do something? Tom Fitton is the president of JSU Watch. He’s been at the tip of the spear and exposing a lot of this from day one. He joins us live. Tom, welcome back. Hey, good to be with you, Ed. How are you? President, yeah.

President Trump says, I want these people taken care of. Your reaction to the newly declassified material? Because some people are saying, particularly what Clapper said is almost a smoking gut. Well, I don’t know. You know, it’s kind of a whole military’s worth of smoking guns in these documents. The challenge for the Justice Department and the FBI is that there’s nothing new here in the sense that the core crimes have long been known. We knew they messed with the intelligence assessment six, seven years ago. We knew Comey and his friend Richman. Comey took FBI files about Trump and leaked them through his friend Richmond.

These were classified documents he stole, given a free pass. So now we have further details on it. Schiff was known to be a leaker and a liar. Nothing was done. We filed an ethics complaint against him. Republicans didn’t do anything. So the question is what, if anything, can be done now? Maybe there’s some perjury charges, maybe there’s this conspiracy theory that works or, you know, this conspiracy, a theory of the case that brings these crimes forward. Of course, President Obama might have some protection as under immunity. I’m a little bit fearful that not much will be done.

Maybe some folks will be prosecuted for perjury. I’m as much concerned about what happened last year and why nothing’s been done on that as what happened seven, eight years ago. President Trump, in terms of lawfare, pardon me, against President Trump, Secret Service protection. Obama threatened Biden, according to press reports, in order to get him to pull out of the campaign. The warfare against Trump, none of that seems to be on, at least on the hot plates there at the Justice Department. And I don’t just do it right. So pardon me, in the last minute we have, then you’re painting a picture of somebody who’s been in the beginning that we’ve heard this before and maybe nothing happens.

The counter to that is John Solomon is reporting, as you know, that there might be multiple grand juries right now in places outside D.C. where you get a left wing jury and this conspiracy case has a longer statute of limitations. Might be going on in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, other states. You have any hope that there’ll be criminal charges that stick with any of those grand juries? You know, I heard a lot of the same arguments about U.S. attorney Durham and I’m hopeful something different happens. If I were President Trump, I’d run the investigations directly. He can’t.

Look, the Justice Department just had to fire an employee for assaulting a federal police officer. That’s the group that they’re going to have to rely on. He should take it out of those agencies and run it himself. Got it. All right. Tom Fitton with Reality Check tonight. We appreciate it, Tom. Thank you. You’re welcome. Yeah. So, you know, what’s the good news? Let’s go through the good news. I know you may think, oh, boy, things are just awful. So in Albany, there’s reportedly an investigation into Letitia James abuse of office to attack the civil rights of President Trump under color of law.

And that’s run by the U.S. attorney in Albany, according to reports. There are reports, I think largely confirmed that Letitia James is separately under investigation for mortgage fraud. So is Adam Schiff under investigation for mortgage fraud? We talked about that. So that’s under Justice Department investigation. There have been referrals to the Justice Department for, I think, was it Brennan and Clapper? I think it’s those two at least. Brennan for potential perjury and conspiracy charges. It’s unclear if it’s just her perjury or, or as I talk about whether this conspiracy theory of the case. Not a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory of the case, where the theory is that there was a conspiracy that began before Trump was elected that continued more or less to the present day as a result of a series of acts that bring it forward to the present day.

It’s continuous. Now, that potentially could be a bit of a stretch, but you might be able to get some perjury or maybe even treason charges, depending on how the statute of limitations is interpreted or run. And who knows, maybe there are some specific acts that are pretty extraordinary that go beyond what’s in the public that they’re able to run with quickly. So I think there are significant challenges. I’m skeptical, based on experience. We will push for more transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, and more importantly, accountability for those agencies. You know, the FBI and Justice Department can’t be trusted.

And that’s why I’m kind of inherently skeptical. It doesn’t mean they won’t do good things, but, you know, I prefer it be on the outside. And frankly, the FBI should be going the way of the dodo bird, given all the corruption it’s been involved in and the lack of trustworthiness it’s exhibited in terms of being willing to a willing partner in lawfare against Trump and innocent Americans going mainly parents and people in churches. These folks can’t be trusted. So in the meantime, Judicial Watch’s litigation to get access to this information continues. We’re fighting, unfortunately, the Justice Department still in court to gain access to key information about the lawfare.

