Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you, as always, for joining us this week. A lot going on, including up until this very minute, so much happening in the area of corruption. So I’ll try to bring you up to date on the big stories this week, not only here in Washington, DC, where Congress is trying to further destroy the country with some immigration shenanigans, but what Judicial watch is doing in terms of trying to hold the corrupt government to account.

First up, I want to bring you up to date on this illegal immigration crisis. We’ve had two big stories in that regard. First of all, there was this tax bill that was passed by the House of Representatives. It was one of these issues, again, where Democrats and Republicans worked together, over the objections of conservatives in the Hill, to pass a tax deal that had two major components. One concerned tax subsidies for folks with children and the other related to certain taxes tied to businesses.

So the Republicans and the business community were desperate for those business tax fixes. And these were taxes that were punishing businesses that were instituted or taxes, or, I wouldn’t say taxes per se. But as you know, businesses get the write off loans and expenses and such. And in order to save money, government comes in and says you can’t write off a business expense that you previously could. So that was a lot of what was at issue.

And of course, I’m being very simple in describing it or very surface like in describing it. But the other big deal was the expansion, as alleged by conservatives, of the child tax credit. Now, some conservatives were supportive of it because they believe that children are important and that parents, the tax system doesn’t account for the cost in raising children. And certainly folks who are at the bottom of the economic scale need as much help as possible in terms of supporting their decision to have children and raise them.

Now, those of us who think that people should be responsible for raising their own children, more or less unless there’s a dire emergency, that charity and government at the last possible, as a last possible stopgap can come in. That’s where the debate is. But that all being said, what was interesting about the tax fight this year, or this tax bill this year, at least in the house, is that the tax subsidy I was talking about for children can be taken by illegal aliens.

That’s right. You heard it. Despite everything you’re hearing about at the border, another benefit of being here in the United States is coming here under this system, having a child, even though you’re here illegally, your child becomes a citizen under what I think is a misapplication of the law. But that being said, that’s what’s happening. And so there are tax that you now get entree into tax benefits such as which was expanded and furthered this week on the Hill.

And no one knew about this. Now, I shouldn’t say no one knew about it because some people did know about it, were upset about it. But I don’t think a lot of conservatives on the hill were dialed in on it until frankly, judicial watch, specifically through my Twitter account. I highlighted this issue on Wednesday morning, the day of the vote breaking conservatives shocked and angered this morning with realization that big house tax bill would provide benefits to illegal aliens.

Now look at the number of views there. Now, some tweets I know get millions of views, big tweets, 670,000 views. It’s a lot of views still. And as a result, the republican leadership on the hill that was pushing this tax bill all of a sudden had a problem on their hand. And this was their explanation was they were forced to respond to the outrage that I and a few others helped generate here.

I think Senator Mike Lee also tweeted this out as well. They said, well, illegal aliens have been getting tax benefits like this for years. Well, that’s, don’t they see that could be a problem? And isn’t this an opportunity to stop that? But they didn’t and it passed. Ironically, it may be the Senate where conservatives are supposedly weaker, that may stop this monstrosity from going forward and this tax bill from going forward.

It further highlights that for all the complaints about what Biden’s been doing with his aiding and abetting the border invasion, Congress is responsible and other governments are responsible as mean. We saw this week, for instance, up in New York, police officers being attacked. I think there’s some video of it. We’ll play it as I’m talking. And these were aliens or illegal aliens. I’m not quite sure if they were illegal or legal or just, quote, migrants, which is designed to disguise whether they’re here legally or not, and they get arrested and they’re released without bail.

So New York being a sanctuary state in effect, or city for illegal aliens, also is a driver of the illegal alien invasion. And why would these individuals have respect for our police or the law? There’s another video that went viral this week of some foreign nationals shoplifting and confronting or being confronted. So this is lovely, isn’t it? So this is kind of like the real world consequence of the illegal alien invasion.

