Biden Border Invasion UPDATE: Judicial Watch

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here on our weekly update on social media. Thank you, as always for joining us. So much going on here in Washington, DC, it’s hard to keep track of it all. But the big news isn’t here in Washington, DC. It’s on our nations borders, specifically the southern border, which is, practically speaking, wide open and causing constitutional and other crises of confidence when it comes to the federal government and states reliance on that to protect them from invasion.

So I’ll talk about that. We have new documents, actually, new documents obtained by one of our friends highlighting how yours truly and judicial watch were targeted and spied upon, in my view, by the feds to cover up the concerns that I and others had about the elections in 2020. We have a new lawsuit about Biden corruption as it relates to documents. That’s right, Biden document corruption. You won’t believe what’s happening there.

And plus, there’s a lawsuit over an outrageous act of segregation by the radical left in Oakland, California. So a lot to talk about. First up, though, is the crisis, the Biden border crisis, which is, I think, kind of really, maybe, I hate to use this phrase because everyone in Washington likes to say inflection point, right, where maybe this week things have changed maybe for the better in terms of the border debate, where things didn’t seem to be moving one way or the other in terms of addressing the crisis caused solely by President Biden’s refusal to enforce and apply immigration law.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the best way to deal with the illegal immigration crisis is three words, enforce the law. We don’t need new laws. We just need to enforce the laws on the books. And the president should exercise the discretion he already has under the law in our US Constitution to protect America from this invasion, as opposed to misusing his authorities, spending money to aid and abet the invasion.

And in response to this lawlessness on the border, states like Texas have had to take action, I think too late in some respects, but better late than never. And Governor Abbott has ordered his border be more secure down there. They’ve placed barbed wire, I think it’s, what’s it called, concertina wire, along the border. And the Biden administration erupted because they want an open border. They don’t want the states to provide barriers and protect themselves from the invasion because they’re on the side of the invaders.

They want these folks to come across the border, and then they use your money to move them into your hometown or to big cities across America. And so there had been a big legal fight that was going on in Texas, and then in the Fifth Circuit, which is the federal circuit of appellate judges that oversees Texas. And the feds have been winning more or less, if I recall correctly.

And so they issued this injunction that allowed the Biden administration to come in and cut the wire to enable further the invasion. And the Supreme Court was asked to intervene by Texas, and the Supreme Court refused to by vote of five to four. It was a decision that, not virtually no, had no explanation as to why the Supreme Court didn’t want to intervene here. But it was five, four.

Amy Comey Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts joined the three liberals to essentially allow the federal government to come in and cut the wire. Now, what does it mean for Texas? Although the Supreme Court didn’t say what its views were on the merits, it was just about whether there’d be an injunction stopping the government from the Biden regime from doing what they wanted to do. But certainly it doesn’t auger well for this fight in the future before the Supreme Court.

Now, specifically, Texas has said they’re still going know, keep on trying to protect themselves under the Constitution and such, and I’ll get there. I’ll discuss that a little bit more. But in the meantime, the left is going crazy because they’ve been exposed as a result of the Supreme Court decision. So this was an adverse decision for those of us who want the border secure. And I don’t think I need to, for practical purposes, get into the debate of whether it was right or not, whether there should have been an injunction.

All I know is that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas were on the side of those who thought the federal government shouldn’t be able to cut the wire as this case was pending. And to me, I don’t know about you, but when Justice Thomas and Justice Alito in the least are on the side of an issue, you can reliably count me on the side of wherever they are. And so now there’s a big debate, right? What’s going to happen in Texas? And in response, I keep on calling him Speaker Abbot.

He’s not Speaker Abbott. He’s Governor Abbot issued a statement as to where he is on this. Let’s get the statement out here. Stated January 24, the federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the states. The executive branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting states, including immigration laws. On the books right now, President Biden has refused to enforce these laws and has even violated them.

The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration. Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters, one of which I delivered to him by hand. President Biden has ignored Texas’demand that he perform his constitutional duties. President Biden has violated his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws enacted by Congress. Instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry, President Biden has sent his lawyers into federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border.

President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The effect is to illegally allow their ammos parole into the United States, meaning they just get let into the country by wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas’s border security infrastructure, Biden has enticed illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points along the state’s southern border. Bridges where no one bridge border dash bridges where no one drowns.

They’re safer to cross there, too, and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande. Under President Biden’s lawless border policies, more than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border in just three years. It is more than the population of 33 different states in this country. This illegal refusal to protect the states has inflicted unprecedented harm on the people all across the United States. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other visionaries who wrote the US Constitution foresaw that the states shall not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border.

