➡ Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, is taking a case to the Supreme Court to challenge an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. They argue this extension violates federal law, which sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which is seen as a critical opportunity to uphold federal law and ensure election integrity. The oral argument before the Supreme Court is scheduled for October 8th.
➡ The article discusses the controversy around counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. It argues that this practice is against federal law and can lead to voter fraud and a lack of confidence in the election process. The article also mentions two major court cases related to this issue, one of which has already been taken up by the Supreme Court. The author believes that Election Day should be the final day for counting votes to ensure fairness and integrity in elections.
➡ The article discusses a recent court decision that challenges the practice of counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The author argues that this practice undermines the integrity of elections and is contrary to federal law. The author encourages readers to take action by informing their state representatives about this issue. The article also highlights the work of Judicial Watch, an organization that has been involved in election law issues for over two decades.
➡ The article discusses accusations against James Comey, a public figure and former FBI director, for allegedly threatening President Trump’s life through a coded message. The author believes Comey should be held accountable for his actions, citing his controversial history and previous actions against Trump. The author also criticizes the lack of action from authorities and suggests that Trump, as the chief prosecutor, should direct Comey’s prosecution. The article ends with the author expressing his concern for Trump’s safety and his dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.
➡ The author suggests that President Trump should use his power to order the prosecution of those who threaten his life and the lives of others around him. He also criticizes the FBI and the Justice Department, suggesting they are corrupt and cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. The author proposes that these agencies should be downsized or shut down, and their responsibilities transferred to other federal agencies. Lastly, he urges citizens to voice their opinions to Congress to ensure good policy decisions are made, such as preventing non-citizens from voting.
➡ The speaker expresses frustration with the current state of the republic, highlighting issues such as border control, election security, and government funding. They question the effectiveness of future Republican leadership and encourage listeners to voice their concerns to Congress. The speaker also raises questions about Vice President Kamala Harris’s legitimacy as a nominee and the sudden influx of Haitian immigrants in Ohio. They urge for more transparency and accountability in government actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I talked about, our election law team is second to none in this case. Russ Nobel, one of our lawyers, was leading this case. We obtained a massive victory from the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the counting of ballots received after Election day is contrary to federal Law, massive victory. It may not be imposed on Mississippi, which is the state that was counting the ballots after election Day for five days received after election Day. Five days after Election Day, they were still going to be able to take ballots and count them. But it’s a massive victory in terms of.

For the first time, an appellate court has found out, found what I think is an obvious point, that Election day means Election Day. And we’ve done an animated video kind of highlighting and explaining what the issue is about. So let’s run this. Some states allow votes to be received and counted after election day in violation of existing election law. Federal law says the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year is Election Day. For federal elections, extending the counting of ballots runs counter to federal law and invites fraud and undermines voter confidence.

Right now, Judicial Watch is suing Illinois and Mississippi for allowing ballots to be received and counted days and weeks after election Day if the ballots are dated on or before election day. As you can see, Judicial Watch is hard at work ensuring our elections are fair and honest. And you can be assured we are ready to do the heavy lifting to make sure they stay that way, because no one is above the law. So isn’t that great? We’re out there educating folks, and then we get this key victory on the Fifth Circuit. And, you know, we’ve been pushing this issue for years.

We filed, really, the first comprehensive lawsuit. I think there were issues about this in 2020, but we really got it perfected in terms of what the legal argument would be in our lawsuit filed against Illinois in 2022. Now, that case is on hold because the courts found that candidates don’t have standing to challenge the potential illegal counting of ballots, which makes no sense. It’s absurd, and the court should be a little bit ashamed of running an argument like that. Now, Mississippi, the lower court, found against us on the merits. They thought federal law didn’t prohibit it.

And as I highlighted there, it’s kind of an easy call, isn’t it? So the 5th Circuit decision was really a dramatic victory for those of us concerned about getting back to the idea of an election day and having the law that requires an election day be vindicated. Because when you count ballots that arrive after election day, not only is it contrary to federal law, as the fifth Circuit has affirmed at least, but it requires. It’s an opportunity for voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. Now, our client in Mississippi was the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and I’d like to thank them for pursuing justice here.

