➡ Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records related to Jeffrey Epstein. They believe there’s a lack of transparency and possible cover-ups regarding Epstein’s case and his death. The group has requested all documents, including Epstein’s client list, from the DOJ and the FBI, but claim they’ve been given the runaround. They hope the lawsuit will ensure all relevant records are released and any withheld information is justified in court.
➡ Judicial Watch is working hard to ensure all Epstein records are released to the public, but the process has been slow and confusing. They’re also investigating possible cover-ups and obstruction of the disclosure of these records. Meanwhile, there’s concern about the FBI’s recent activities, including the handling of the January 6th investigations and the targeting of parents communicating with school boards. Judicial Watch suggests that the FBI and Justice Department need serious reform and possibly outside investigation to ensure transparency and accountability.
➡ Judicial Watch has been pushing for records related to alleged corruption within the Biden administration, which they believe was used to distract from targeting Trump. They have been using FOIA lawsuits to extract information from agencies, hoping to increase pressure for prosecutions. The Supreme Court has recently made several rulings related to Trump, including a 5-4 decision that Chief Judge Boasberg had no jurisdiction over the Alien Enemies Act case. Despite some setbacks, these rulings are seen as victories for the rule of law and constitutional order.
➡ The article discusses the issue of judicial activism, where judges overstep their roles and interfere with the executive and legislative branches of government. It suggests that impeachment could be a solution to this problem. The article also criticizes the left for their attacks on Elon Musk and his companies, and for their refusal to condemn violence. It ends by comparing these ongoing issues to the one-off violence of January 6th, suggesting that the left’s actions are more concerning.
➡ The speaker criticizes the left for allegedly using violence as a political tool and accuses them of supporting terrorism. They also claim that the FBI has been targeting whistleblowers who support Donald Trump and criticize the agency’s actions. Judicial Watch, an organization the speaker is part of, has filed lawsuits against the FBI for these alleged abuses. The speaker urges continued support for Judicial Watch in their efforts to hold the FBI accountable.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update for Judicial Watch. A lot going on, breaking news first, though, new Epstein files lawsuit we just filed against the Department of Justice for records the FBI or Justice department have on Mr. Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein, who was killed or committed suicide, we’re led to believe, while in the custody of the Justice Department a few years ago. Americans want the Epstein client list. They want to know if there’s anyone else that should be held accountable for Epstein’s sexual predations. And this is why Judicial Watch has stepped up, because we’re tired of waiting and we’re tired of the confusion around the records concerning Mr.

Epstein. And I like Pam Bondi, I like Cash Patel, but the way these Epstein files have been handled has undermined confidence that all the records that they have are being made available. And institutionally speaking, I don’t trust the Justice Department. And even if some good people now seem to be running it, I still don’t trust the institution. And I talked about that in the context of other scandals and Mr. Epstein back in 2019. Let’s play that video. The Justice Department can’t be trusted to tie its own shoes. And one of the reasons it’s not trusted is because of its record of corruption, its record of looking out the other way when there is a political figure that is favored or disfavored.

Political decision making in terms of prosecutions improperly made. So the Justice Department protects Hillary Clinton, targets President Trump, and then a controversial prosecution, the subject of which has been tied to the Clintons, ends up dead. And we’re all supposed to be surprised when Americans say, what’s up with that? What’s up with that is right. Judicial Watch requested records about the Epstein matter mostly just a few months ago, and we’ve been getting the runaround. I don’t understand why it’s happening, but it is frustrating. And here’s my breaking news clip about it earlier this week. Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch just sued for the Epstein records.

We want the lists, the client lists, pretty much any document the Justice Department or the FBI have about this scandal. I know records have been turned over, but we asked for the records, and we’d be getting the run around from both the Justice Department and the FBI. So the best way to ensure all the records are turned over is to sue in federal court, and that’s where we are now. We want to know what records there are, if there are any that we can’t have. Why not? Where do they search for the records, all that basic information, and it’s well past time for the American people to get the full truth about this big scandal.

So not only are we asking for the client list, we want everything, practically speaking, that’s in the possession of these agencies. About Mr. Epstein. For instance, there’s this controversy about the release of records earlier this year as we’re talking about by the Trump administration, to their credit, but because it was kind of a public leak, there were questions about whether there were other documents that were withheld by the FBI. And because it’s just a leak or a general disclosure, we don’t know what’s been withheld. We don’t know what other records might be out there and if there’s material that’s withheld, even within the category of records that have been public.