This is why the framers included both article four, section four, which promises that a federal government, quote, shall protect each state against invasion, and article one, section ten, clause three, which acknowledges the state’s sovereign interest in protecting their borders. And he cites a Supreme Court brief there, the failure of the Biden administration, and this is, I think, the most important part of the post here, the failure of the Biden administration to fulfill the duties imposed by article four, section four has triggered article one, clause ten, section ten, clause three, which reserves to this state the right of self defense.

For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under article one, section ten, clause three, to invoke Texas constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority as well as state law to secure Texas border.

So what does that mean? It means he’s going to try to keep on protecting the border and the Supreme Court decision, like no other decision, as I said, it was an adverse decision, just lighted a fire within the american public and highlighted in a dramatic fashion that this Biden administration, which is supposed to be securing the border, is taking steps to undo efforts to secure that border. And this, on top of, I think, the revelations in the New Hampshire primary, I know it was Republicans, but there are a lot of independents and Democrats, as we’ve heard, who evidently participated in that process.

And they were all polled, and I shouldn’t say all of them were polled. Some were asked questions in a statistically valid way to ensure a response that speaks for the voting public, at least in New Hampshire. And the number one concern was illegal immigration. This is a New Hampshire. This isn’t in Texas. This is in New Hampshire. Now, of course, they’ve got border issues up north that the media want to ignore as well.

But the point is that illegal immigration is a major issue for the voting with 6 million people coming across the border. I mean, if the public isn’t upset and nervous about that, then maybe the country truly would be lost. But the public is upset about it and want it stopped. And so now Congress and establishment Washington doesn’t know what to do. And what the left is trying to do is suggest that because Governor Abbot and officials in Texas are insisting that they still have the right to protect the border because that Supreme Court decision didn’t tell Texas, you have to stop it, just told the Biden administration what it’s allowed to do or allowed it to proceed to cut wire where it wants, in theory it looks like.

But Texas still has steps it can take under law. And what’s the response of the left? To deploy the military against Texas, to take military action? Have Biden seize the National Guard, even though Texas hasn’t done anything outside the law. But this is what the left is about. They want to jail their enemies. And as soon as you object to anything they want, they want to bring the military down on you.

They’re looking for a Tinneman square in Texas. If they had their left, and I’m telling you, this anti american left, it will be the death of the country. It’s not going to be, could be the death of the country. It will be the death of the country unless our institutions of government and law and civic life don’t confront and stop the abuses. And this includes the destruction of our border, the destruction of our sovereignty, destruction of our nation that is being caused by this unprecedented wave of humanity never seen before, not in american history, in the history of humanity into the United States.

And as I highlighted in response to the Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court made a political decision. I think the decision not to provide relief to Texas was a political decision on the border crisis. And Americans are less safe and Americans know they’re less safe. That’s why there’s been this overwhelming outrage and show of public support for Texas’s position. Now the question is, what’s going to be done? What can we and should we expect from our politicians in the current crisis? I’ve already told you repeatedly, and I will tell you again, because it can happen as soon as tomorrow, whenever Congress is next in session, the House and the Senate can defund the Biden border invasion.

If they don’t want Biden to cut the razor wire, if they don’t want the Biden to tear down border security, if they don’t want Biden to aid in abet illegal immigration and basically help foreign nationals invade the United States with your tax dollars, they can stop the funding in a, you know, the Democrats have their position. It’s well known. Republicans pretend to be, most Republicans pretend to be against all of this.

And they’re all outraged in Congress, especially given the Supreme Court decision. So the same House Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, who pushed through a deal to fully fund the border invasion last week, this week is outraged that the border invasion is happening. I don’t know how you square those two positions. Maybe I’m just some dumb hick, right? I’m just not sophisticated enough for Washington because I can’t figure out how you can be opposed to the Biden border invasion.

And then when push comes to shove, you fully fund it in these continuing resolutions and such. Now the good news is, or I don’t know if it’s good news because I don’t know how it’s going to turn out. But what’s interesting is that the Senate has been going through secret negotiations, and whenever negotiations on big matters are conducted in secret in Congress, it means bad guys are up to no good and they’re coming up with awful policy.

And so the thinking was there’s this desire for additional Ukraine aid, aid for Israel and aid for other leftist priorities. And I don’t mean Israel Ukraine, I mean just other leftist priorities because all that aid is coupled with funding the left all the time. All the time. And so what conservatives were thinking was, well, if they need that or if that’s must pass legislation because some of them support aid for Ukraine and Israel in various ways, then if that’s a must pass piece of legislation.