The other Plaintiff in the case was the Republican National Committee. Of course, the left intervened to try to stop us down there. They lost. So it’s not just the state we sue. We ended up having to sue leftists because they intervened to be defendants in the cases. Sometimes on these election law issues, part of the opinion reads, congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent and historical practice confirm this day for the election is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.

Because Mississippi statute allows ballot receipts up to five days, receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceeding. There’s something else I wanted to read from here. The state’s problem. And this is kind of. I encourage you to read the decision. It’s educational. The court cites or references, it doesn’t necessarily give us the credit, but references many of the arguments and details on the history of election law and our elections in the United States uncovered by our litigation team.

So this is a Judicial Watch opinion through and through. In my view, the state’s problem is that it thinks a ballot can be cast before it is received. So the government was saying, Mississippi was saying, oh, it doesn’t matter if we get the ballots five days after election day, because effectively the vote occurs before election day, meaning it’s postmark. It means that’s when the vote occurred and it’s been cast. And the court said, well, that’s ridiculous. And here’s their example. What if a state changes its law to allow voters to mark their ballots and place them in a drawer? Or what if a state allowed a voter to mark a ballot and then post a picture on social media? The hypotheticals are obviously absurd, but it should be equally obvious that a ballot is cast when the state takes custody of it.

And the court made the point that the election is continuing if votes are, quote, being cast and received after election day, which is contrary to the plain reading of the federal law at issue there. And so it goes through the history of voting, the history of mail in ballots or absentee ballots. Of course, a lot of this stuff would be obviated if there was. We got back to the traditional approach on absentee ballots, which was essentially making it rare. Mail in balloting is anathema, as I said before, to fair and free elections, and it causes issues like this.

But what a victory. And it’s difficult to overstate how important it is. Now the question is, well, is it going to apply to this election? It’s unlikely, given what the court found here. And they reference a Supreme Court decision that, you know, it’s called the Purcell Doctrine. The Purcell Doctrine generally frowns upon messing with election processes in the run up or close to an election. And so they basically told the lower court, you know, keep this case going because there’s a point here that Judicial Watch and others are making, but, you know, don’t, don’t mess with the next election.

But on the other hand, this issue is going to be a big debate even in this election because we’ve all been told that it’s normal for the 18 or 19 states to do it to count ballots received after election Day. And it ain’t normal. And according to the fifth Circuit, it’s contrary to federal law. Now, the fifth Circuit, I think their states in the fifth Circuit are only, is it Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. But certainly, you know, it’s going to be used and considered in other states as well in other challenges. As Justice Kavanaugh, this is the final part of the decision, as Justice Kavanaugh recently emphasized, to state the obvious, a state cannot conduct an election without deadlines.

A deadline is not unconstitutional merely because of voters own failures to take timely steps to secure the franchise. Federal law requires voters to take timely steps to vote by election Day. And federal law does not permit the state of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days, or 100 days. The state’s contrary law is preempted. So this is a great decision. I mean, it’s everything that Judicial Watch has been saying about this for years now. I think it’s a little bit wrong. You want to hear where I think it’s wrong? In the decision, the court says, well, this doesn’t mean they can’t count ballots past election Day that have been received by election Day.

And I would say that’s contrary to the law that they cite here, too. If there’s no deadline by which states need to count ballots, what good is having an election day? I mean, we saw in 2020, for the first time in American history, at least modern history, we had election results that were not obtained that told Americans, practically speaking, who won. In fact, the vote totals at the time showed that Trump won. And it was days before we found out, found out who the winner was. Maricopa county, they announced it’s going to take them 13 days to figure out the votes.

Texas, right now, they count ballots that arrive up to the day after Election Day. So that Georgia Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, said they may not know the winner until three days after Election Day because they count votes according to this decision illegally up till Friday. They allow overseas ballots to come in up to three days past Election Day. There’s no provision in federal law for that. So I would submit that counting ballots received after Election Day obviously is illicit. The fifth Circuit agrees with me on that. They don’t agree, and I don’t know if they don’t agree in the sense that it’s a finding, as opposed to dicta, meaning a passing reference, that doesn’t really provide any substantial legal guidance or precedence.