So, you know, releasing records from the government, unfortunately, is never easy. It’s a somewhat complicated process. So when there’s kind of this slapdash release of records, I like the transparency, but the accountability is lacking. Because unless you’re in court or pursuing the Freedom of Information act request, you can’t know for sure, or you can’t be at least reasonably sure because you never really know for sure because you’re dealing with the government that you’re getting everything you do under the law. On February 21, 2025, all records we asked for, for instance, from the Justice Department, all records from Attorney General Bondi about the release of the records around that time.

So that’s an important aspect of this because we want to know if there was, among other issues, cover ups that they found out about as a result of their first release of records. But we didn’t get anything. February 27th, all records related to Jeffrey Edward Epstein, simple request, haven’t gotten anything. They acknowledge receipt. Nothing’s happened since. Third request, we sent a record to the FBI or FOIA request to the FBI, all records related to Epstein. Simple. So doj, FBI, Epstein records, and by the way, that would include records about his death. That’s how I read these.

And then similarly, we asked for records about FBI Director Patel’s work on the Epstein files release because we wanted to know, because there are accusations FBI agents up in New York or the FBI office in New York was withholding the info. You know, and we want to know what went on there. Because if there’s a cover up, we want the accountability. And this is wherethis is, where Judicial Watch is second to none. Because we are the nation’s leading Freedom of Information act litigator. We’ve asked for these records not once, not Twice, but four different ways. We still haven’t gotten an adequate response or no response virtually.

And so now we’re in federal court. And the best way, and this is what I would recommend to the Trump administration, and if they’re going to be releasing records and being transparent, which, as I think they should, they should at least endeavor to release the records through the FOIA process. Doesn’t mean you don’t widely release them. And I’m not saying don’t just get them out, but you have to be aware to the degree there’s litigation or FOIA requests pending, that the way to reassure the public that there is accountability and that there’s no material that’s been withheld by the deep state is to be in court or use the FOIA law, because that process is put in place.

So let’s say we sue for the records, right? They typically give us the records. In this case, they’ll give us records, or they’ll tell us, we’re not giving you any records, and they’ll express the reasons for the withholdings, and they’ll have to justify that to the court. Or if they give us some records, they’ll have to justify what they’re not giving us, if that indeed is the case. And then secondly, if there’s a whole group of records, it’s going to take time. Then they negotiate or ask for court relief in order to have enough time to turn all the records over.

And, you know, they always ask for more time than they reasonably need, but that’s always a fight. And then sometimes you fight over where they look for the records. We don’t see records from Office X. Did you look there? And they will describe the search to you. All of that is very useful, especially in a complicated issue like Epstein, where you had multiple offices, right? Remember, he was in Florida and then he was up in New York. And I’m sure Main justice was involved in some of this as well, and. And the FBI. So if you want to know what is in the Epstein files, I suspect this case, in the end, will be the best way to have a full understanding of what’s in the files and what’s being withheld and what potentially can still be found or still should be released.

And this is what I love about Judicial Watch, because I know there’s been all this news and there’s a significant public interest in the release of the Epstein files and the fact that we’ve had to sue. Still, even once they began releasing records, they couldn’t get their act together enough. To give us any other records or even give us the records they wanted to be released under foia. I don’t understand it. Let’s see what I said in the release about it. Simply put, the Justice Department needs to respond to public demands for transparency under law and release the Epstein files under foia.

It’s simple. They need to do that with the JFK files, they need to do that with the RFK files. They need to do that with all these categories of records that they’re releasing. For example, they released to our friend Megyn Kelly or disclosed to her. I don’t know if they released it to her or showed it to her. I didn’t listen to the report that carefully records about the Tennessee shooter, the manifesto, the transgendered person who shot up the Covenant School terrible shooting. And we’ve been fighting for, frankly, years at this point in Tennessee for the records.

We have a lawsuit pending. And then we find out Megyn Kelly was given access to all the records. And in the meantime, we’re being told in court we’re not allowed to see the records because they’re all exempt from release. Now they’re telling us, oh, maybe we’re going to give you the records too. So what’s happening? So you can imagine it’s frustrating. And then we have been in court for four, three years plus on these Crossfire Hurricane records, and they were just released not under foia. So this is, again, they’re kind of stalling the release of the records to Judicial Watch.

Just a few records every month, and now they just made a massive release publicly while concurrently telling the court they still need forever and a day to release them. It’s confusing and it’s not reassuring that everything that should be released to the public is going to be released. So there are two good. You know, this is kind of a high quality problem, right? They’re being transparent in a way that is really significant and positive. So I don’t want to say don’t release the records. I just want to make sure the records are released in a way that reassure the public that nothing else is being hidden.