There was a vote this week about whether to deport aliens who were caught driving under the influence, the democratic party and the left. Should not all Democrats, I think 50 or 60 Democrats voted in favor of deporting aliens who were caught driving drunk. But the heart and soul of democratic party opposed it. And this is kind of the left open borders approach. They don’t want anyone who makes it here to the United States, legally or otherwise, to be removed once they’re here.

And then once they’re here, they want them to be able to vote and get all the other sorts of benefits that a citizen would be entitled to. They want to eliminate the distinction between aliens and citizens here in the United States. And to me, that means you end the country more or know, but be worried because there is this immigration bill that’s been, and I talked about this last week that’s been planned through secret negotiations in the Senate for months.

Remember, they were talking they needed to pass this Ukraine aid bill and they were going to tie it to aid for Israel and I’m sure aid for Democrats. And know that’s usually what aid is about. It’s usually about the funding. The left and conservatives and some Republicans thought, well, this is an opportunity for us to get some significant restrictions on Biden’s ability to continue this invasion. So it quickly turned into a bill, by all accounts, that codifies an invasion of the United States and says that you can have so many illegal aliens coming through, up to 1.

85 million a year, 5000 a day, 7500 a day. The numbers vary since they were hiding the text of the bill. And until those limits are reached, there’s no emergency. So I’m not aware of any time in our history where we say in federal law that as long as the invasion is limited to under 1. 8 million, it’s okay. And they’re telling us that’s a security bill. And so what the plan is is them for the release it over the weekend, force the Senate to quickly approve it without much debate or time for consideration or public outrage, which is what they don’t want anyone to be able to build by having time to do so.

But that’s going to be the bipartisan response of the Senate and Democrat leadership to the unprecedented invasion at our border, which is to codify an invasion. What do I mean by codify? Meaning put into federal law an out for President Biden to allow 1. 8 million foreign nationals in the United States illegally before he’s under law required to do anything about it. And now supporters of it say, well, that’s less than we’re coming in now.

It’s also five times or six times what previously has been seen in emergency. I don’t know about you, but if one illegal alien gets over the border, that ought to be caused for concern, especially given the national security risks out there. They want thousands to come across the border a day before anything substantial is done. So they’re going to be pushing this hard over the next few days.

So I’m raising this with you because I want you to check the bill when it comes out, confirm what I’m saying is in there, because I don’t know what’s in there for sure. It’s designed to come at us at the last minute. But look at the bill carefully, and if you don’t like it or you have concerns or maybe you do like it, you can call your senators, call your congressman at 2022-5312-1202-2531-21 and ask for your senator or congressman.

Now, Mike Johnson, the speaker, has been out there saying he’s not going to allow this bill to go forward. And you may have seen they’re moving articles of impeachment against the cabinet secretary, Mr. Myorkis. And I’m, again, kind of flabbergasted, I think Speaker Johnson saying the right thing on this particular bill. But I just can’t get out of my head that two weeks or so ago, Speaker Johnson, using every Democrat virtually in the House, pushed through a continuum resolution with only half of the caucus of Republicans to fully fund the Biden border invasion.

So, for instance, Maya Orcas is being impeached or he’s facing impeachment. He hasn’t been impeached yet for activities that are fully funded by the House that’s currently considering impeaching him. Again, it does not compute, right? It does not compute that that is happening. And it makes me think that the impeachment of Maya orchest, however necessary, is woefully insufficient. Because if things are so crazy that you’re going to impeach a cabinet official for the first time in 150 years, well, maybe you should do things that are really within your purview as well, in terms of government funding to shut down the Biden border crisis.

I mean, our lives are at risk. Our safety is at risk. Our sovereignty is at risk. Our national security is at risk. Our children’s future is at risk. I mean, there’s a lot of money at risk here, too. I saw a recent data point, did a poll, and I don’t know how accurate the poll is. And you’ll laugh when I tell you why. Because I think they polled everyone in the world, right? So who the hell knows what’s going on there? But the poll concluded and it was a legitimate organization.

