➡ Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, recently declassified information about the Russiagate allegations against Trump. The documents reveal that the Obama administration and intelligence agencies rushed to create false news that Russia wanted Trump to win the election. However, the initial report showed that Russia couldn’t and didn’t interfere with our elections. Despite this, the Obama administration discarded the initial report and created a new one to tarnish Trump’s reputation.
➡ The article discusses the controversy surrounding the release of Epstein records. Many Americans, including President Trump, are concerned about potential misuse of the information. Despite some resistance, there is a strong call for transparency and the release of these documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The situation remains complex and confusing, with ongoing debates about the handling of the issue.
➡ The speaker discusses the need for transparency in the release of records related to Epstein, suggesting that the President should appoint investigators who report directly to him. He also mentions ongoing lawsuits by Judicial Watch to obtain these records and criticizes the Justice Department and FBI for their handling of the case. The speaker encourages the President to follow the transparency law and release the records, arguing that this will ensure accountability and reassure the American people. He also touches on other issues such as election integrity and the counting of ballots after Election Day.
➡ A congressman and two presidential electors sued because they believe that counting ballots that arrived up to 14 days after election day in Illinois was illegal. The courts said they had no standing, so they appealed to the Supreme Court. The case is about whether a candidate can challenge a dirty election in federal court. The Supreme Court’s decision will guide how courts approach who can challenge election issues in the future.
➡ Judicial Watch is working hard to ensure that voter rolls are cleaned up according to federal law, removing names that are no longer eligible to vote. They have already removed 5 million names and continue to fight for transparency and integrity in the voting process. They are also challenging the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, with a case set to be heard by the Supreme Court. Additionally, they are advocating for transparency and accountability in other areas, such as uncovering documents related to censorship and corruption.
➡ The official release of a shooter’s records reveals her violent thoughts, planning of a school attack, and personal distress. The records, which are disturbing to read, also show she considered attacking a mall but decided against it due to increased security. Despite the unpleasant nature of the documents, their release could help in understanding, preventing, and preparing for future mass shootings. The release of these records may indicate a growing commitment to transparency on key issues by the current administration.

Just before I came out, Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Office of Director of National Intelligence, runs that office, released and declassified information about the Russiagate smears of Trump. And the documents show that the Obama gang and Comey’s FBI and CIA and the deep state intelligence agencies basically rushed through a process to create the fake news that the Russians wanted Trump to win. And what Tulsi’s report or information shows is that what had happened was the initial report was the Russians didn’t and couldn’t interfere with our elections. They may have wanted to, but they wouldn’t have had much impact.

Certainly they couldn’t access our systems in a way to change the elections. But that wasn’t what the Obama gang wanted. They wanted to smear Trump. And the documents show that. They threw out essentially the document that was relatively straightforward because it didn’t help their seditious, treacherous agenda. And they concocted another one, which was Russia, Russia, Russia. And we talked about this last week, where they laundered the Steele dossier through this subsequent analysis. The Steele dossier was the fake garbage created by the Clinton campaign, paid for in partnership with the FBI to smear Trump and to use it to undermine his administration and try to get him thrown in jail.

And so the details of this document are really incredible. So Tulsi posted a series of tweets that are very effective in describing what the issues are about. So let’s go through it one by one because it’s worth the time, because the media is not going to tell you about this, but I will. The creation of the Russia hoax, as I described real intel assessment, Russia and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting cyberattacks on infrastructure. As I noted, that was the initial conclusion. Okay, so. And that happened shortly before Trump won. This was around September of 2016.

Trump wins. They have a Obama gang meeting with Obama in the White House on December 9th, and they literally meet the plan, the Russia hoax. So Obama ordered a new investigation or new summary of the fake information. There on the right, IC begins outlining new assessment to claim election was hacked. And the day before, you know how we know something happened the day before? On December 8, the IC pulled the product about how the Russians didn’t do anything at the request of the FBI. So they create this intelligence assessment that’s fake. They immediately start leaking it and essentially weaponize it in order to undermine and destroy the Trump administration.

So this was the initial consensus. We are working with CIA on a presidential daily brief submission on the on the threat. The thrust of the analysis is that there is no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count later on September 9th. We agree with Russia probably, and this is the line they agree with that was going to be in the Presidential Daily Brief. Russia probably is not and will not trying to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer enabled election infrastructure. And then Clapper talking points we assess for this is just before that infamous meeting with Obama.