And, you know, that’s the big problem they’ve had with the Epstein records thus far. No one would think that the initial release of the Epstein records was the way probably the administration wanted the public to think about how that process wanted the public to think or conclude that the process was appropriate. A public leak isn’t all that different than a private leak. So publicly leaking the records and saying, oh, here’s all the records, there’s no way to check what’s being withheld. That gets you some good points, but it doesn’t get you as far as you need to.

So this is an important lawsuit on behalf of the American people. There’s intense public interest in the release of the Epstein files and we want access to those records. We’ve asked through four FOIA requests for information about specifically the Epstein records, specifically the Epstein client list and the way the records have been handled, and questions about whether there have been cover ups and efforts to thwart the Trump administration from getting the truth out. So we’re doing our own independent investigation of deep state obstruction of the disclosure of the Epstein records on top of just asking for the Epstein records themselves.

So it’s a great lawsuit. It’s a massive lawsuit. And, you know, the question oftentimes in D.C. is who can you trust? You can trust Judicial Watch. There’s no one better at getting records and extracting government secrets. So I’ll keep you updated. Hopefully we get more records under the law here and to the degree I can tell you about them or keep you updated in a timely way, you can be sure I will. So a lot going on this week as well with respect to the FBI. And I talked about this issue a little bit last week.

There was a New York Times story and I quoted specifically the story on Twitter and here’s the tweet I issued or on X I said, what whut the new Assistant Director, FBI Director Cash, named to run the Washington Field Office. Stephen J. Jensen, was in charge of the Bureau’s Domestic Terrorism Operations section on that day. And he played a key role in responding to the attack on the Capitol. Mr. Jensen was also responsible for establishing a system to monitor incidents of violence at school board meetings across the country as potential acts of domestic terrorism. So I put that release out and it’s been nothing but pushback from the FBI since.

And I’ve gotten all sorts of indirect communications, etc. Oh, don’t believe what you read in the New York Times. And the suggestion early on, I think fairly, was that they were disputing that the man was appointed at all. And now it’s been confirmed he was appointed. And now the suggestion is that he’s probably a good guy and he shouldn’t be criticized. And my concern is, besides them trying to spin, is whether or not there should be a Washington field office, whether or not there should be the FBI, at least in its current form. Why is the FBI being treated like usaid? Why hasn’t there been prosecutions or any news of any serious investigation into the lawfare against President Trump.

Where’s the justice? Where’s the accountability? And our friend Dan Bongino has been issuing a series of tweets saying, oh, well, just because I can’t tell, you know, you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Well, that’s not my experience. It might be true with respect to national security investigations or counterintelligence investigations, but an investigation into lawfare against Trump, all going on in secret, and we don’t know about it, so that means, you know, that we shouldn’t take anything from that. Uh, that’s not the way it works. An investigation like that, we’d know about it, and frankly, we should know about it if it’s happening.

So I really don’t know what’s happening at the Justice Department and the FBI with respect to the pushback on lawfare. And I want some justice, and I want it in a timely way. And I think the challenge that Cash has and the challenge that Pam Bondi have is that institutionally they may be controlling the Justice Department, but even though there have been firings and removals, it’s still largely. There’s still largely agencies that are thoroughly corrupted or controlled by the left. And I don’t think the FBI should be treated any differently than the usaid. And I would take the Marco Rubio approach or the DOGE approach to the FBI that they did with the usaid, figure out what its core duties and responsibilities are, ensure that they’re being done, not even necessarily by the FBI, and shut the rest of it down.

Is that an extreme position? I don’t think it is, given the dangerous activities of the FBI in recent years. I mean, Mr. Jensen, he was running these January 6th investigations that were the epitome of government abuse. And he also facilitated the targeting of parents by the Justice Department and the FBI for daring to communicate with school boards about the education of their children. So, yeah, it’s upsetting and concerning. He was hired. But, you know, the bigger issue is what are they doing to investigate even January 6th abuses or the lawfare abuses targeting Trump? Trump was the victim of a criminal conspiracy, in my view.

That’s what the evidence suggests to me. And that criminal conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights under color of law should be the subject of a serious and public criminal investigation. And can the Justice Department do that? Because it means investigating the Justice Department. Can the FBI do that? Because it means investigating the FBI? Maybe, but I don’t think so, and that’s why, if I were President Trump, I’d do the following. Actually, I told Steve Bannon what I’d do and what I recommend President Trump would do. Let’s go to clip 4. What’s your recommendations? What would you specifically like to see? Well, the president’s got to be the president.

And Pam Bondi isn’t going to do it. Cash Patel isn’t going to remake the Justice Department or the FBI. They’re going to be running it, and it’s not a criticism of them. This is where the President should step in and say, this is what the FBI needs to look like, or this is how it needs to be changed. It can’t be around anymore to do to others what they did to me. And I tell you, if after four years, nothing’s been done other than they’ve reoriented the FBI or DOJ to focus on arresting Ms. 13, then whoever comes in next time, Republican or Democrat, Trump’s going to be investigated again.