So it wasn’t a Tom Fitton poll, if you know what I mean. I think 158,000,000 adults, if they could, would come to the United States from abroad. So I asked, dear open borders advocates, is this what you want? 158,000,000 people here? That’s what we’re going to get, 5 million a year. We get there pretty quick. We get there before you know it, right? And so Congress is yelling about my orcas.

They’re yelling about the bite of the invasion that’s continuing the violence of illegal aliens here on the streets that are continuously know in terms of their criminal activity. In addition to being here illegally committing crimes of violence and other basic crimes that are traditionally prosecuted at the state level, they’re prosecuted or arrested and then given a slap on the wrist and let out again to go on and commit more crimes.

They’re not even deported. So forgive me if I think that ought to be a priority, saving the country. Right. But what do you think the House should have spent more time on last week? The tax bill or making sure the country wasn’t going to be destroyed as a result of the Biden border invasion? Or how about a compromise making sure that tax bill didn’t incentivize the continued destruction of our country through the Biden border invasion, at least don’t do any additional harm.

But they didn’t. They said they might get to it in another bill and fix it then. Yeah, well, that, and that’s probably not going to work out well. Right. So the other big development this week is, and it just happened a little bit before I came on to talk to you now, is there was a court filing due in court in Fulton county by the district attorney’s office there to respond to the allegations that the democratic party official, the elected prosecutor, Fannie Willis, she’s a politician, not an official.

She’s actually a democratic party politician, by the way, unelected, had an illicit affair or was engaged in an illicit affair with the special prosecutor she hired to target Trump and President Trump. And initially, another defendant had brought all these charges forward and suggested that those payments, some of which, according to the divorce filings, which the divorce proceeding has been shut down, conveniently, for Mr. Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who is the paramour of Willis, these, Wade, for instance, was able to buy trips for him and his friend Miss Willis.

To, you know, places overseas and guess they went to the Caribbean and places like. So finally, the court wanted more information, and the brief was due today. And in the brief, which largely doesn’t address kind of the key allegations in terms of the conclusions one might draw as a result of this illicit relationship, but it’s confirmed there is an illicit relationship because everything was alleged until now in many ways, in terms of what the nature of the relationship was.

And you’ll see they filed, I think, 176 page brief. They will put a link below so you can read their defense of what I think to be the indefensible. But for all the noise, there’s an admission way down in the back here, paragraph 27 of an affidavit filed by Mr. Wade, 2022 district attorney Willis and I developed a personal relationship in addition, in addition to our professional association and friendship.

So the question is, what does that mean? What are the conclusions the court might make from that illicit relationship in this unprecedented prosecution of Trump? Remember what they’re trying to do? They’re trying to jail Trump and other american citizens for daring to dispute and exercise their prerogatives under the First Amendment, other federal law, and certainly the president’s rights as president at the time to question the way Georgia ran the election because Biden barely won in Georgia and they want to put him in jail for it.

It’s nakedly political prosecution, which makes it suspect enough and illicit enough to warrant shutting it down. But the courts haven’t done it yet, and they’re unlikely to do so. But on top of that, as we’ve talked about, we have this base corruption. And the question is, did the relationship they had, was he hired for improper reasons? He was hired in 2021. He goes out of his way to say the relationship began in 2022.

They don’t say when. Well, why was he hired to begin with? I mean, who are they fooling here? And then he says, well, we both could make, by the way the government is saying this, they’re saying there’s no ethical issue here. There’s no ethical issue, certainly nothing warranting dismissal of the case. And I guess the lawyers will debate it. I personally believe there’s more than enough information or in terms of these allegations, there’s more than enough reason to shut this whole thing down.