Let’s have a must pass if we’re going to be supporting the national security of Israel and Ukraine, we should at least put a priority also on our national security by securing our border. So it turns out that there’s been this secret negotiation between the establishment republican wing and the Senate and Democrats, and the plans have been leaked, more or less. That would, as best I understand it, allow certain hundreds of thousands of people at least to get amnesty, enshrine in law that it’s okay for millions of people to cross the border illegally before anything’s done about it, effectively making it easier for people who abuse our asylum system to work.

So all of that is kind of blown up, right? Because all of a sudden, Republicans don’t want any part of it, or at least a significant number in the Senate don’t. So no one knows what to do. So it’s terribly confusing up there. It’s great to watch because I want confusion and failures in legislation when the legislation is designed to advance the destruction of the country. I got relatively, obviously, we all have different views as to particular pieces of legislation, but I’ve got this basic view that if a piece of legislation is going to destroy America, I’m opposed to it.

And you can be sure that any border security bill that would get through the Senate wasn’t going to address the issue and would just kick the can down the road as the invasion continues in numbers never seen before in the history of man. And the other issue, as I said, is the continued funding of this by Congress. The continuing resolution is through the beginning of March. So there’s another month of this.

So it’s up to you to ask your members of Congress what they’re going to do to defund this invasion. Mean either it’s important or not. And if it’s important, dear leader, dear reader, dear listener, dear voter, ladies and gentlemen, then you should call your members of Congress and let them know what you think at 2022-5312-1202-2531-21 but getting back to Texas, though, and what the state governor there and the state is highlighting there, is what can the states do to protect their citizenry? And Governor Abbott referenced the United States Constitution and two key clauses in it, and the first clause is what is called the guarantee clause, which is that the president and the federal government have a positive obligation to guarantee a republican form of government to the states.

Now, what the argument is that you can’t have a republican form of government if you’re under invasion from millions of aliens. And this is the language. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of the legislature or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence. So that second part, I would submit, would require the federal government to provide troops to end the invasion.

And what rights does the state have as a result of that guarantee clause? I think that’s unexplored. I’m sure there are some cases out there that explore it, but I think it’s largely unexplored. But it highlights the obligations at least the federal government have that aren’t being met. And when you couple it with the other clause, which I think is extremely interesting and I’ve been highlighting for years now, what’s the other clause? I had so much paper here.

There’s so much corruption going on. The paper is overwhelming. Oh, there it is. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, I should read it. It’s easier for me to read the paper than the screen. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded or imminent danger, as will not admit of delay.

So I interpret that to mean, and so does the governor of Texas, that in matters of invasion, they have sovereignty, especially in a situation, as the other clause I mentioned reveal, where the invasion isn’t being not only stopped by the feds, but effectively encouraged by the feds. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. This is why there are clauses like this in this. The states don’t commit to being destroyed and being able to do nothing in the face of an invasion that is either enabled or occurring in real time.

And so that compact clause. I call it the compact clause. I would submit that the states that are interested in this issue and concerned about the destruction of America enter into a compact, a common defense compact, where the national guards and other appropriate personnel and resources are deployed to the border in places like Texas. I don’t know if Arizona would participate. I suspect California wouldn’t participate because it’s run by the open borders left and stop the invasion and repel the invasion.

I’ve seen many governors, I think 25 or 26 states, have said they stand by Texas. Well, that’s good, but it may not be sufficient, as I’m describing it. Right. Are they willing to enter into a compact and provide national guard and other support to Texas to repel the invasion? I think that’s the question. And so in addition to calling Congress and asking what are they going to do to defund the border crisis, you should be asking your governors, what are they going to do to repel the invasion? Are they going to put troops on the ground, national Guard troops on the ground to help our fellow citizens in Texas protect their home? And of course, we get the benefit of all that, too, those of us who don’t live in Texas because we’re better protected if the border is protected by them.

So call your governor, ask them what they’re doing. Some of you may know what the governor’s doing, but you should let them know what you think. Anyway, politely but firmly on this key issue. Now, judicial watch, in the meantime, will continue to expose what’s going on, educate Americans as to what’s going on. I mean, we’ve been fighting this battle. I was thinking about this the other day. I think our first case on immigration was probably 23 years ago.

I’ve been here 25 years, believe it or not, and we’re helping out some little old ladies in Pasadena who were objecting and protesting. I think I say little old ladies in Pasadena, not literally, they were from Pasadena, but they were from California. And they were protesting, I think, identification cards for aliens in California, either in Sacramento, I think it was in Sacramento, and these antifa types. And it was antifa back then.