We assess that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome this year. We have no evidence of cyber manipulation or election infrastructure intended to alter results. So they go down. Let’s go down in the next one. They pulled the brief. This is what it was to say before it was pulled. Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure. Okay, and there you have the. This is the smoking gun. Based on some new guidance, we are going to push back publication of the Presidential Daily Brief.

It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week and the next day as Tulsi highlights Brennan, Clapper. All the rest met at the secret meeting. So look at the gang that’s there. The participants include Susan Rice. Biden was asleep. I guess he wasn’t there. John Kerry, Victoria Nuland, Adam Shusman from Treasury, Loretta Lynch, Justice Department, Mary McCord, Justice Department, Jay Johnson, top DHS official, the chief of staff at the time, Dennis McDonough, Neil Egiston who was type White House counsel, top lawyer Andrew McCabe for the FBI, the corrupt Andrew McCabe, the corrupt John Brennan for the CIA, etc.

Ben Rhodes, the IC is prepared to produce an assessment per the President’s request. So Obama got the operation going to get Trump. Let’s go down to the next tweet. And this was the fake news reports. Though Russia has long conducted cyber spying on US Agencies, companies and organizations, this presidential campaign marks the first time Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence the outcome of the election. Completely opposite to what they said before. It was all made up. It all began leaking immediately after the meeting and contemporaneous with it. Let’s go to the next one.

And of course they used the Steele dossier. And someone said, why did we use the Steele dossier? That’s essentially what that email says. The Steele dossier was a factor in the Obama intelligence assessment. So they used this fake dossier to try to destroy President Trump. I mean this is important. And there’s Enough here, given the various testimonies and the conspiracy that I think continues to this day to warrant a fulsome criminal investigation. And I’m pleased the agencies are releasing this info, but this can’t be the end of it. We got to go to the punishment phase, the accountability phase for the warfare against Trump.

And I found something very interesting in the documents that we uncovered here or that were produced. Of course, we had asked for records like this many, many times. So you can be sure our pressure helped get some of these records out. This is from a FBI analyst. Listen to this paragraph. See, it’s from the blacked out name, Intelligence Analyst, Technology Cyber Intelligence Union, Cyber Intelligence Section. So let’s look at number two there. We believe it is worth noting that in an extremely close race, it is certainly possible that a very targeted cyber attack aimed at manipulating votes could lead to a change in legitimate results and affect the outcome of the election.

As an example, the votes in a swing county and a swing state could potentially be slightly altered, thus resulting in the electoral college votes of a particular state to go forward one to go toward one particular individual, thus tipping the entire election in their favor. That is, in the 2000 election, the results in Florida essentially were decided by one or two counties. Although this is unlikely, it certainly remains a possibility and one that can’t be discounted due to the high impact, even with the disjointed nature of us electing technology. So here we have, just before the 2016 election, an FBI intelligence analyst sharing with other top officials in the United States government that, yes, our election systems are subject to potential hacking by foreign actors in a way that can affect the outcome of the election.

And, and it seemingly is easy to do. You don’t need to do it nationally. All you need to do, go into a select county or select state and you can get it done. Now, if you made that allegation, as you recall, around 2020, you were sued, you were disbarred, you were targeted for censorship, you were threatened with jail. In fact, you probably could go to jail already if it weren’t for the election, changing the leadership of the Justice Department. So These people in 2016 acknowledged that our election systems are susceptible to being hacked. And if we said the same thing in 2020, or even asked the question or expressed concern about it, they tried to jail and destroy.

Yeah, so I’m ticked off about this Russia stuff, but we already knew that they had been doing this in large measure. This is more proof in the proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have no doubt. But this is really outrageous here. It shows you how dishonest our whole system is, isn’t it? I mean, not only the Justice Department was trying to jail you for thinking like this, even though that that was standard analysis. You had the big tech platforms censoring you. Heck, we still get throttled and censored over this garbage, raising questions about 2020.

We still get censored online. Judicial Watch does. I’ve been censored repeatedly over the issue. So everyone involved in this should be criminally investigated. And I’ve observed before, Obama knew, Biden knew, Hillary knew, Clapper knew, Schiff knew, Comey knew, McCabe knew. And of course Obama did it. And no, it’s not too late to impeach Obama. They impeached Trump, proceeded with impeachment proceedings against Trump after he was president. They should do the same for Obama in the least. The Epstein scandal continues to dog the Trump admin. 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 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 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 Cash 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, 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, 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 disclosure.