Because I think everything that’s been done has been tainted, at least in this case, has been tainted by this relationship. Because in my view, when you have a district attorney and his, her employee, first of all, we don’t even know why he was being paid we know technically why, right. He was hired to be special prosecutor in the Trump case, but because of the relationship. Was he being paid for that reason or for another reason? And the fact that the question is out there raises questions about the whole prosecution.

Was the prosecution being advanced so he would have a job, so they could party together and travel together and literally feather their own nests? And I don’t know what the court’s going to do now. Fanny Willis doesn’t even want a hearing to take place. There was a hearing scheduled for the 15th, I think, and she wants it canceled. It’s going to be a circus. No one should be able to ask any more questions about this.

And I don’t know about you, but I think there are plenty of questions to be asked about this. Did this relationship taint the case? Was this not just about politics, which to me taints the case? Irredeemably so. But did the personal relationship here color everything that went on in terms of this prosecution? And I tweeted out what I thought. I don’t remember what I said, so I’m going to have to look at it.

I carefully reviewed today’s Fulton county filing, which confirms an affair between Fannie Willis and the special prosecutor she is using to try to jail Trump and other Americans based on unprecedented political charges pushed by the democratic party in the Biden regime. Today’s filing fails to provide any substantive argument against the obvious reality that the illicit conflicted relationship has fatally compromised the already corrupt charges against Trump. The whole case against Trump should be shut down and the prosecutor and her paramore subject to court ethics and criminal investigations.

So they’re subject to a court investigation right now. So there is a hearing set. There are ethics investigations, at least, I guess you might call them, ethics investigations. Congressional, excuse me, legislative authorities in Georgia are looking at it and Congress is looking at it. But I do think the whole thing needs to be shut down. And they describe the hiring as perfectly normal and appropriate in the brief.

And what judicial watch’s approach on these issues are, is to trust but verify. No, actually, don’t trust but verify, because we don’t trust what the government says. Even in legal briefs, there’s a demonstrated record of dishonesty, deceit, and misleading information by prosecutors, especially when it comes to Trump. And so we have a new lawsuit, which we announced the other day. Here’s what I said about it. Hey, everyone.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitt, and here are some breaking news. We have a new open records lawsuit against Fulton County, Georgia, over the hiring by Fannie Willis. Of her alleged boyfriend to be a special prosecutor to target President Trump. I’ll tell you, this investigation of Trump is bad enough. It’s an unprecedented political prosecution. But on top of that, now we’ve got these significant allegations of this nasty personal corruption involving Fannie Willis and her alleged boyfriend.

And on top of that, Fulton county is trying to hide documents about the whole mess from judicial watch. They don’t know what we’re looking for, because I guarantee you, we’re not the only person looking for this or the only group looking for it. This is what we asked for. All county records as defined under law. We cite the law related to the hiring, appointment, procurement of the professional services of Nathan Wade or his law firm as Fulton county special prosecutor.

This includes any request for services, proposals, contracts, invoices or correspondence, physical or electronic related to his hiring, appointment, procurement, any applicable procurement policies and procedures related to Mr. Wade’s hiring or appointment. So there’s a debate about whether he was hired properly, whether he had the qualifications, whether he was paid appropriately. Now, he denies he was paid anything other than what was he, you know, he did in this brief, he alleges, or the government alleges on his behalf, because he’s basically their agent, that he’s done nothing wrong.

He’s not making as much money as he could in the private sector. He’s doing a lot of work. And all the money he’s made from the county has been for work he completed unhonorably. And my view is, let’s figure out how he was hired by looking at the underlying documents and don’t rely on descriptions of the work and the activity by the government. That’s just not what we do.

And as I said earlier in the little clip we had where I was upstairs talking about it, the fact that we can’t get this information because how much information could there be? Right? It’s a subset of documents. The fact that they’re not giving it to us suggests that there’s something to hide. And this is what judicial watch does. And I think some of the disclosures here that are taking place in this brief are in part due to our pushback here and the pressure we’re giving them because they’ve known for a month plus that we’ve been seeking this information.