You have to remember there’s a mexican separatist movement at Slon that has been active in California for a long time, extreme leftists who want to destroy America and give part of it back to Mexico. So that crowd, that extreme leftist crowd came up and beat up these elderly folks who were, like I said, little old ladies from, you know, with their signs outside the local government office. So we represented them.

And since then we’ve tried to sue to stop sanctuary cities. We participated in these big battles in Arizona over their efforts to control and protect their state from illegal immigration. Of course, we got awful Supreme Court decisions from the court there that said that the states had to take a backseat to the federal government in all matters related to immigration. I know that’s not literally what they read, but that was practically what happened.

So I don’t know if the courts are going to be here if there’s a president who’s out of control like this because they’ve been so deferential to the feds on these matters. And what’s the other thing that can be, you know, they can remove Biden from office. I don’t understand why impeachment isn’t including the abandonment of his oath as it respects to immigration law and this clause, as we say, to guarantee a republican form of government to the states and to protect the border, our safety and security.

So they should escalate impeachment to include the Biden border. Cris, I mean, there’s this video. I retweeted it earlier this week or today. Look at this mean, that’s the United States of America where that’s happening. All of this because of conscious decision making. This isn’t like a mistake. This is the known results, foreseeable results of policies that are being voluntarily pursued by this president in contravention of his oath and the law.

And if that type of failure to conduct yourself in office to protect America isn’t impeachable, as our founders intended, because the abdication of your oath of office like this, your duties and mean you can effectively leave your office. Right, in terms of the rule of law. And the impeachment is to check on that. Now, was he going to be removed from by the Senate as a result of a Senate trial? I don’t know, but everyone should go on record.

So either this is a priority or it’s not. If it’s a priority, you use every tool available to you under the Constitution to protect America. That’s what I think about the border invasion. So what are your action items? Get the message out there. We don’t need to do anything at the border other than enforce the law. We don’t need immigration reform, meaning amnesty. We need to defund Biden’s border invasion.

We need other states to stand with Texas, literally through agreements under the Constitution that protect Texas and the rest of America and the several states from invasion, because you don’t have to be on the border to be invaded if Biden is moving millions of people into your jurisdiction. So those of you up north, Biden isn’t forgetting about you. He’s sending aliens there contrary to the Constitution and his oath of office.

You’re being invaded, too. So talk to your governors, talk to Congress, defund, enforce the law, impeach Biden, and, of course, support judicial watch because we stand with you on the rule of law on immigration. We’ve been fighting this battle for decades, and we’re not going to allow Republicans and Democrats, because both parties do it, to lie to you or blow smoke in your ear as to what’s possible and what they can and can’t do to fix the cris.

Because there are a lot of folks in this town who if Republicans say, oh, this is what we’re going to do. This is the plan. And even though they know it’s not going to work, they just sign onto it because they’re part of the party. That’s not what we do at Judicial Watch. We’re independent. So when Speaker Johnson funds a border invasion, we’re going to call him out on it.

When he says and does the right thing, we’ll promote him. When Democrats say and do the right thing, we’ll promote them. It’s about protecting the country, not partisan interests. So this is going to be a fun section because I’m going to talk about FOIA work. Someone else did not what judicial watch did. I talked about last week how we filed a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security for documents they had on censoring and targeting judicial watch.

And me, because we know from the House reports on this and our other independent investigations that we’ve been on their enemies list for censorship for years now, especially on election and Covid matters. And one of the key agencies within Department of Homeland Security that’s been doing a lot of this censorship and targeting and abuse is CISA, the cybersecurity infrastructure, what was it called? Security Administration. That’s right. So we’ve got that FOIA ongoing and many other FOIA lawsuits and such as well.

But what’s great, and what I’m proud of, of judicial watch is that other groups have followed our lead and saw what we’ve been able to do over the decades. Do you know that judicial Watch is celebrating our 30th anniversary this year? We were founded in 2004. Yeah, 1994. That shows you how old I am. I think 2004 was 30 years ago, 19, 94. 30 years ago. So Congress has looked at what judicial watch does.

The left has looked at what judicial watch does and tried to imitate us. And some of our friends are following our lead and using FOIA effectively to achieve some good results. And I’ll just share this little story with you. I got a call from a Washington Post reporter and she goes, well, you know, I have this sensitive, it might be a little sensitive or upsetting for, because, because this group could be seen as competitive with you.