Still waiting, for instance, for text messages between the two FBI lovebirds, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. You know, still fighting the FBI for seven years over that. So that’s what’s behind my skepticism and what’s happened in the past. All of these crimes were known to officials in the senior levels of the Justice Department, and they declined to pursue any criminal charges. So that was Barr, Jeff Sessions. So will this new group of Republicans under Trump make the same choices? I think that we’ll prosecute a few more people. But will they go after things the way I think they should go after? I don’t know.

I think it’s at best an open question. But, you know, I don’t want to. I don’t think it’s my job or role to kind of tell you things I really don’t believe. I’m really skeptical. I hope something good happens, but I’m skeptical. And we’re going to operate as if we have to rely on ourselves to get the truth out, as we have for now, 31 years that we’ve been operating as Judicial Watch. When they come back by the end of September, they’re supposed to pass what is known as A continuing resolution, which is government speak for writing a blank check to the federal government for operations with virtually no oversight.

And so what conservatives want is that if you’re going to allow the government to be funded through that method, you have to at least pick one or two or three or four things. Things. Maybe one thing. How about that? That you’re willing to demand in order to get that blank check. Like protecting the border, shutting down. Jack Smith, investigating the 25th Amendment. What’s going on with the Trump, excuse me, the Biden coup. Censorship. You name making sure illegal aliens don’t vote. Right now, they’re not supposed to vote under law, but there’s no teeth to those rules because there’s no proof of citizenship required to register to vote or vote.

How is that being allowed? And they don’t want to fix any of it. They don’t want to do anything. I’m talking about. They don’t want to tie this to a continuing resolution because they fear a government shutdown and they’re unwilling to shut the government down to do anything to protect the border. I don’t know about you. I’d shut the government down to protect the border. I’d shut the government down to make sure that the leading candidate for president is put in jail under false pretenses and violations and through abuses of government authority and prosecutorial power to protect tens of millions of Americans from censorship.

Yeah, I’d shut the government down over that for a week or two. And so it’s all happening again. And I was up on the Hill last year, almost a year ago. It was probably in October. I forget when this press conference was with some conservative members on Capitol Hill and other conservative leaders highlighting the need for leadership. At the time, it was Mr. Speaker McCarthy, and now it’s Speaker Johnson. And we still need the leadership on these key issues. I think it’s worth playing this press conference clip again. I’m Tom Fitton. I’m president of Judicial Watch, America’s leading government watchdog organization.

We have a simple request for Congress, do your job. It’s not enough to do investigations and reports. We need to stop the government corruption and abuse that is so concerning to the American people in this new budget fight, where basically the old budget fight that we’re being asked to pretend is new. There’s an inflection point. Are we going to continue to fund Republicans in the House? The wild abuse by the Biden administration of its political opponents, the mass censorship of tens of millions of Americans, the border invasion. We’ve heard so much about and the other wild abuses of power that are right now fully funded with Congress.

And I don’t know what we’re talking about with a clean cr. I see a dirty cr, a CR that will fund the worst, the dirty politics and corruption in our federal government. And there’s a positive moral obligation right now, not next year, but right now, to stop the abuses. The effort to jail Trump on pretextual, unprecedented charges in a way never seen before in American history. An obligation to stop right now the Biden administration censorship of tens of millions of Americans. The obligation to stop right now the illicit use of tax monies to fund abortions and our military and elsewhere.

We need to stop right now the attack on children through the promotion of transgender extremism. We need to stop right now the lack of serious investigation into the Biden administration corruption, specifically Biden corruption. We need a Justice Department or special counsel that has confidence of the American people. All of these issues can be addressed in this continuing resolution. And if they don’t want to address it, that suggests to me those who vote for it are on the side of corruption and those who oppose it are on the side of justice. Thank you very much. Yeah, exactly.

And it applies to the continuing. Everything I said applies to the continuing resolution. That’s coming up again. Another one. So there was a fight last year over a continuing resolution. I think there were at least two or three fights previously this year, and there’ll be another fight in September. And I got a little more explicit with our friends at OAN and John Heinz, you know, with again, an interview that is from a year ago, but is highly relevant right this moment here. Let’s go to that, sir. You’re gathered here at Capitol Hill with some lawmakers and some other organizations.