And I know the President’s concern 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, 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, Penguin, 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, is 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 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 and 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 much lead and Judicial Watch’s lead to some of the questions they have about Epstein. So one of the things I love about Judicial Watch is like, we’re in the middle of these fights where like, for instance, like on this Russiagate stuff, we’re still trying to get text messages from Strzok and Page, we’re still battling for text messages there who are at the center of a lot of these scandals. I mean, the COVID ups have been going on for seven years just on struck and page from the government.

But separately, we still have a lot of other work to do. And we just, you know, the establishment here always tells you, oh, well, we’re doing all this other stuff. We can’t do that too. I don’t believe that. First of all, they’re the government. They can do whatever they want. And I know from Judicial Watch we do everything, I’m exaggerating slightly, but we try to cover the full orbit of corruption issues that Americans care about. And number one or near the top is election integrity. And Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader in terms of ensuring our elections are free, fair and clean.

And one of the big cases we have concerns the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. There are, I think, 19 states or so, maybe 21. I forget the number changes depending on how you count. But nearly two dozen states that allowed accounting of ballots that arrive after election day. And the problem with that is federal law sets an election day on the election day. You all know about every four years or two years, there is a specific election Day set by law. It’s when you’re supposed to typically get your ballots in or show up and vote by then.

But you have these states counting ballots for weeks after Election Day. And it’s one thing to count ballots for weeks after Election Day because you’re so incompetent you can’t even count the ballots you’ve had since Election Day, which I think is problematic, to be clear. But it’s beyond, beyond belief that you would dare to count ballots that arrive after Election Day. As President Trump noted in talking about the issue, he said, it’s like someone showing up three days after an election and demanding the vote too late. You don’t get your ballot in by Election Day, it shouldn’t be counted, at least under federal law, as we’ve alleged in various federal courts.

We have three cases, one in California, one in Mississippi, one in Illinois. In Mississippi, it went up on appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our client is correct in our analysis of the law that it is unlawful to count ballots that arrive after Election Day. In California, the case has been stayed because I’m going to tell you about it now because in Illinois, we sued on behalf of a congressman and two presidential electors, Congressman Mike Bost, B O S T Because eight count ballots that arrived for up to. Excuse me. That arrived for up to 14 days after election Day in Illinois.

And I don’t even think you need a postmark sometimes. And rather than deal with the merits of our claim, the courts there said that he has no standing. We’re like, what are you talking about? A federal candidate for office, a sitting member of Congress? It doesn’t have standing to challenge an election being illegally extended for two weeks. It doesn’t make any sense under Supreme Court precedent, basically, any conception of the law. So we appealed. We lost at the appellate level, two to one powerful dissent. So we appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court took up the case.

It was announced about a month or two ago, and we just filed the opening brief in the case and the. And I encourage you to go to our website and review it now. We expect to get the oral argument set in October. I don’t know that for a fact, but that’s likely to be the case. So all the briefing has to be done well before then. So in this. In judicial. In this case, which is. Captioned, what’s it? Captioned. Representative Michael Boss, Laura Palestrini and Susan Sweeney versus the Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews, I’ll bring up the case here or I’ll bring up the press release.

Give me a second. You see the press release here. Judicial Watch announces US Supreme Court Brief in Historic Election Integrity Case. This is the way to think about it. This is at least the way I think about it as a non lawyer. This is about whether a candidate can challenge a dirty election in federal court. If there are illegal rules, who can challenge those illegal rules if not a candidate? Right. And you never know if you’re going to win or lose. But I can’t imagine we’re going to lose. I just can’t imagine it. It would be terrible if we lost because it would just allow rampant illegality to go unchecked in significant ways when it comes to election administration.

As I note, in June the Supreme Court agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal of the decision of the U.S. court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The lower courts had denied that Boston the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received up to 14 days after election Day. And we quote from our brief. Let me get a page of the brief here and I encourage you to read the full brief. Did a great job. Our lawyers did a great job. Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the 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 the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and 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 ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. So what’s there to argue about? I mean, that’s my approach.

Either you buy it or you don’t. And I would hope the Supreme Court would make an easy make easy work of this issue. Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court. It is obvious that candidates of standing to challenge unlawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources. So this is a big deal. I mean, this is about as big an election case that the Supreme Court has heard at least in the last decade. And they’ve had significant gerrymandering cases. But this, this one’s pretty darn important and will guide how courts approach who can challenge election issues.