And they wanted to know what I thought of this group that I’m going to tell you about the America first legal. I think they were calling me about America first legal. It doesn’t matter. The story still works because they do a lot of FOIA work and some of this anti corruption litigation that judicial watch also does. And of course, I didn’t tell her. What she probably wanted to hear was looking to get from me.

I’m like, why would I be upset that there’s one more group out there trying to figure out what the federal government is up to and trying to combat the corruption? We have a 4 trillion, 5 trillion, $6 trillion government, and I’m going to be upset there’s one other group that’s asking tough questions from a conservative perspective. Of course not. The more the better. Come on in. The left has thousands and thousands of organizations whose sole goal is to advance the growth of government at the expense of your freedom, liberty, and the american constitutional system, our republican system of government under the US Constitution, meaning limited government.

Think of all the groups out there pushing for censorship. Think of all the groups out there pushing for the destruction of our borders. The number of groups on the right is minute, comparatively speaking. So we don’t just need one judicial watch, we need many judicial watch type groups out there pursuing the rule of law and advocating for the rule of law. So our friends at America first legal, I hope they file thousands of FOIA lawsuits and get millions of documents.

So I was excited to see that they had gotten some documents from this DHS, America first legal. That’s the group, by the way, Stephen Miller is running it, and I think what’s his name, Gene Hamilton, is the top lawyer there. Good group. They’re doing some good work. And they got some documents near and dear to our heart. And I was looking at these documents, and the headline is, America first legal lawsuit reveals size and new mail about mailing voting risk in 2020 while censoring related narratives as disinformation.

So I’m not going to go through everything they uncovered, but they did uncover something that I thought was very interesting. And I was looking at it and I’m like, oh, well, they had uncovered that the big consulting firm Deloitte was monitoring american citizens’tweets for them and alerting them to tweets that they should be concerned about. And so I was looking at what Deloitte was telling them about, and I said, well, that sounds like my tweet.

Oh, and that one sounds like my tweet. So here’s what the Deloitte was. This is what they were using to get your tax dollars. And here’s the first one. This is how they described. An online conservative pundit asserted that Twitter falsely suggests that voting by mail is safe and more secure than voting in person. Well, that’s easy to figure out because I just searched Twitter, and look who said that.

Me. So I complain about Twitter giving out false information about an election and CiSa takes note of it. And then later in this Deloitte report, I think it was a tweet. That same day, a conservative online activist. Don’t you like how they didn’t use my name? They thought they could get around the law, I think, I suspect by not using my name because I don’t think this is lawful.

And I think they think because they don’t mention my name, they get an out for not keeping a file on me specifically. I don’t think a court’s going to buy that if we decide to pursue it, but we’ll see. What is it? Oh, go back to what the Deloitte said about this. A conservative online activist claimed that Twitter is censoring his tweets about voter fraud to help the presidential, the democratic presidential nominee.

Well, that one I had to kind of look to see, and it looks like I said it three times. There’s one, Twitter corruptly censors my tweets by vote, on vote, by mail. There’s another censored by YouTube. There’s a picture of me being angry. That’s a nice picture of me in front of the Capitol. Twitter censoring my stuff to help Biden. So here there are multiple tweets and that they’re being monitored by the federal government.

And of course, I’m speaking in these know for my vantage on Judicial Watch. So they’re targeting judicial watch here, too. So there we have it. Proof positive that the federal government was monitoring judicial watch, monitoring my tweets, because, a, I was complaining about the censorship of my tweets, and b, that the censorship was tied to my activism and First Amendment protected right to warn about the concerns I had about mail in balloting, which I still have concerns about.

Proof positive that they were illicitly targeting me. Now, the left responds to this by saying, oh, well, these are public tweets. They can. Well, just because they’re public doesn’t mean the government can investigate you. There has to be a lawful reason for doing so. And I would submit there was no lawful reason. And I’m interested to know what our lawsuit is going to find, because now we know they had me on their radar and they had judicial watch on their radar, or I shouldn’t say.

Now we know. We have further evidence, thanks to our friends at american first legal, that they had them on their radar. That they had us on their radar. Of course, this was under the Trump administration. Can you imagine what they’re doing under the Biden administration? Getting mad. So this is just the beginning. We have multiple litigations, many’s lawsuits. I hang out with lawyers too much. I say, start saying things like multiple litigations, some bastardized legal speak.

We got a lot of lawsuits suing for material on the censorship of Americans. We’re suing state of California for censoring, getting us censored on YouTube on similar concerns. And the question is, are they going to push it again this year? Are they going to keep up with the censorship? Now Twitter’s under new management. It’s not even called Twitter anymore. It’s called x. And Elon Musk is committed to more free speech on Twitter, freer speech on Twitter.