What’s your message to the American people? The American people want accountability for the corruption they see. And I think they would be extremely upset to know that a House controlled by Republicans is funding virtually everything they’re upset about, whether it be the abuses of Trump and other innocents, the censorship of millions of Americans, the border invasion. I mean, they get money to help the illegals cross the border. All this has been funded to date by the Republican Congress. And this is an inflection point from which they can go away from that and towards justice. So it seems like the fact that some of the apparatus of the government seems to be out of control perhaps is related to the budget funding involved here.

Is that essentially where that’s going? Budget and corruption are inextricably linked. And if you don’t like Biden corruption. You’re going to want to pay attention to how it’s handled in this continuing resolution. Finally, Mr. McCarthy came out. He said that looks like impeachment is imminent. Your thoughts, sir? I’ve always thought impeachment was inevitable. It was just a matter when Speaker McCarthy understood that he had no choice but to allow it to proceed. But we appreciate that he did allow it to proceed. And it’s been escalated among the three committees investigating Biden corruption. And I’m hoping they accelerate the investigation and get even more aggressive.

And as this budget fight shows, impeachment’s necessary, but it’s not sufficient. Well, of course, they just abandoned impeachment last week, as I told you. And you know, that tells you why. You know my comment on Republicans funding everything they oppose. You know, this is why when you kind of get involved in these campaign fights back and forth, you should take a step back and just kind of remember what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Because Kamala Harris is being questioned. And it’s a fair question. You know, you want to do X, Y and Z to save the country, right? Well, why aren’t you doing it now? Right.

So that’s a fair question. And Republicans highlight all the damage the Biden administration’s doing similarly. Why are they funding it? Now you see how it works both ways. And that’s why I try to be not down the middle philosophically, but really clear eyed that we have failures of leadership all around in both political parties when it comes to to defending our Republican core values. And I mean Republican in the smaller. So if you want Congress to do the right thing or whatever you want Congress to do, you need to exercise your First Amendment right to petition your government and communicate with your members of Congress at 202225 3121.

That’s 202-225-3121. Ask for your member of Congress. If you don’t know who your member of Congress is, call and ask who your member of Congress is. I think they can direct you even if you know your zip code or something like that. Or you can look it up online obviously and let them know what you think about this continuing resolution fight. Are they going to allow Trump to be jailed? That’s the plan. Ask them. Are they going to investigate the coup? Media doesn’t care about it. Kamala Harris had her first interview with cnn. She had Tim Waltz with her.

There were a few clips I watched on Instagram here. Let’s Run those, Dan. I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed. You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed, and I have worked on it, that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. Here. I’ll give you a little too much information. Go for it. There’s no such thing. Madam Vice President, my family was staying with us and including my baby nieces, and we had just had pancakes and, you know, Auntie, can I have more bacon? Yes, I’ll make you more bacon.

And then we were gonna. We were sitting down to do a puzzle and the phone rang and it was Joe Biden. And he told me what he had decided to do. And I asked him, are you sure? And he said, yes. And then that’s how I learned about it. Boy, that was a lot of nothing in terms of information on the coup, as I highlighted in my comment, you know, pancakes, bacon, and a couple. What did she know and when about his cognitive disabilities. Maybe Congress can have a hearing on that. I mean, in the meantime, Biden is completely out of it, basically sprawled out on a beach in a way I’ve never seen a president do.

I had a quick video on the 25th Amendment issue that’s continuing despite media efforts to suppress it and Republican failures to provide leadership on it. You know, seeing this video of Biden up there at the beach should remind all of us to ask the question, who is running the White House? He ain’t. He doesn’t have the cognitive ability to do so. That’s why there was this coup against him, to remove him from the campaign. But there’s a constitutional method for protecting the American people from a disabled president such as Biden, and that’s the 25th Amendment. Now, I know it may be inconvenient politically and practically, but our national security depends on having a competent president, and we don’t have one right now.

And I’m not going to stop talking about it. I mean, you could just see his movements behind me there of that. That one video. It’s very disturbing. He doesn’t have the capacity to serve, at least that’s my view. And you can be sure people close to him know it. And the fact they haven’t done anything about it is an abomination. You know, and I’m going to keep on asking questions about it. I’m sorry, I’m going to keep on asking questions about it. Just like I’M going to keep on asking questions about the coup. 15 million votes erased.

No primaries for Kamala. She just gets the nomination. We’re not allowed to ask how it happened. Is that the way democracy is supposed to work? So we have ongoing investigations on all of these issues, including on the 25th Amendment. Number of FOIAs out there already. So we’re not. I’m just not fulminating about it. We’re actually doing an investigation. 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.