People around Trump are going to be subject to criminal investigation again. And so what President Trump needs to do is to hire a special counsel, run it out of the White House. Cash, the FBI, they can’t investigate themselves. DOJ can’t investigate themselves. Let’s stop pretending that these agencies are going to investigate their friends and colleagues. It’s not going to happen. That’s why you need outsiders. And Cash Patel should be told to follow Marco Rubio’s lead on usaid. Shut it down. Shut it down. Or at least raise the prospect of shutting it down. I like the MS.13 thing, you know, Good.

I want them to arrest all the Ms. 13 guys. But another serious threat to the Republic has been the lawfare. So we need similar interest by leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI, absent a special counsel, to investigate that and make that a big issue. And it’s simple. And so when I get the pushback that I’ve gotten and the Judicial Watch has gotten for just raising these basic issues, it’s frustrating because I’m not asking them to do anything they didn’t promise to do. I have no doubt President Trump wants to get this done. And, you know, my guess is Cash Bondi and Pam.

Excuse me, Cash Patel and Pam Bondi. Excuse me, conflating the two people want to get it done generally, but there’s always going to be kind of the long way and the winding way versus the direct, efficient, effective way. And I encourage them to take the direct, efficient, effective way. Get the lawyers involved, get the prosecutors involved, get some honest FBI agents involved. And if I were President Trump, I don’t know if I could trust those agencies to investigate themselves. And I would have outside forces do it, outside agencies do it, and outside prosecutor do it working out of the White House.

And, you know, in the meantime, we’re going to continue our litigation trying to get the records about the lawfare targeting Trump, try to get the records about the corruption of the Biden regime and how that was an impetus to target Trump, to distract from that corruption. I mean, I’ve talked about repeatedly, for instance, our really simple litigation in Fulton County, Georgia, that blew up Fannie Willis’s lies about collusion with the Pelosi January 6th regime. We asked for records about her communications with the January 6th Committee, and they said they didn’t have any. We pushed and pushed and pushed.

Long story short, they confessed to having the records, and now the judge is looking at the records directly to see if we can get the records. They say they didn’t have to begin with, and now they’re saying we can’t have. Anyway, all of that came about because of Judicial Watch, not the Justice Department, not the FBI, not Congress. So I suspect that we’re going to continue to extract information from these agencies through our FOIA lawsuits that will hopefully will increase pressure on these agencies and the administration for prosecutions. Because in the end, I think that’s the only sufficient check and consequence that’s going to really curtail and prevent this from happening again.

Do I wantdoes it mean that certain people must be prosecuted? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. But what I want is a serious criminal investigation and prosecutions, prosecutorial decisions being made fearlessly as opposed to politically, which is the way it typically works in your typical Republican administration. And if there’s one thing we know, this isn’t the typical Republican administration. And I’m hoping that continues to be the case in the sense of law and order. So the president was almost, I think, I would say 3 for 4 at the Supreme Court this week in terms of pushing back on the judicial coup pro, the judicial coups from these lower court judges against him.

And as you may recall, Chief Justice Roberts, in response to calls for impeaching, and specifically Judge Boasberg said, oh, that’s not appropriate. You got the appellate process, which is bunk in many respects, because the appellate process is one way to check judges who are outside the rule of law or out of control. Impeachment is another way to put not too fine a point on it. But Chief Justice Roberts, to his credit, was participated or at least helped, was part of the majority in many instances in curtailing a lot of the abuses targeting Trump this week. Let’s go to the first tweet that references what happened.

Help me. Remind me, because the number of cases are just astonishing. So the biggest ruling was this 5, 4 decision added at the Supreme Court on the Boasberg issue in a major setback to the left’s abuse of the courts to undermine constitutional government. That’s what’s going on here. The U.S. supreme Court ruled 5, 4 that Chief Judge Boasberg, and he’s chief of the District of Columbia courts here, the district court system simply had no jurisdiction over the Alien Enemies act case in which he ran roughshod over the constitutional powers President Trump. And of course I noted that Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the leftist dissent in key measure.

And then separately, there was this case where this other judge was trying to force the administration under President Trump to bring back this foreign national illegal alien who had been sent mistakenly, according to what the reports are and what the administration has disclosed to El Salvador. He’s El Salvadoran, by the way, and he’s an MS.13 gang member. And so there’s no real question he could have been deported. There’s a legal question as to whether he should have been deported to El Salvador given a prior court ruling. And some extremist judge was like, trying to force Trump to engage in foreign policy moves to get him back.