So I don’t think it’s going to be an issue on Twitter, but it’s going to continue to be an issue on YouTube, which is controlled by Google and Facebook, I guarantee you. I mean, the left has billions of dollars, including in the government, geared towards opposing the First Amendment and trying to control speech online. Every time you hear the government or their fronts and allies on the left talk about speech online, it’s always in the guise of, quote, moderating it, restricting it, First Amendment be danged.

I mean, this is what had Twitter was putting out at one point. Look at that. They were putting out democratic left wing talking points about voting by mail. Voting by mail prior to 2020 was seen by every election expert, I shouldn’t say every, but most credible ones, as being the voting method that is most susceptible to fraud because it’s unsupervised voting. I mean, there are checks in place, but because no one’s, you know, a, someone can be intimidated into voting one way or the other quite easily because no one’s watching.

And then it’s easier to impersonate someone in voting by mail. And of course, once you’re collecting ballots, vote by mail isn’t really the full story because it’s voting away from the ballot place. And it gets there not only by mail, but sometimes it’s collected, this ballot harvesting mess that adds another x factor and more opportunities for fraud. So I think vote by mail should generally be end. I think vote by mail should generally be ended.

And to the degree there is more vote by mail in our country, election outcomes and results will be american people will have less confidence in for good reason. So there you have it. Government coming after me and judicial watch because we’re telling the truth or speaking out on a topic they didn’t want us to speak out to on, which is election integrity. All right, well, we had a new important lawsuit about the Biden corruption.

You know, so this week, it’s just another bad week for Trump in terms of abuse of the rule of law against him. He’s being harangued up in New York by a Democrat appointed federal judge on this Eugene Carroll defamation lawsuit, which I think is legally meritless. Right? So he’s being tortured up there in what I consider to be kangaroo court proceedings. He’s still being harassed in the various jurisdictions, whether it be Miami by Jack Smith DC by Jack Smith.

Some of that’s on hold as the Supreme Court considers some of the issues there that are implicated by Biden’s unprecedented prosecution. Of course, the Miami case, the Florida case, has to do with the handling of documents from his days as president of the United States, a document dispute. But there was a lot less interest in what Joe Biden was doing in terms of handling documents. See, the rule was they made up new rules to cover Trump.

And so what the problem was for them was the problem that resulted from that is that that meant others who had done similar activities that were seen as lawful and perfectly fine, all of a sudden had legal liabilities, namely Joe Biden. So at the same time, they were making up new rules to abuse and harass and then prosecute Trump, and they’re trying to jail him over it. Biden had the same issues and they were treating him quite differently.

No raids, no grand juries, still no grand jury, even though there’s now special counsel that they were embarrassed into appointing over the documents that Joe Biden had kept from his days as vice president, including classified records from his days as senator. And so, judicial watch, we just don’t give up easily. Sometimes we’re forced to give up because the court tells us we can’t proceed any further. But sometimes we think of other things to do, to ask questions differently, get a different set of documents.

And we sued for records of the alleged cover up of Biden’s classified materials housed at the Penn Biden center here in Washington, DC, because it looked like one of Biden’s top people were at the Pentagon, was helping him handle these documents at the same time they were giving, as I said, harassing Trump. We filed against the Department of Defense for documents regarding a key Biden staffer allegedly involved in the handling of Joe Biden’s materials housed at the Penn Biden center.

And we filed the lawsuit after they essentially ignored our October request from last year. So we were seeking records and communications with Kathy Chung, who’s deputy director of protocol, office of the secretary of defense, for communications with a lawyer at Covington and burling about the documents at the Penn Biden center, communications with the White House and communications within the Pentagon about the Penn Biden center documents. Now, these documents, as I said, included classified materials.

Now, my view, my understanding of the law was at least, was the law as interpreted by the Justice Department in the federal court and the National Archives prior to Trump, was that a president having documents after he leaves office or vice president having documents after he leaves office? The records they have are presumptively declassified, even if they are marked classified. Now, that doesn’t apply to a former senator.

He doesn’t get that benefit of the law. The law doesn’t apply to him like that. So there’s arguably even not as much liability as some of Biden’s enemies thinks he might have here, but more liability than Trump has because Trump is protected, I think, under law in terms of having these documents, but Biden isn’t in terms of documents he had that were classified from his days as a senator.

So we want to know what was done to cover all this up in the early part of 2021 when they first figured out that Biden had documents over there as they were harassing Trump and making literally a federal case out of it. In a May 5, 2023 letter, Chairman James Comer of the House Committee on oversight and Accountability wrote to Dana Remus, who is a lawyer at the Biden White House and now partner at Covington and Burling.