I mean, under that theory, maybe they can count ballots forever. It just never stops. I mean, think of congressional fights where you have disputes about congressional outcomes, right? And it’s up to the House or the Senate to decide, and it’s happened before who gets to be seated. I mean, think of if there’s no, quote, deadline for counting ballots, you know, that would be an inducement to just keep the election open, practically speaking. I mean, I think when federal law says you need to choose the electors on Election Day, that means you got to choose the winner and document it.

And don’t tell me it can’t be done. Of course it can be done. Now, does it mean you don’t, like, calculate votes afterwards? Yes. But if the calculation of votes afterwards, there’s, you know, votes that are provisional ballots and such like that, to the degree provisional ballots can be counted post election Day, there has to be justification for that in federal law. And the states are playing fast and loose with Election Day. And I think it’s undermining election confidence. So I don’t want to get distracted too much on this issue, but it could be a big issue in 2024 again, because I don’t think ballot counting should extend past election day as it’s happened.

How they’re planning to do in Michigan, how they’re planning to do in Pennsylvania, in Arizona, in Georgia, certainly this decision, and I think we plan we’re going to share it with all the 19 states that do it. Whether we sue there or not is another matter. But all the states should be on notice, and you should find out whether your state allows the counting of ballots after election Day. And this could be a nice little activist opportunity for you. Dear listener, dear viewer, look at this first fifth Circuit opinion. It’s linked on our website. We’ll link it below and send it to the responsible officials in your state.

Send it to Your state legislature legislator, send it to your or legislators. Right. I guess some states have assemblies and senates and houses. I think there’s one or two states with a unicameral body. So whoever your state representatives are, send it to the governor and send it to the leading election official, which in most states is the secretary of state, and say, why is our law at odds with the logic in this decision? It means in Texas, too. Texas needs to fix its law now. So that’s nice little activism for you all to do. Demand that they stop counting ballots received in the least after Election Day.

And you’ll read in this decision. The logic is irrefutable. Irrefutable. You know, it’s a great. You know, and they don’t want us. And they don’t want us to. And I just want to say something else because I was about to get into the censorship of our talking about this because I sometimes don’t praise Judicial Watch enough. So our election law work has been going on for well over a decade. I mean, in 20. No, actually more than that, two decades. Did you know in the year 2000, I was down in Florida with other Judicial Watch colleagues and a Judicial Watch team generally counting ballots that were disputed in the 20 in the 2000 election in Bush vs Gore.

Do you know that? So we’ve been monitoring and dealing with election law issues for two and a half decades here at Judicial Watch. So there are few organizations with more expertise and experience and knowledge and awareness of election issues than your Judicial Watch. And not only do we have these lawsuits, including this massively successive lawsuit in the fifth Circuit, but we have lawsuits that have been successful over the years and other litigation, legal action that clean up the election rolls. 4 million names cleaned from the election rolls in just the last year and a half or two.

We just filed a lawsuit in Oregon to clean the rolls there, as I talked about last week. And so I know the RNC has been suing on some of these issues now, which is fine. And other groups have been suing on some of these issues now, like, for instance, our friends. I think it’s at American First Legal sued in Arizona for the list of names of voters who were found to be ineligible potentially to vote in federal elections, if I think I’m describing it correctly. Nice little victory there. So I’m glad there are other groups doing it.

But respectfully, to everyone else, there’s no one that can match our expertise in this regard. There really isn’t. And our demonstrated record of success, certainly on election law issues. So it’s important that we are able to continue this work. And frankly, we only do it with your support. First up, James Comey, the worst FBI director in American history. And that’s saying something corrupt, criminal, treacherous has just been caught, effectively threatening the life of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. And what happened is he posted online the following picture 8647. Let’s go to. And he says he just happened to run across that on the beach.

So we’re all supposed to believe that he just magically ran into this phrase 86:47. And if you don’t know what it means, it means kill President Trump. Now, I know there are other definitions of 86 that defenders of Comey have suggested, but in that context, it doesn’t matter. It’s the word literally is 8647 means kill the president. When you 86 someone in this context, you mean to kill them. And do I think he just ran across this on the beach and posted a photo? No, I don’t. I think he knew what he was doing. And here’s what his reaction was, suggesting that he knew he had done something wrong.

I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. Some folks, it is associated with violence. It never occurred to me that I opposebut I oppose violence of any kind. So I took the post down. And since then, he’s deleted his entire Instagram account. I don’t believe his account. He sounds. He makes it seem like he just ran across this number while walking down the beach. Do you believe it? I don’t. It’s like some episode of loss.