I think we began asking, yeah, it’s not just short of a month ago, January 11. So they know we’re out here asking for this information, and they know what Judicial Watch’s reputation is, which is that we sue if we’re unlawfully kept from getting documents. So I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust the legislature of Georgia or, frankly, the courts in Georgia or Congress or the media to get to the bottom of this.

Now, there’s a lot of information to be had, and this could be only a slice of the pie in that regard. But the basic information about how this person came to be hired and the circumstances of the hiring seems to be in the public interest to have given what they’re up to there, which is the unprecedented effort to jail a former president for acts he committed as president related to the enforcement of federal election law and for acts he committed as, quote, a citizen and candidate to ensure that election, that the elections were being followed down there according to law and weren’t subject to fraud, were questions of fraud, meaning were there investigations going on? To me, this is just like democratic payback and election interference.

And it’s part of a massive programming campaign by the Democratic Party throughout the land. A storm of election interference from Florida and Miami with Jack Smith with these fake charges over documents. Up into Atlanta with Fanny Willis, the democratic politician trying to jail Trump with her boyfriend, up into here in DC with Judge Chutkin and Jack Smith and the Biden DoJ, the Biden regime, again, like Fannie Willis, a federal version of that claim in many ways, trying to jail Trump for opposing Biden Putin like behavior.

Up to New York with Alvin Bragg, the source backed prosecutor, letting those illegal aliens out while trying to jail Trump on unprecedented interpretations of the law related to a confidentiality agreement he had with a woman. It’s just crazy town in terms of the rule of law. Now there are setbacks like Fanny will when you seek to abuse authority. The good thing about our system, it’s not so far gone that there are some rules that have to be followed and there are setbacks when the rules aren’t, and that the process sometimes provides protection as opposed to punishment.

So there are issues down in Georgia, whether it ends the case or not, I don’t think it’s an open question. And up here in DC, it’s been delayed. Judge Chutchkin had to take the case off the calendar today. She was trying to push this trial through on March 4. I think March 4 was the date. No more. It’s gone because there’s an appeal about the unprecedented charges of Trump and whether he has immunity from being prosecuted for official conduct or activities he engaged in when he was president.

So now they’re hoping, I think, that Alvin Bragg gets to Trump before the election. I mean, there’s this kind of crazed effort and desperate effort to get Trump convicted before the election and from their perspective, jailed. So that’s where we stand. It’s kind of like a slog, right, in terms of the legal battles. Fannie WILlis it’s, it’s kind of a tangential issue to the abusive prosecution, but it could be something that really rocks it.

And who knows what’s going to happen here in Washington, DC. I mean, the courts up here are anti Trump, so maybe the Supreme Court will do something to slow it down further. But who knows? Who knows? But again, this is what’s important about judicial watch is that I’m not just coming up here and commenting about it. We’re doing the litigation and fighting in court for the information. I’ll talk about this more next week.

But we’re still fighting Jack Smith to find out who his top people are that’s working on this Trump case. I mean, they’re telling us that there’s no public interest in figuring out who the top officials are who are working for him. So he could have a Fanny Willis in there. He could have a Peter Strzok Lisa page for all we know. According to his theory of the case and the Biden Justice Department’s theory, he could have Michelle Obama working on the prosecution and he wouldn’t have to tell us about it.

I joke. But that’s the insanity we’re facing with these individuals in the Biden Justice Department and Jack Smith, who in my view, is a rogue prosecutor. The point is we’re fighting in federal court and in Georgia and state court for the truth to expose this corruption that’s so, in my view, damaging to the future of our republic. Because if our law enforcement agencies are going to be brazenly used to jail the political opposition of those in mean, we’re not any better than Putin’s Russia or in China or any of the other countries we’re all supposed to hate.