And the other piece of news is that we hired a major League attorney to help us with the case before the Supreme Court. His name is Paul Clement. You may have heard of Paul before. He’s argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. I don’t think there’s anyone else out there who’s argued as many. Maybe there’s one or two on the left that have. And he’s representing Congressman Boss in partnership with Judeo Shawach’s attorneys. He’s former Solicitor General. What is the Solicitor General? He is the official in a Justice Department that is in charge of arguing the US Government’s position to the Supreme Court in matters that the Court’s hearing.

So he worked for President Bush from 2000 to 2008 in that position and is widely regarded as one of the top Supreme Court litigators in the country. And on top of that, we’ve got this crack team of election lawyers here at Judicial Watch that isthat is the top election law team in the country. Bob Popper is our senior attorney who runs the team. Popper was previously the voter section, previously was in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. So he saw what was going on in the Justice Department, and he was really quite happy to come over to Judicial Watch, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees and settlements in dozens of states.

And Russ Nobile, who has been litigating this case below, also worked at the Justice Department, and he has been front and center in litigating these cases as it relates to counting the illicit counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. Now, I probably don’t have to tell you why it’s illegal, right? Make much of a case to persuade you, but it does call into question potentially election outcomes in California. Our case is on hold because the Supreme Court is considering the issue about whether Congressman Issa, who we’re representing in California, who’s suing over the state counting ballots that arrive for seven days after election.

In our lawsuit, we allege there were two seats that were flipped from Republican to Democrats in the House of Representatives based on votes that were counted that arrived after Election Day, which in my view, means those seats should still be Republican. And I’m not saying that because, oh, I support Republicans. I’m saying it because that’s what the law would require. So think how close the House is. Two seats matter. So this isn’t an academic argument, and it just highlights the need not only to resolve this issue in terms of the merits, but how important it is to have a vehicle in court to resolve this issue, meaning candidates got to be able to fight for the rule of law when their candidacies are on the line, when their election outcomes are on the line.

So you can read the full brief@judical watch.org, we’ll provide a link to you below. It’s a great decision, it’s a great brief, but it’s pretty simple and it’s accessible to you don’t have to be a lawyer to benefit from it. And so what I love about Judicial Watch, we’ve got our lawyers on one coast here in Washington, D.C. and almost simultaneously we have our lawyers in Eugene, Oregon across the country. So we had our lawyers here in Washington, D.C. arguing for transparency on the censorship operation against Americans over really election integrity issues in many ways. And in Oregon, we were in federal court arguing for our case over cleaning up the election rolls, which of course again is essential to election integrity.

The case has been going on for a bit now and we were in court trying to convince the court to reject the defendant’s efforts and others efforts to get our case dismissed in large measure due to the fact supposedly no one has standing to ever question whether election rolls are clean as federal law requires. And I explained the Oregon case in this previous update snippet that I’m going to have played for you. Now it is number 21. Hey everyone. Huge news. Judicial Watch lawsuits led to the cleanup of 4 million dirty names from the voting rolls in just the last two years or so.

But there’s more heavy lifting to be done for cleaner elections. That’s why Judicial Watch just sued the state of Oregon to force it to finally clean up its voting rolls, which are a mess. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. And Oregon hasn’t been doing that. In fact, our new lawsuit just filed for and with the Constitution Party of Oregon and Oregon voters details how 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates and exceeding 100%.

Frankly, Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. You know, dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon, as I said, has some of the worst voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up as soon as possible. In the meantime, Judicial Watch has lawsuits to clean up voting rolls in California and in Illinois. Simply put, millions of ineligible names need to be removed from the voter roll under federal law. And Judicial Watch has been, is and will be in federal court making it happen. And so for the first Time in a long time.

We also had support in this case, at least in part from the Justice Department, Harmeet Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division, which for years, even during Republican administrations has been a hotbed for radical left wing activism. And they filed a brief statement of interest advocating at least for access to the information that we’re seeking related to voting rolls. And so I’m not quite sure how the case is going to go, but I am of the belief that our ability to clean up the rolls in the end has to be maintained by the courts. The idea that the states don’t take the steps that federal law requires under the National Voter Registration act, reasonable steps to clean up the rolls and no one will be able to do anything about it, that just can’t be the case ultimately.

And this is all they have to do. It’s not like a difficult issue and you may not know what the process is, but we do because our work basically codified the process through Supreme Court and other judicial decisions and settlements. As I’ve mentioned, we’ve cleaned up 5 million names from the rolls thanks to our litigation and legal action thus far. And so what happens is, and I talked about this with you just recently, if you go to votelet’s say I go to vote or I don’t vote in the next federal election. So let’s win the next federal election next year, 2026, the state or locality I live in the district, they would send me a card saying, hey Fitton, why didn’t you vote? Are you still there? That’s not literally what they say, but that’s the effect of what they’re asking.