You walk down the beach and there’s some message written with seashells. Who is he fooling? Not me. And nor it looks like our. Is he fooling President Trump or key members of the Trump administration? Let’s go to that video of President Trump responding to Comey’s death threat. He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear. Now, he wasn’t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant. And he did it for a reason.

And he was hit so hard because people like me and they like what’s happening with our country. Our country has become respected again and all this, and he’s calling for the assassination of the president. Obviously, he apologized and said he doesn’t violence. But look, he’s a very big. What do you want to see happen? What do you want to see happen? I don’t want to take a position on it because that’s going to be up to Pam and all of the great people. But I will say this. I think it’s a terrible thing. And when you add his history to that, if he had a clean history, he doesn’t.

He’s a dirty cop. He’s a dirty cop. And if he had a clean history, I could, I could understand if there was a leniency. But I’m going to let them make that decision. Well, President Trump, per usual, was right on target there. Of course, Comey knew he knew better. He ain’t fooling anyone. And in my view, it should be just a matter of when he’s prosecuted, not if he’s prosecuted. Tulsi Gabbard seems to share my same concerns. Let’s go to the video of Tulsi, number 20, like him, who issued direct threats against the President of the United States, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law.

Do you believe Comey should be in jail? I do. Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be. I’m very concerned for the president’s life. We’ve already seen assassination attempts. I’m very concerned for his life. And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this. The left and Democrats want to get Trump killed. I’ve told you this before and I’ll tell you again. It’s further evidenced in Comey’s death threat to President Trump.

Quite obviously a death threat. Remember Bennie Thompson, the senior official, senior Democrat leader in the House, offered a piece of legislation to deny President Trump Secret Service protection if he was, quote, convicted by one of their lawless judges in their kangaroo court proceedings. With the thinking that he would go to Rikers without Secret Service protection, which would be a death sentence. The Biden administration deprived him of Secret Service protection, adequate Secret Service protection, restricting his activities and leading to not one, but two near death experiences by the president. And we’re supposed to believe that this leading anti Trump activist, James Comey, who had it in for Trump from the get go, just innocently posted this? I don’t buy it and maybe he has a defense, but my view is he should tell it to the jury.

And we’ve Been investigating Comey for years. And one of the outrages of what happened to Trump is that Comey was never prosecuted for the abuses of him, of his targeting Trump, where he literally, personally spied on him as he’s coming into office, authorized interference and operations against the president and previous to that, his campaign in ways never seen before in American history. He stole and leaked President Trump’s FBI files. And Bill Barr, the Attorney general for President Trump, didn’t bother to prosecute him. Outrageous. And I had a little video on this. I think it was two.

Was it two? What video was it? Or the 2019 video? Let’s go to that. Homie was spying on Trump. The reason he was writing the memos was to create a record so that he could destroy him. I’m paraphrasing, admittedly, but that’s pretty clear what was going on. This report confirms they went in to confront him with the, with the, with that ambush interview because they were trying to make a case against him. You had the FBI director under Obama playing spy. We’re talking about spying on the Trump campaign, spying on President Elect Trump, spying on President Trump.

Comey was the chief spy, and he was designated as such by Barack Obama because they met about this very issue a day or two before in the Oval Office with Barack Obama, Biden, Susan Rice, all the king’s horses, all the king’s men in there. And Comey was the go to guy. That’s right. I’m getting mad. Watching me from several years ago. I may not play videos from that long ago. It’s disturbing how much older I’ve gotten since then. But we don’t forget here at Judicial Watch about this corruption. And so when you’re considering whether Comey is, quote, innocent as President Trump says, he’s not an innocent guy.

He’s a dirty cop. And him threatening Trump’s life is not only perfectly consistent for his behavior, but of the Democratic left generally in recent years where they’ve embraced violence and the threat of violence in order to achieve their results. And as I noted in that previous video, it’s not just Comey. It was the whole gang that targeted Trump. And they all knew, and particularly Comey knew, that there was never any basis. As I highlighted in this major speech to CPAC a few years ago, Judicial Watch protected Trump and our Republic from the worst corruption scandal in American history by exposing the FISA abuse, the Comey corruption, and the seditious conspiracy.