Frankly, it makes a mockery of our system now. And I think it weakens us now with our friends and our enemies because they see in America that goes out and lectures others or tries to be a model for others in the best sense of the word as to how to govern yourselves and how to treat political dissidents and the political opposition and what happens in campaigns and such and how you can have a debate without wanting to jail your political opponents or moving the jail your political opponents.

We have to have systems of government like that. Well, we’re in our position to lecture on that, given what Biden’s doing. Speaking of January 6, which they’re trying to jail Trump for, the only homicide on that day was through the outrageous, awful shooting, needless shooting of Ashley Babbitt by Lieutenant Michael Bird, a US Capitol police officer. And we’ve talked about before, we just filed a $30 million wrongful death action against the US government over Ashley’s death on behalf of her estate and her widower, Aaron Babbitt.

So that case was filed, I think, two, three weeks ago. It’s going to proceed. The government, I think, has 60 days to respond. So we’ll see how Congress handles this case because Congress is implicated, the Capitol police, and, of course, the Justice Department is going to be defending this case, the Biden administration. So it’s a twofer, but we’re just never going to stop in terms of pursuing justice on this important issue.

Now, I guess we would stop if the court told us we can’t file any more lawsuits. So there’s always that caveat. Right? But my point is it’s not just going to be one lawsuit. It’s going to be multiple lawsuits. And there have already been multiple lawsuits on the shooting death of Ashley Babbitt that have uncovered dramatic information about how this officer was protected and how her death was uncalled for.

And in addition to that, we had asked for her FBI records from the Justice Department. So where are her FBI records? I mean, there was a case here, right? What did they do? And we had asked a year ago for Ashley’s estate and for Aaron, her widower. Give us your FBI records. We want the records. And they’ve ignored us. It’s almost a full year. The FBI has been sitting on Ashley Babbitt’s FBI records.

Simple. Request all FBI files for Ashley Elizabeth Babbitt. And we gave other names that she may have had from her maiden name and such. Just as a reminder to you, Ashley Babbitt was an Air Force veteran. She was a 35 year old resident of San Diego, where she owned and operated successful pool business with her husband Aaron. She traveled alone from San Diego to Washington, DC to attend the women for America first Save America rally on January 6, 2021, at the ellipse.

The shooting occurred at the east entrance of the speaker’s lobby after demonstrators filled the hallway. Outside the lobby, two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door sidelight. Lieutenant Bird, who is a US Capitol police commander and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, shot Ashley on site as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight.

Bird later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands or assessing her intention or even identifying her as a female. Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Lieutenant Bird and others in the lobby. The facts speak truth, as the lawsuit says, ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Bird. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her.

Lieutenant Bird was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. It’s pretty dramatic stuff. Isn’t no wonder the FBI doesn’t want to give us anything because they know what’s up. The big law, January 6, to jail their political opponents like President Trump. And if a Capitol Hill police officer needlessly killed, murdered Ashley Babbitt, that whole narrative collapses, right? You know, we’ve been suing the government for, specifically Congress, for the January 6 videos.

Speaker Johnson has yet to release all the videos. Supposedly they’re trying to edit them down. But I don’t know what he’s doing. It’s all voluntary, meaning he’s not doing it under law. He’s just doing it on his own. And they’re telling us in the federal case that we have no business getting these records, videos and emails and such from January 6 in Congress. And as I said, we had these other lawsuits and information requests on Ashley and litigation showing how they all should have known there was going to be a massive crowd because they were all told it was going to be a massive crowd and they didn’t have sufficient security.

But we’re trying to get to the truth of January 6 and trying to uncover key facts about kind of a real focal point of January 6, which was the unnecessary shooting death of poor Ashley Babbitt. So we’re proud to be able to represent her. Well, she’s not around anymore, her state. Right. But certainly we were trying to vindicate and get justice for her and her family. It’s just awful.