And Trump’s like, what are you? Who are you? You can’t do this. You’re just a regular judge. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court both gave the president an out and a loss in that regard. Let’s go to when Is the tweet number 11? Supreme Court ordered Trump to facilitate the return of an illegal alien MS.13 member from El Salvador, a further invitation for the courts to meddle in foreign policy. And indeed, the judge in the case immediately started told, so this came out. What’s today, the 11th? So this decision came out last night or late yesterday. And the judge said, oh, we got the Supreme Court decision.

You need to come in by 9:30 and tell me what you’re doing to get this guy back. Which is kind of completely at odds with what the court ruled because the court said you’ve got to be deferential to the president’s foreign policy prerogatives. And so the judge has not been curtailed at all, practically speaking, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. So do you think a district court judge should be mandating the president of the United States communicate in specific ways with a foreign government. I don’t. And I can’t believe the Supreme Court intended that to be the case here.

I know what the ruling was. Nine, nothing, essentially. But the consequence has got to be when it becomes readily apparent, more apparent, that these lower court judges are going to abuse this opportunity seemingly given them by the Supreme Court, that that’s going to have to be curtailed. I dropped my cheat sheet here. Hold on one sec. You know, but the big victory was the Alien Enemies act coming back. And even then, I didn’t like the decision completely. I had this tweet highlighting, you know, deportations. Tweet number two. Deportations can soon begin again thanks to Supreme Court ruling.

But everyone who’s subject to deportation now gets to get is supposed to get some type of warning and then they get to go to the court to, under this ruling, seek habeas relief, which essentially is the core power that a court has to kind of release someone from detention or in this case, potential removal from the country. And I think that’s inappropriate given the nature of the Alien Enemies Act. But Boasberg’s efforts to hijack the entire process in one district court here in D.C. was thrown out. So we’re all told to say, you know, highlight. We’re all been lectured about how wonderful a Judge Boasberg was.

Well, he wasn’t that wonderful in terms of his legal judgment because the Supreme Court essentially said he had no jurisdiction. He was handling a case he had no right to handle when it came to the Alien Enemies Act. So it’s a big victory for the rule of law in that regard. It’s not a perfect victory, but it’s a significant victory because as I’ve been telling you, that Trump is going to win some and lose some in these efforts to protect the country, reform the government, restore constitutional order. There’s going to be resistance to that. You’re going to have lawless resistance, and you’re going to have arguably lawful resistance and checks under our Constitution from judicial rulings and perhaps Congress.

Let me see what else I had here. Oh, and there was another great ruling. So there have been two judges who have ordered President Trump to actually go back and rehire people that he fired because they didn’t have the right to keep on working because they were probationary. I mean, you’ve all worked in places. Some folks, they get hired and they usually are subject to being fired for virtually any reason the employee wants in the first few months. And that’s true in large measure in the government. So there was a judge, I think, out on the West Coast.

I forget which leftist. Well, maybe he was. Let’s pretend he wasn’t an Obama judge or a Clinton judge or a Biden judge. Let’s pretend he was a Trump judge. It doesn’t matter. He attempted to hijack the presidency and ordered a rehiring of 16,000 workers. And as you can see in clip number six, the Supreme Court said, nope. Oh, wait, that’s a different one. Although that’s a good one to bring up. I thought that was the clip about the irs. But the point is there were multiple agencies that were ordered by this judge to rehire. Essentially, Trump was told to rehire thousands of workers, and the Supreme Court put that on hold.

So that’s not going to happen. And there was another judge who made a similar ruling here on the east coast, and he was curtailed as a result of the Supreme Court check there. Because the appellate court said, based, my understanding is based on what the Supreme Court said, you don’t have to start hiring people again. You had district court judges telling the President of the United States he had to rehire immediately in an emergency fashion, people he had just laid off and fired. I mean, that’s not the relief that you typically get at the district court level.

And I’m not a lawyer, so bear with me here. It’s worth explaining it again. Let’s say you’re at a job and you get fired and you think it was lawless. They think that there was a violation of law in getting you fired. The idea that you would go into court and get the court to get you to get hired immediately without any real input from the person you’re suing. Any consideration of evidence, any testimony, just, I want, this is unlawful and I’m going to be irreparably harmed. You would be left out of court. They’d say, I’m sorry, you can sue, but you’re not immediately getting hired.

You may never get hired at all. You may just get back pay, assuming you’re right, or after the entire case goes through, maybe, maybe you can get your job back. Or at best, the opportunity to apply for your job. So the idea that these employees, unions, leftist nonprofit states go in and say, oh, there’s an emergency because we’re not getting money. Oh, there’s an emergency because we’re, some of us lost a job. It may be an emergency for you, but it’s not, it doesn’t entitle you to immediate relief or what they were getting an immediate victory.