Because if you’re not there, we’re going to take your name off the rolls. And if I don’t respond to the card or if I don’t vote over the next two federal election cycles. So that’s four plus plus years, including the time associated with, you know, getting the card out. So it could be five plus years before my name is ultimately removed, assuming I’ve moved away, right? Or I don’t respond or vote. Now the left doesn’t want any of those names cleaned up, practically speaking. And they’re fighting us tooth and nail in all of these jurisdictions when we go to court.

Some of these liberal jurisdictions when we come in, believe it or not, they say, hey, judicial, watch your right, clean up the rolls. That happened in New York City. We said, you haven’t cleaned up the rolls in 10 years there. And they said, you’re right in the last year or so, plus They’ve cleaned a million names from the rolls just in New York City alone. So just don’t, don’t, don’t think just because it’s, quote, a blue state or states run by liberals that there’s no justice to be had. We sued in California to clean up the rolls there.

They settled. 1.2 million names cleaned up in LA county alone. Now the rest of the state’s a mess. We have a new lawsuit trying to vindicate the rule of law there. But the point being, we can get it done everywhere. And that’s why we’re in Illinois right now, in California right now, and as I said, just in Oregon. And I encourage you to go and take a look at all of Judicial Watch’s significant work on election integrity. And of course, one of the most significant cases in recent American history on election integrity is going to be in front of the Supreme Court because of your Judicial Watch.

We’re challenging the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. Mail in ballots. In Illinois, they count ballots that arrive after election day for 14 days. And rather than let our client, Congressman Mike Boss, challenge it because federal law sets an election day, not an election week or month, the courts below found that he didn’t have standing, which in my view is absurd. If a candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law, as alleged in our lawsuit, who can? And the Supreme Court evidently wants to figure out whether we’re right, and they agreed to take up the case.

And I think the case is going to be heard in October or November or as soon as October or November could be later. So the issue about whether a candidate essentially can go to court to challenge and try to, say, stop an election from being stolen, that’s a pretty big deal, wouldn’t you agree? And that’s going to be before the Supreme Court next term. So, great work Judicial Watch is doing. As I said this week, on one day, on Tuesday, I think it was Tuesday. Maybe it was Wednesday. No, it was Wednesday. We had our lawyers arguing to uncover the worst censorship in American history, documents related to it, in federal court here in Washington, D.C.

and on the other end of the country, we had another team of lawyers arguing to ensure that Judicial Watch and the local party out there, the Constitution Party, and others, had the right to go in and ensure that Oregon, who has some of the dirtiest roles in the country, clean up their roles as federal law requires. And I dare you to find anyone else on the conservative side of the aisle that is doing that type of work and is capable of doing that type of work. It’s just great. And we’re only able to do it with your support.

And before I move on, I want to ask for your support again because we can’t do it without you. Go to judicialwatch.org if you want the rolls clean, if you want elections honest, if you want the Supreme Court to rule that candidates have a right to make sure that elections aren’t stolen in federal court and should be able to pursue claims under law, if you want all sorts of other issues related to transparency and accountability over censorship and covering the corruption of the deep state FBI, and be willing to take on an administration or a Justice Department, no matter who’s running it, then you’ll love Judicial Watch and support our work.

Judicial Watch is, you know, we sometimes have to kind of sue over things we prefer not to have to even look into because it’s such a terrible situation. One of these issues is the Covenant School shooting in Tennessee in March of 2023. And, you know, there’s a big issue related to the motivations of the shooter. There were documents supposedly where that constituted what many consider to be a manifesto, and it was not being released. And materials like that typically are released. So we sued on behalf of one of our friends in Tennessee, a retired sheriff in Hamilton County, Tennessee, James Hammond, and the Tennessee Firearms association, because, as you know, the gun.

The gun anti gun lobby uses these shootings as an attempt, you know, to leverage gun bans from them. So, you know, the truth about the motivations, the circumstances of the shooting and the role of guns in both promoting the, you know, allowing the shooting to take place. Obviously it was a shooting, but. And maybe the presence of guns that could have averted it. You know, that’s a matter of debate. So we need all the details. So we sued in Tennessee, couldn’t get anything. And the families, for reasons that I don’t want to necessarily second guess, but I think legally were incorrect, came in and essentially thwarted our attempts to get this information, this manifesto information.