So we have a new lawsuit against the FBI for what they knew about what happened that day. I just dropped my thing here. Hold on. So another way to destroy the country is to sow division and destruction through attacks based on race and segregation based on race and other characteristics. And in San Francisco, they are literally handing out money based on race, sex, and transgendered identity in complete violation of the law.

It’s so brazen, it’s to be shocking. I mean, why in this day and age do we have to argue that you can’t give money out on the basis of race? If you’re the government. But that’s what they’re doing in San Francisco because they’re just this extremist group that are running the city that are doing this. And so we represent taxpayers who are aggrieved by this because taxpayers in California have the right to sue localities when they spend money on illegal purposes like this or illegal programs like this.

So we sued over San Francisco’s discriminatory payments to, quote black Latinx men, which the law refers to or the program refers to as transgender women. Now, I’m not saying this to be sarcastic. The craziness around this is that you kind of always have to double check yourself to know what you’re talking about, because your first instinct when you hear transgender women is that they’re women who are doing something related to transgenderism.

No, what they’re trying to do is disguise the fact that these people are actually biological males who are trying to present themselves through mutilation and other changes as women. So this is the way the program works. You can’t get money if you’re white. You might get money if you’re black, but not if you’re a black female who presents themselves as a male, a transgendered man. Right. But only if you’re a black male presenting yourself as a black female.

Does that sound lawful to you? Sounds racist to me. Sexist, right? Sex discrimination and race discrimination. Pretty simple. So we filed the lawsuit. We sued the mayor, the city treasurer, the director of the city’s office of Transgender Initiatives, and city administrator Carmen Chu for violating an equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which is similar to the federal version. Mayor Breed announced the launch of the Guaranteed Income for Trans People program on November 22, 2022.

Its acronym is gift. The mayor’s office started stated in a press release that the city will, quote, provide low income transgender San Franciscans with one $200 each month up to 18 months to help address financial insecurity within trans communities. According to our lawsuit, applicants who do not identify as transgender, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or intersex are not eligible to participate in the gift program. Applicants are prioritized based on their biological sex and race and ethnicity.

Biological males identifying as females are given preference over biological females identifying as male, and applicants identifying as black or Latino are given preference over applicants identifying as other races ethnicities. I think the government doesn’t refer to it as Latino. They smear and denigrate Latinos by calling them Latinx, which is some crazy transgenderism as well. The program began dispersing funds in January of 2023, and the program is expected to continue through June.

We’ll probably renew it if they can, unless we stop them through this lawsuit. And I think we spent about a million dollars this far on it, and I think our numbers show 55 have participated. So we already know there have been acts of discrimination and illicit payment bins based on discriminatory practices. But hopefully the case goes forward. We get more discovery to find out just how bad it is.

And the goal is to stop it. Right. It’s a taxpayer lawsuit, so the goal is to stop the program that’s outside the law, so taxpayer money is no more wasted and diverted to illegal purposes. This is, I guess, unusual for a judicial watch lawsuit, but we allege transgender status discrimination. But it’s true. It’s what they’re doing. It’s kind of a version of sex discrimination. Right. Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer finance resources on the gift program is illegal because of the requirement eligible participants be transgender.

We also allege sex discrimination and race ethnicity discrimination. So we won a judgment declaring any and all expenditures of the funds and taxpayer funds and finance resources to be illegal and an injunction permanently prohibiting defendants from expending or causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds on that gift program. In. I mean, we already had a FOIA that came out. We had investigated it under FOIA, and we found that the program also allows illegal aliens to apply.

So that’s another problem. Although if the legislature. I don’t know if it’s a problem under California law, because believe it or not, your state legislature can authorize benefits in many circumstances for illegal aliens. So you got to always watch that. But the use of the funds by participants is virtually unrestricted. That’s what our FOIA found. So it’s cash, hence it’s gift is the acronym. Right. But it truly is a gift.