From anti Trump judges. So when I say judicial coup, that’s what I mean. Judges exercising powers of the legislature or the executive branch power is not available to them. And thankfully, the Supreme Court is beginning to check some of this not perfectly. They continue to think that they can interfere in key decisions that Congress and the Constitution give to the President of the United States. But these district court judges are out of control. And hopefully these latest series of Supreme Court rulings will begin to educate them that they can’t continue to get away with this and think, and they won’t attempt to, they won’t be mistaken in thinking that they’re going to be supported at the appellate or Supreme Court level and they’ll just check themselves.

But concurrently, Congress has got to take steps to curtail these judicial abuses. You know, I know there have been these issues of universal injunctions, which is a complicated issue I don’t want to get into now, but essentially it’s an injunction that, let’s say you sue in the middle of Minnesota and a judge there essentially takes hold of the entire federal government policy at issue. And that’s not the appropriate way, many say, for courts to behave. I mean, in order to kind of shut down or take over or end an entire federal government program. That’s beyond the power of a judge.

The judge has the right to provide relief to one group of people, one person, the person suing or a group of people suing. But not everyone in every state possibly impacted. So there have been legislative efforts to change that. But impeachment should be on the table as well. And I think the Congress should educate Americans about impeachment and how it specifically was put in place to check judicial activism because the founders were concerned the judiciary would do what the judiciary is doing now, which is exercising powers outside the Constitution in a way that leads to what many would call judicial tyranny.

Judicial tyranny, or judges acting as legislators and executive, basically usurping the power of the executive and legislative branches, the parts that guarantee a self government. That’s the challenge with this activism. It’s, I say, judicial coup, judicial tyranny. Judicial activism, no matter how you slice it, it is abuse of power. And impeachment is a potential check there. Is it politically feasible? I don’t know. We certainly haven’t had much leadership out of it on Congress. But don’t let anyone tell you that it’s not available because it is. You know, also this week, you know, we’ve seen kind of the continued attacks on Elon Musk companies, you know, and it’s one thing to have the antifa left out there doing that type of work for terrorism, but when you see the left do it in terms of the political figures providing aid and comfort and encouragement and incitement to the violent left, that’s concerning.

And you know, these people can barely tie their own shoes. We had this, I had this one video of. Because there were these hands off demonstrations this weekend. I kind of ran into, I had to run an errand downtown here and I’m driving, you know, it’s like, what’s going on here? There are all these marchers and I literally did not know what they were marching about. I couldn’t tell from the signs. I was just trying to get to from point A to point B and get my weekend errands done. And it turns out there were all these leftists that had come to town exercising what are their first amendment rights.

But there was this video where this young man was asked about what the heck he was demonstrating for. Let’s run that video it is. What video was it? Video 9. What makes Trump a fascist? What makes Trump a fascist? Does things without. Yeah, talk loud. I don’t have my mic on. I’m not really sorry. He just doesn’t. He just does everything he wants and, you know, not following laws or, you know, he was. He’s a convicted felon, you know, that’s all I know. But your sign says he’s a fascist. And I’m just curious what makes him a fascist? One of the things is that he’s trying to control the media, right? Say that again.

He’s trying to control the narrative. How is he trying to control the media? Doesn’t every president try to control the narrative? They try to control their own. So the big thinkers are even worse than, I mean, one young man after I did the video, you know, some people highlighted and of course I being oblivious relatively to that stuff. That poor kid was probably high as a kite. But the big thinkers aren’t any more sophisticated. There’s thisyou’ve probably seen him, he’s kind of an energetic character on tv. He’s a far leftist lawyer activist, Elie Mistel I think his name is.

And he was talking about how essentially our constitutional system needs to be destroyed. Let’s go to video 8. South Africa got over apartheid. Did they just go back to their Africana racist constitution? Be like, oh, we just need a couple of amendments, we just need a couple of changes here to make? No, they threw the whole thing out and started again, this time asking everybody this time having a completely new delegation of all of the people of South Africa, not just the white folks, but not no white folks. And they came up with a new constitution.

It’s one of the reasons why the South African Constitution is generally thought of as one of the best constitutions in the world, and ours continues to be a piece of crap. So what laws would you kick out immediately? What laws are you saying needs to get the fog out of here? Yeah, so the first one I have in my book is that I want to eliminate every single voter registration law. So that’s the left. Did you know the South Africa constitution was the best constitution in the world or one of them? I didn’t. I do know South Africa is run by a corrupt Marxist socialist regime that in order to expand and maintain its political power, is encouraging its citizens to murder fellow white South Africans and take their land.