Conspiracy against Trump by the FBI and doj. Obama knew, Clinton knew, Comey knew, Biden Knew Brennan knew, McCabe knew, Strzok knew, Clapper knew, Schiff knew, the FBI knew, the DOJ knew, the CIA knew, the State Department knew. They all knew Trump was innocent, but they smeared and spied on him anyway. Worse than Watergate. Trump is a crime victim, let’s remember that. And he’s a crime victim again as a result of this gang, specifically Comey’s death threat against him, a threat issued while he was overseas, increasing the risk and again, elevating through his Instagram account. You know, Comey’s a, he’s on tv, he’s a public figure.

So it wasn’t like some guy in the far off, never, never reaches of the Internet posted a threat. He’s a serious public figure. Now, I don’t take him seriously, but this corrupt city does too often. And he abused and seemingly violated the law to put the President’s life at risk. Now, our friend Susan Crabtree reported online, Twitter the other day or on X, that for threats such as this, the Secret Service normally just goes immediately to the person who made the threat. They don’t wait days to pursue online threats made against the President of the United States.

So my guess is that Comey’s already been interviewed or he’s about to be interviewed, like not three days from now, but, you know, if not this evening, but over the weekend. And so the question is, is there going to be a prosecution as a result of that interview and the evidence gathered by the Secret Service or the FBI understanding? FBI is providing some backup support. And as President Trump noted that he didn’t want to say anything because it’s Pam Bonney’s decision. And, you know, in the way things have worked in Washington, D.C. before, too often it is Pam Bonney’s decision.

The United States Attorney General, as appropriate, makes prosecutorial decisions of this nature. But that’s purely at the discretion of the President of the United States, who is chief prosecutor. And I said it once and I’ll say it again, if I were President Trump, I would direct the prosecution of these gangsters in government that abused him. And in the case of James Comey, the FBI director he had to fire because of his corruption and abuse, he’s president, he’s prosecutor in chief. He can direct the prosecution of James Comey right now. Now, he may not choose to exercise it for fear of causing a political fight over that or for some practical reasons, but he does have that power.

And my thinking is he should exercise it forcefully, especially in matters like this. His life is on the line. His Secret Service agents Around him, death threats. They could get killed as well. Citizens around him could get killed as well. We saw that with the assassination in Butler, the assassination attempt, an innocent American was murdered that day as well, people injured. So this isn’t just about President Trump. It’s about other innocents in the vicinity of a president during an assassination attempt. And so I would just get on the horn and tell Attorney General Bondi, if I were President Trump, prosecute him.

I’m directing you as president. If you don’t want to do it, I’ll find someone else. Now, my guess is, in these circumstances, Pam Bondi is going to do it. Pam Bondi is going to do it, but you never know, right? And so President Trump, the best way to ensure that something is done in many cases is do it yourself, right? And he can do it literally himself by ordering the prosecution. And this kind of raises the bigger question of the Justice Department and the FBI, who runs the show there. And I highlighted last week, and it bears repeating, that we need to really put those agencies under the microscope.

You know, James Comey is a perfect example. He was director of the FBI and ran the agency like some sort of stasi against the political enemies of the deep state, working hand in glove with the Obama gang and essentially partnering with the Hillary Clinton campaign to target Trump. Now, I haven’t seen any move by the new leadership of the FBI, Cash Patel, who I consider to be a friend, Dan Bongino, to curtail the FBI’s powers in the sense of defanging the FBI, laying people off in mass numbers, like is happening at USAID and the Department of Education.

If I were director of the FBI or I were president, I would direct the FBI director to essentially make the FBI in terms of. There’s a. If indeed there is a statutory minimum for the FBI to operate, I would say to Cash Patel, let’s get down to that, because there’s nothing the FBI is doing that can’t be handled by another federal agency in terms of law enforcement or, frankly, even counterintelligence, if necessary. And the same goes with the Justice Department to a lesser extent, because there may be some more statutory bases for allowing some more people to work at the Justice Department.