They get the cash and it’s on debit cards, and there’s no check on how the money is spent. So it’s just a waste generally, but that’s not the issue because it’s discriminatory, no matter what the checks would be. Allows people who engage in survival sex trades to apply prostitutes. Right. I guess there’s no good reason to keep prostitutes out of the program. Right. But the problem is the discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

Now, we’ve had success in California before, believe it or not, challenging programs that are discriminatory. You may recall a year, I guess it’s about two years now, the middle of 2022, we had successfully sued California over their mandate that corporate boards of directors have race, sex ethnicity quotas and LGBQ quotas as well. So there were two separate cases, one on the sex quota, and then after that, they passed their quota requirement based on these other identity characteristics, race and ethnicity and lgbt status.

And in both cases, the courts found the requirements to be unlawful under California law because they require discrimination. The left, or those supporting these discriminatory contexts, they often say, well, they say the beneficiary is someone we’re sympathetic to, so you really can’t object to it. But for every person who is allowed to benefit from this program, there’s someone who is disallowed on the basis of race and sex or transgender status.

And that’s illegal in California, and it’s illegal generally under our constitution. The government can’t do that. So we’ve won in California and stopped race quotas, the crazed left efforts to destroy America through race division. So we already got a good track record there. Transgender extremists running San Francisco are illegally using taxpayer money to hand out free cash to transgender individuals based on race and sex and blatant violation of the state’s constitution.

We also have a case in Minnesota where the Minnesota, excuse me, Minneapolis teachers union or school district or the city had a union contract with the teachers that in the event of layoffs, under the contract, it would be race based. Minorities would be protected from being laid off initially, and if there were hires after the layoffs were no longer needed and they could hire people back, they’d be given priority.

Again, blatant race discrimination. So that case is on appeal because I think the judge found, I think, believe it or not, he thought that maybe the race discrimination would actually help taxpayers. So we’ll see what the Supreme Court thinks of that in Minnesota. Judicial Watch is one of America’s leading civil rights groups because we’re out there defending the rule of law to prevent people from being discriminated against.

Now, the left used to be, at least pretend to be against that. And if you want a colorblind society, as the constitution requires, if you want just antidiscrimination laws to be upheld at the federal or state level, you can’t have an exception for political reasons. Or in the case of the left, they want these exceptions to again divide people by race in order to destroy America. I guess the ideology is interesting, but the fact is, legally they can’t do it and should not be able to do it.

And we’ve been able to stop a lot of it, but they’re not going to stop pushing for the destruction of this. And you see this with the Biden administration, with their focus on equity, which is kind of a kissing cousin of this effort to discriminate and segregate on the basis of mean. We talked about last week how they had a playdate in Oakland and an Oakland school that was designed to exclude white children, school children and families.

I mean, racial segregation is back, thanks to the left. Racial discrimination is being enshrined under law, thanks to the left. Naked racial discrimination. They’re not even calling it affirmative action or where you got to kind of turn over some rocks to see what’s really going on. This is we’re going to give you money based on your race or we’re going to have a quota based on race or sex or whatever.

So we’re going to stand against it in court. That’s what we’re doing out in California with another historic taxpayer lawsuit to vindicate the rule of law, defend our constitution and constitutional government in the state of California. We’re not going to abandon California to the predations of the left. We’re protecting taxpayers in California. And I tell you, if you like this type of work, I encourage you to support judicial watch.

Go to our website@judicialwatch. org, you help us get information on the destruction of our republic through the effort to try to jail Trump and other innocent Americans who are opponents of the Biden regime, the effort to destroy the republic through racial segregation and division, or when you have this outrageous abuse where a citizen is killed by a police officer who works for Congress and nothing’s done it about it.

Judicial Watch is trying to rescue America there and vindicate her rights and the rule of law generally in a way that protects all of our safety. We got a lot going on just going through it. I’m impressed, and I hope you are, too. Of course, if you’re supporting us already, thank you. And if you’re not, join our cause and join our movement. 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.