She was, I think, who was she? No, she was White House counsel. So she wasn’t just a lawyer. She was Biden’s top lawyer at the White House, and this is what he wrote. The committee has obtained information that contradicts important details from the White House’s advisors and Biden’s personal attorney statements about the discovery documents at the Penn Biden center, including the location and security of the classified documents.

The committee has learned that you were a central figure in the early stages of coordinating the packing and moving of boxes that were later found to contain classified materials following a recent transcribed interview with Miss Kathy Chung. That’s who we’re asking about over at the Pentagon, the president’s former assistant from when he was vice president and subsequent employee of then former vice President Biden’s company, Celtic Capri. So he went, she’s been with him for a long time here in a public capacity and then working with him privately.

The committee has identified you as a witness with potentially unique knowledge about the matter. So she was obviously talking to the top lawyer for Biden about his document issues. And we’re seeking clarification. The committee is regarding the timeline of events prior to the November 2, 2022. I think there’s a typo here. 2022, the day according to the White House and President Biden’s personal attorneys documents were, quote, discovered at the Penn Biden center.

The security of documents in the Penn Biden center before and after Mr. Chung packed them, and President Biden’s history of potentially mishandling classified material. In a subsequent letter, Comer states, in January 2023, Biden’s personal attorney, Bob Bauer released a statement that included a timeline, events that inexplicably began on November 2, 2022. We quote the unexpected discovery, right of the Obama Biden records at Penn Biden center. The timeline was incomplete and misleading and omitted months of communications, planning and coordinating among multiple White House officials, Ms.

Chung, Penn Biden center employees, and Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified information materials. The timeline also omitted multiple visits from at least five White House employees. There’s no reasonable explanation as to why this many White House employees and lawyers were so concerned about retrieving boxes they believed only contained personal documents and materials. So here you go. Ms. Chung was at the center of the storm.

This woman, this former Biden employee, now an official at the Pentagon, in the handling and what I would argue, the COVID up of the mishandling of classified information or government materials by Joe Biden and his gang. Now, I say because he had them when he was vice president, he took them when he was vice president, they should be his. But that wasn’t their legal position. So they were worried.

But the Justice Department didn’t conduct any raids. It was all very patty cake. So that’s why we’re suing. While the Biden administration was scheming to jail former President Trump over a document dispute, Biden’s operatives were desperately trying to cover up Biden’s own and more significant document scandal. And the COVID up continues with yet another Biden agency hiding records in violation of law. Now, of course, we have many lawsuits on the abuses of Trump national archives, hiding most of the records that we’ve asked for, multiple cases, lawsuits.

Of course, I’ve been called as a witness, harassed and intimidated judicial watch in me by the Biden administration for doing exactly this type of work. This type of work got me hauled into a grand jury. They sent the FBI knocking at my door because we’re asking tough questions about the Biden document scandal, which not only involves the abuse of Trump, but the COVID up of similar alleged conduct by Biden that’s much worse than anything they’re accusing Trump of.

So we’re not going to stop. We have multiple lawsuits on this issue. They want to jail Trump on a pretext, as I say, part of their effort to turn America into a one party government, a one party state. Excuse me, how best to do that than to knock off your top opponent by putting him in jail or keeping him off the ballot, as I’ve been saying. So there you have it, another big lawsuit.

Of course, the corruption just isn’t here in Washington, DC, especially with what some people call the woke mind virus. I call it just communism, Marxism, effort to destroy America by destroying our institutions and particularly evil and demonic attacking our children and their precious innocence. You see that with the transgender extremism, which is a variation of this, but also the racist extremism, the critical race theory extremism, the DEI, whatever this latest iteration is, it’s an effort to divide and destroy America through highlighting and manufacturing racial divides and treating people differently according to race, as opposed to equally despite race, which is what we’re supposed to be doing under federal law, our constitution, and general american values that I thought we all signed up for.

But the left has abandoned all that they support, racism and segregation. Here’s an example. Judicial Watch files lawsuit against Oakland Unified School District for records on elementary schools racially segregated play date we filed a California public records lawsuit over a racially segregated play date held on August 26, 2023, by one of the district’s elementary schools. We seek records on the planning and authorization of the playdate held by Shabbot Elementary School, titled Playdate Social for Black, brown and API, which is Asian Pacific Islander families.