And the other issue is who investigates the FBI over these abuses? I’ve talked about the targeting of Trump under the Biden administration, Justice Department and the FBI. Who investigates the investigators? I don’t think they can do it themselves. And so the president should stand up a separate entity funded with Justice Department dollars, but reporting to him in the White House, appoint a prosecutor that reports to him directly, partners with Attorney General Bondi as the prosecutor deems fit and just. Prosecute, investigate, call grand juries and the president as the chief prosecutor, or the prosecutor in chief, as I call him.

He can decide in the end what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. He can even suggest areas of investigation and actually more than suggests direct areas to be investigated as it relates to the criminality of the weaponization by the Obama, Biden, Clinton gang against him. Think of all the other things that need to be investigated. The issue of the invasion, who’s responsible for that? The issue of censorship of Americans, who’s responsible for that? The Biden criminality, the Biden crime family. What’s this Justice Department doing on that? I would just charge as if those pardons didn’t exist because I think they’re null and void.

Let them raise them as defenses and argue that they’re null and void. You can’t issue a pardon to someone for no crimes or going back 10 years. That’s not a pardon. It doesn’t mean anything. And this is the sort of thing that a president can get done. And it would be very difficult for Pam Bondi to get done, or frankly, Cash Patel to get done. I don’t trust the FBI to investigate the FBI. I just don’t. And I don’t trust the Justice Department to investigate the Justice Department. I could have a half a dozen friends in both agencies.

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

Same goes for the irs. IRS has been abused time and time again to target Americans. That’s reason alone to shut it down. And this is the kind of thought process and thinking and leadership, you know, if I do say so myself, leadership necessary to protect the Republic. We’ve developed these deep state agencies, these administrative agencies at the federal level, whose goal, among other things, is to be ready, willing, and often able to target Americans on the basis of their political beliefs, Third World tyrannical activity. And if someone’s using a gun repeatedly against you, and the gun being the IRS or the FBI or other agencies, you take the gun away.

Now, does it mean they’re going to stop their criminality? I’m not naive. But let’s take the weapons out of the hands of the toddlers who are running the deep state. And that’s a charitable interpretation of their behavior. This is the communist approach to governance. Jail and kill your enemies. And Comey is a malicious example of it really is. In the meantime, I want to go on to the next topic, which is the what Congress is doing. As I’ve been highlighting for you in recent weeks, Congress has been out of town, or the house specifically, for six weeks.

And it was only on September 8th, I guess it was earlier this month, earlier this week, that they came back and there’s a big debate over whether or not the continuing resolution that Congress has to pass around the end of the month to fund government operations for however long the continuing resolution lasts will include any provisions of good policy that conservatives want, such as the SAVE act, for instance, which is what Speaker Johnson currently wants to add to the continuing resolution. Meaning if government is to be funded, there has to be this law that puts teeth into the federal law that prevents aliens from voting, meaning people will have to verify or when they register to vote, show their citizenship and verify their citizenship.

And of course, the left opposes that. And so now that’s the big debate. And I don’t know what’s going to happen. But I do know you need, if you want anything good to come out of this continuing resolution, voters need to have their views heard. And, you know, I highlighted it earlier this week. Well, I’ve had a few meetings here in Washington, D.C. this week. It’s pretty clear that most of Congress is thinking of ways to get out of the city without doing anything for the rest of the year, not cutting spending to curtail inflation, not protecting our elections from alien voting, not protecting Trump and the rule of law from the effort to jail him by the Biden regime.

Not doing much of anything, frankly. If you’re interested in having Congress do something, you should contact them now. 202-225-3121 that’s 202-225-3121. There I am hulking around, lurking around Washington, D.C. talking about what’s going on. But what’s going on ain’t good, to be blunt. And you’ve got to let your views be heard. And I don’t know what the outcome’s going to be the outcome’s probably going to be what the prior outcomes have been, which is they will fully fund everything they oppose and they won’t even do something simple like ensure that aliens really can’t vote in our elections and that there’s a serious law that actually stops them, as opposed to the pinky promise system, where they promise not to vote and won’t sign up for voting, and there’s no check on that.

And so what might happen is a continuum resolution is passed with the save, this is the best circumstance given past experience, and the Senate drops it and then it goes back to the House, and the House has to decide whether they’re going to pass it or shut the government partially down, because the government’s never fully shut down. And Republicans see a shutdown as a political loser. I’m not persuaded that it’s the right. The wrong thing to do, I should say. But if I were in Congress, I’d want, you know, these are not issues about, well, you know, I don’t like this particular provision, but it’s not the end of the world.