Murderous regime. But they’ve got a great constitution. That’s what they want for America. That type of politics or revolutionary politics here in the United States. Then you have the mostone of the most extreme members of Congress. Congressman, what is it? Jaya Powell, is that her last name is spelled and she’s literally using. And listen carefully to her, because this is the sly, evil incitement of violence, encouraging people to put their lives at risk, to be killed and kill in order to advance her communist revolution. Listen to this woman. This commie wants to kill people. A member of Congress.

Listen to her. Strike ready or street ready. And part of that is understanding our own strength. And as we develop that strength, being able to assess our risk tolerance, because we know that risk tolerance increases as the severity of the situation increases and as our own understanding of what’s happening increases. So overall, the more we understand what’s effective, what the risks are and who’s ready to participate, the more impact we can have. That’s a call for violent communist revolution. What’s your risk tolerance? Incredible. Incredible. Member of Congress. And it’s not just an extremist. Head of the progressive left in the House, you have the leading Democratic party.

Well, the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, quite literally, Chuck Schumer. Again, slyly encouraging, inciting and refusing to denounce violence. Listen to this. What’s your opinion of the violence against Tesla, their products? What are your thoughts on that? Do you denounce the violence against Tesla products and dealerships and cars in the streets? I can’t talk about Tesla, but Elon Musk is a disaster for America and America knows it. Look at Wisconsin. Thank you, Senator. So his refusal to condemn the violence, given an open invitation, quite obvious that he refused to take. And the suggestion is he likes what’s going on here.

And every major leftist politician has excused, condoned, explained away the terrorism by the left targeting Tesla owners and Elon Musk, a federal government official. So whenever you hear them complain about January 6th, just remember this is what they are about. Unlike January 6th, where there was violence associated with a failure of security, violence that was one off and the result of a variety of circumstances, there was no widespread political push for violence on January 6th from Trump or anyone else on the right. But you have repeatedly, by the left and political figures, an embrace of violence.

Let me be blunt. Violence is a core left wing value. It is essential to their political philosophy. They use it and rely on it as a tool. They don’t use it all the time. It’s either as a threat or a literal vehicle to achieve political power. And you see it time and time again with, you see it with Schumer, you see it with Jaya Powell, you see it with the revolutionary on the radio or the podcast there earlier there, Mistow, who’s on television all the time. You know, these leftists are out there and who’s funding them? Soros.

I mean, the one thing good thing about USAID being shut down is a lot of these left wing groups that we’ve exposed how this has happened through our own FOIA lawsuits and such were funded by the government. So there’s this implicit violence with a lot of this protesting and support for terrorism in the Middle east and here at home. I mean, when you call someone fascist, you’re basically putting a target on their back. You’re using a word to justify killing them. Would you call someone Hitler? Same. That’s why they use that language to target Trump and Musk and their supporters.

It’s to justify and encourage violence against them. That’s what the left is about these days. And I’m going to stand up against it and I’m going to call it out whenever and however I can, because it’s the way our country could end if it gets out of control. And frankly, it’s almost out of control getting myself angry about it. But it’s really awful. It’s a dangerous time politically here, unfortunately. I think it’s a matter of time before something really terrible happens. They tried to kill Trump twice already. These are dangerous, dangerous times. So earlier in the program I talked about how the FBI needs to get its act together on transparency.

And I have another example of it needs to get its act together on accountability. Here I have another example of it. Judicial Watch again was forced to sue the Justice Department, the FBI, for records about an individual who was credibly accused by a senator, thanks to whistleblowers, including a client of Judicial Watch’s at the time of harassing and targeting whistleblowers. Judicial Watch announced that it filed the FOIA lawsuit for emails of Dina Perkins, a section chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, regarding whistleblower retaliation. Perkins was identified by Chuck Grassley. And Chuck Grassley is the longtime senator from Iowa.

He’s now chairman again of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a great friend of whistleblowers. I really think highly of Senator Grassley. So Perkins was identified by Grassley as an official who retaliated against whistleblowers who were considered pro Donald Trump. And he issued a report that says the following in part. I don’t know if I can read it all. Let’s see a third whistleblower said. On January 6, 2021, I took leave and went to see the president speak at the Ellipse. Later, my wife and I were among a crowd southwest of the Capitol. Even though we were involved in no violence, never set foot on the steps leading to the Capitol building and never entered it.