And here’s the flyer announcing the playdate. Now, leftists say, well, they don’t say whites aren’t allowed, but why aren’t whites included in that description? What if there was a playdate social for white kids and they didn’t include any other racial classification? I mean, this is just anti white racism. We can’t talk around the issue. It’s racial segregation based on race specifically with the target of excluding whites now, individually, you can associate with anyone you want in your personal capacity.

You want to have a playdate, you buy whoever you want. But if you’re a government school, you can’t do it. You can’t authorize it, you can’t host it. Racially segregated mean. Why is this even a debate? Because the crazed left has abandoned America, our values, our constitution, and our laws. The invitation specifically reads, if your family identifies as black, brown, or API or are a parent caregiver of a black, brown or API student.

Come hang out while we get a chance to know each other and build our community. As we kick off the school year, the playdate was hosted by the school’s equity and inclusion committee. Now, equity, it doesn’t mean what it used to mean. It means communism. Equality requires the rule of law to prosper. Equity, meaning guaranteed outcomes, requires tyranny. It’s Marxism. No matter who you are, what effort you put in, you should be able to get the same results or benefits that someone else gets.

What’s the old Marxist Maxim? To each according to his need. So success is to be frowned upon. And that’s the basis for taking people’s wealth and spreading it. So equity is communism and inclusion is code for when the left means inclusion, they mean exclusion, they mean racism, they mean attacking a group of people based on race under the mistaken and dishonest and corrupt belief that that helps other people of different races.

As I said, it’s unamerican. So we asked for these documents back in September, and they didn’t give us a response. How many records could there have been about this one racially segregated play date? I mean, there’s one, two, three. I mean, the categories are detailed, but there’s no, I mean, but this is why it’s important. For instance, any records concerning or regarding the exclusion of students or families who do not identify as black, brown, or API.

As I say, the Oakland school segregated playdate shows how the extremist left is embracing anti white segregation in our schools. And to make matters worse, the Oakland school district’s leaders are unlawfully hiding records about this deplorable abuse of schoolchildren. And now it’s bad enough where adults play this race card, but to encourage children to play it as well and encourage racial separatism and segregation, it’s contemptible. Now, of course, this isn’t the only lawsuit and piece of litigation we have on this.

I mean, we successfully, for instance, stopped race quotas in California. The state mandated race quotas for private boards of directors, and then other quotas based on gender, ethnicity, and I think sexual identification. And California courts thought that was illegal. Of course it is illegal. And we won. We have a lawsuit in Minnesota over Minneapolis’s union contract that when layoffs are to occur under the terms of the contract, it’s first in, first out, meaning the least senior people get fired first.

That’s another issue in terms of bad policy, except if the person is, quote, part of an underrepresented group meaning not white. So if you’re white, you will get fired before you would otherwise have gotten if you were black under this union contract. And then when, if you get rehired, it’s still based on race, brazenly unconstitutional outside the law. And we’ve exposed this anti american racialism by the left in our military academies, our national military academies, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, West Point, and the local school districts as well, around, I mean, just, it’s all over the place.

It is a contagion, as I observed before, COVID is not the contagion we have to worry about. It’s critical race theory. The lefts embrace a segregation and racialism that’s as dangerous to America and much more dangerous to America than any pathogen, at least ones that are out there that we know about. So it’s a good little lawsuit, an important, you know, we’re out there protecting kids. And because of our work against racism, Judicial Watch has become America’s leading government, civil leading civil rights organization because the left has abandoned largely protecting civil rights as they’ve been lecturing us for dozens of years.

All of a sudden, they don’t believe in civil rights anymore. And if you believe in a colorblind society, if you believe that people should be based on merit and be treated equally irrespective of their race, then you’ll support judicial Watch’s efforts here and you’ll oppose the menace and despicable racialism that the left is promoting. So a lot going on at Judicial Watch, a lot going on with our friends who are also doing some hard work here in Washington, DC.

And I encourage you to find out not only about what Judicial watch does and support our work@judicialwatch. org. But look to see what other groups and candidates or other people out there that you might like and support. Figure that’s how you participate in the process, too, especially in the nonprofit sector. I encourage you to go out there because there are a lot of great conservative groups that are focused on a lot of interesting issues that are important, whether it be First Amendment issues as it relates to race, religion, the Second Amendment, economic regulation, the climate wars, the climate scam.

There are a lot of groups doing some work, and the left gets all the money and attention for the work in that areas. But the most important work essential to the future of the country is done by our compatriots in the conservative movement who are trying to defend your rights and preserve the country as best they’re able, given their limited capacities and support. So I encourage you to go out there and support everyone who supports freedom effectively, as well as judicial watch.

Thank you. And I’ll see you here next week on the judicial watch weekly update. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .

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