There are a lot of terrible things going on. These are things that are kind of essential to our republic. Right. What’s essential to our republic? I consider the following. Stopping the border invasion, stopping the lawfare against Trump, defunding Jack Smith, ensuring aliens aren’t ruining our elections by illegally voting with virtually no checks in place that are substantial. And there’s a whole host of other issues. And what’s been frustrating is there have been continuing resolution after continuing resolution that provide leverage points to achieve some of those policy objectives and core objectives in terms of protecting our republic.

And Republicans have taken a dive on all of them. And I don’t think the leadership has been there because they don’t want to shut the government down so they don’t have any leverage. Point. And do you think things are going to change next year just because, assuming if you’re a Republican, you think Trump’s going to get elected and members of, you know, the Republicans will control all the Congress, do you think things will be much better? Yeah, things will be partly better in terms of policy goals and objectives, in terms of their likelihood of being achieved by.

For conservative. For conservative values. But on these big issues, I don’t be so sure that there’s going to be. They’ll be able to ram through all that. Those policy issues I’m talking about, it’s going to be a closely divided house, maybe 10 seats, as opposed, you know, in theory, it would be 10 seats at best for Republicans assuming they kept the House and in the Senate, it’s going to be almost 50. 50. Maybe it will be, you know, maybe it will be 54, which would be significant. But still, it’s still going to be a close run thing.

And as you know, there are Republicans who don’t share our urgency on these issues and almost always are wet blankets on these core conservative values. So I encourage you, you know, there are limited opportunities to get good things done. This continuing resolution is one of those opportunities. And that’s why I encourage you to let your members of Congress know what you think by calling them. You can reach them through the Capitol Hill switchboard. I gave it out earlier in that little video. 202-2253-121222-53121 and I talked earlier about how I wanted certain topics or I want certain topics should be covered by the presidential campaigns and Congress should as well.

So, I mean, here’s what I think should be in the next debate or answered by the candidates and frankly covered by Congress as well. Let’s go to that tape. Well, we’re coming up on the big debate between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Well, on behalf of Judicial Watch, I have more than a few questions for both candidates. Vice President Harris, just how did you become the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party? Does it concern you that the primary votes of about 15 million American voters were effectively erased? Have you discussed with any government officials invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Biden because of his obvious dementia? President Trump, do you commit to deporting all illegal aliens from America? What steps will you take to ensure that Biden and other deep state officials who abuse their powers to try to rig the election and jail you and other Americans are held fully accountable under law? Is the FBI savageable? Will you commit to full transparency on all government corruption and abuse that have plagued D.C.

for so many years? Of course, I have many other questions. What questions do you have? America. Yeah. So as I said, as I’m suggesting here, this is an ongoing debate, right. And you know, you should be demanding answers as well. I mean, for instance, we had this new topic come up through the debate about what’s going on in Springfield, Ohio. 20,000 Haitians have been imported and dropped in the middle of Ohio on that small town, 60,000 people. Imagine living in a town of 60,000 people and having 20,000 people move there essentially overnight, all of whom are foreign nationals and noncitizens.

And the left says, oh, where they’re legal residents. They’re not legal. That’s a controversial point. They were imported under an authority that’s being challenged in court by Biden. I mean, rather than having him go through Mexico, he’s bringing them in on planes and they’re pretending that’s legal. It doesn’t sound legal to me. Certainly is not proper. Certainly it’s not in the least regular. Right. What’s Congress going to do on that? What is Congress going to do on the Kamala Harris coup? I’m sorry? 15 million votes go disappear in the primary. How the heck did she become the nominee? I have questions about her legitimacy as the nominee.

I mean, there’s been reports there was corruption involved in her becoming the nominee. Threats were made against the president over the 25th Amendment. Congress should bring in people and ask questions about it. I mean, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, you could come up with a big list of things Congress should be doing. Maybe they should defund the invasion. How’s that? They don’t want 20,000 Haitians being flown into the United States by the Biden Harris gang. We’ll defund it. Is that worth shutting the government down over? I think it is. What do you think? Like I said, share your views with your members of Congress.

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.