I self reported my presence to the FBI after seeing violence in the news reports. The FBI did nothing at first, but more than a year later suspended my security clearance under the supervision of Jeff Veltri and Deena Perkins. Investigators questioned my co workers about whether I had ever vocalized support for Trump or objections to the COVID vaccine. Why on earth would anyone who works for the government or any American citizen be questioned about their objections to the COVID vaccine or their support for President Trump. Necessarily abusive and he had to leave the FBI. Earlier, he had the force to take early retirement.

Another official as a security division employee, I witnessed abuses committed against multiple employees by FBI senior leaders, particularly again by Jeff Veltri and Dina Perkins. A fifth FBI official or whistleblower. Although some FBI leaders who abused the clearance process, like Dina Perkins and Jeff Veltry, have already left, they weren’t alone. Again, Marcus Allen, who Judicial Watch has represented, FBI whistleblower Jeff Veltry and Dina Perkins caused the suspension of my security clearance because I questioned whether the FBI director was truthful to Congress and whether the FBI was obeying the law and the constitution in the January 6th investigations.

Need I go on? Dina Perkins was involved in, according to many whistleblowers, in targeting whistleblowers. And so what Judicial Watch did was we filed a simple Freedom of Information act request with the FBI last year or all emails sent to and from Dina Perkins regarding whistleblower whistleblowers. O’Boyle, Veritas. So these were whistleblowing related activities. And O’Boyle himself was another FBI whistleblower who said that he faced retaliation from junior, mid and senior level leaders in the FBI. I’m still indefinitely suspended without pay and benefits. A new era in accountability and true whistleblower protection. The FBI is long overdue.

And she names Dina Perkins as one of the leaders responsible for what happened to him. So we want information about Ms. Perkins and her retaliation. The retaliation generally targeting whistleblowers who are blowing the whistle on the lawfare and the abuses of citizens. Under the pretext of January 6th, our lawsuit shows elements of the FBI are still in cover up mode about its mistreatment of agents who indicated support of Donald Trump or opposition to FBI abuses. Transparency and accountability can’t come soon enough. So I’m hoping Kash Patel is watching this broadcast and says, hey, what about this material? Fitton and Judicial Watch are asking for it.

Let’s get it to them. Hopefully. Pam Bondi is saying to the Justice Department, let’s be sure that we’re not defending the indefensible in court and let’s get these documents to Judicial Watch so the American people can see what any, if any, abuses the FBI engaged in in terms of targeting their own for blowing the whistle on the agency abuses. And when it comes to oversight of the FBI, there’s no one in Washington, D.C. that’s doing more than Judicial Watch. We’ve had lawsuit after lawsuit exposing key facets of FBI corruption over the last several years. And we’ve been doing enough work with the FBI on covering corruption on top of abuse to know that the agency, in my view, is irredeemable.

In March of 2025, just the other day, literally, the Justice Department was sued for details about abuses by Jack Smith. Last year, we sued the Justice Department for messages among its top leaders in terms of FBI top leaders. So you sue the Justice Department for the FBI because they’re the same, essentially. They don’t want you to know this, but the FBI is actually part of the Justice Department. It’s not their own little fiefdom. Pam Bondi is the big boss over there in that regard. So we talked about this person, Jeff Veltri, who was head of the Miami field office, whose name I mentioned earlier, who was posting anti Trump tweets or content, and they covered it up in May of last year, we uncovered a recording of a phone message left by an FBI agent for someone in the Secret Service in the context of the raid on Trump’s home in Mar A Lago.

Yeah, and it wasn’t the sort of normal coordination you’d expect between two agencies over a raid, that’s for sure. Last year, we found records that the FBI opened a criminal investigation of our client. Well, she’s passed away, but f. Ashley Babbitt, we’re representing her estate. And wrongful death action over her killing the goons at the FBI, and I don’t use that term loosely, opened a criminal investigation into a dead woman. Killing her wasn’t enough for these January 6th fanatics. They criminally investigated a dead woman. So forgive me for being a little bit impatient when we’re told to wait for justice and accountability.

So story after story where Judicial Watch and lawsuit after lawsuit where Judicial Watch is holding the FBI accountable. So let’s hope the courts correct and start moving away from the coups against President Trump. Let’s hope we get more transparency from these agencies on Epstein, on FBI abuse and corruption. And I hope that you see that your work and support for Judicial Watch is getting huge results. I mean, there’s no one better positioned to sue for these records than Judicial Watch. We’ve got the expertise. We’ve got the power of the people behind us, and we do it with your support.

So I encourage you to continue to support Judicial Watch because there are many more lawsuits coming and ongoing from where these came from, and we’re only able to do it with your support. So I’ll see you here next week on the Judicial Watch weekly update. Have a great weekend and week in the meantime. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below, sa.
[tr:tra].

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