So we’re now at the appellate level, but the feds had the records as well. And we had sued for the records in, I Guess it was 2023 too, and we weren’t getting them from the Biden administration. And then we saw that Megyn Kelly had been granted access to them by the Trump administration, which is fine, you know, but she wasn’t allowed to publish them. We’d been in court for years and they were telling us we couldn’t get them. So we went back and said, what’s going on here. You said we weren’t allowed to see them because there’s an ongoing investigation.

There is no more ongoing investigation. The shooter is dead for two years. What’s happening? And then you have Megyn Kelly be given permission to talk about them, but not publicize them or publish them, which is not exactly the most transparent approach. And the feedback we got back was, you’re right, Judicial Watch, the senior official in the Justice Department, has authorized their release. So we got the documents, or at least ports of the documents known as the manifesto of the Tennessee Shooter from the FBI. And according to the FBI, they completed the interim review of records subject to our request, and they withheld some information under 7C&F, which is law enforcement, as I recall.

Privacy is C. I forget what F is. Anyway, so there are appeals related to. I mean, there’s material in here that’s been withheld. I didn’t see anything that we probably end up fighting over, but who knows? But I tell you, this is the first time they’ve been officially published. There have been leaks in some of the records to Steven Crowder, who’s been doing some good journalism on this. Megyn Kelly was able to talk about them, but this is the first official leak, the official. Not official leak, the first official FOIA release of the records. So the first official publication we can confirm these are the records.

Right. And they’re really terrible to read. And I don’t want to go through them individually with you because it’s just so awful. And as I say in the release, I try to characterize them generally. So, you know, what’s in them. The records detail the shooter’s violent thoughts. And that’s a nice way of putting it. She’s a very disturbed individual. The targeting and planning of the school shooting attack on the Covenant School and her transgender related distress, the records show she considered an attack on a mall. This is interesting, I thought. But she thought better of it because she noted that security had been stepped up and there was too much of a security presence there for her to think that she could do it.

And when you look through the records, and I encourage people to review them, I mean, if I’m just warning you, it’s not. They’re very unpleasant. They convey that, you know, the records show a very disturbed young woman, childlike in many respects. I mean, when you see what her. I mean, one of these documents is before death goal list. And most of her goals were to look at cartoons and juvenile oriented films. You know, basically a child. Basically, the goal list of A young, not an old teenager, but a young teenager. So it’s upsetting to see. And then she’s got horrible language describing herself, her self hatred, how she wants to die.

And then she says terrible things about the targets of her violence. It’s terrible. I keep on saying, terrible, terrible, terrible. It really is terrible to see. But what’s useful about the material, which is why it should have been made public long ago, is that it may help Americans understand and better protect and prepare and prevent future mass shootings at schools and other locations. I mean, you read the material, you say you can see that what the circumstances were and what her thinking was, maybe it will alert people, hey, there’s someone I know who’s behaving like this.

And in terms of what she planned, and the details about her plan are really significant. So we essentially got two notebooks. One notebook shows her really disturbing thoughts and writings. Another notebook gets into the details of her planning. She knew what she was going to do. It’s not nice to see. And so hopefully by looking at what she was planning to do, I mean, for instance, she. The thing she was prepping to do to prepare for the shooting was to watch a whole bunch of documentaries about other school shootings. So I don’t know, you can tell I don’t like talking about it because we got the material this afternoon.

I read through it. It was one of the most unpleasant things I’ve had to review while at Judicial Watch, let’s put it this way. And so. But it’s in the public interest that it be released. So I caution you, it’s available online at our website to look at it, and there may be some ramifications on it. People will make arguments one way or the other. And, you know, as people debate on it, I’ll share my views, but it’s there for you to see. And there may be other materials. As I said, we still have this legal fight in Tennessee, you know, which has gone on interminably, in my view, completely at odds with any understanding we have of FOIA law.

It’s kind of another world with the courts down there to date, unfortunately. And so I. And I also want to commend again, the Justice Department, Bam Bonney’s Justice Department, for releasing this FBI material. I mean, a lot of this, I don’t know if they could have been withheld. But, you know, just because it is public or should have been made public, it doesn’t mean an agency releases it. So what I see between the release of this and the Biden material is a growing commitment maybe to transparency on key issues by the Trump administration, specifically the Bondi Justice Department.

And that would be good to see. So we’ll keep our fingers crossed. You know, we’ll applaud them when they’re transparent. We’ll highlight where they’re not. I mean, that’s all we can do as a group. Right. And we do it with your support. 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.