Judicial Watch has been doing this work for 31 years, hundreds of FOIA lawsuits, and we pretty darn well know about other FOIA lawsuits out there. The idea that a government agency of any type would just not show up and answer a FOIA lawsuit, be found in default, is historic in a bad way. But that’s what Fannie Willis did in her office. To give you another reason to support Judicial Watch, it’s our remarkable and successful effort to expose the full truth about what Fannie Willis was up to in her illicit, in my view, targeting of Trump, and abusive targeting of Trump, and unethical targeting and handling of the Trump cases.

Just remarkable success as a result of one FOIA lawsuit, one open records lawsuit under the Open Records Act of Georgia. Now, we knew, or suspected, that Fannie Willis was coordinating with the Biden operation, Jack Smith, and the Pelosi January 6th operation. We asked for records, and she denied she had records that didn’t even show up once we sued for the records in court. She was found in default, which means you didn’t answer a darn lawsuit, which is just incredibly, I’ve never had, I’ve been, let’s put it this way, Judicial Watch has been doing this work for 31 years, hundreds of FOIA lawsuits, and we pretty darn well know about other FOIA lawsuits out there.

The idea that a government agency of any type would just not show up and answer a FOIA lawsuit, be found in default, is historic in a bad way, but that’s what Fannie Willis did in her office, and she was found in default and ordered to pay us $22,000 as a result. But it didn’t stop there, as I was talking about last week, there was a hearing, and because we wanted a special master to oversee the records of the case, because she said, initially, I don’t have records. And then she said, oh, we do have records, but you can’t have them.

And so there were like half-baked searches, they didn’t know where they were looking, they didn’t look completely. It was a complete disaster. They didn’t show up, and then they’re playing games and being dishonest with Judicial Watch, in my view, the court. So that’s why we wanted a special master, someone to oversee the search. So the court had the hearing, as we talked about, and he orally ordered them to turn over the new records that they found, 212 pages of records, but then he issued a written order that not only, you know, kind of verified his oral order, but slammed Fannie Willis’s misconduct in this case, and I’ll read you a good section of it.

It was just ordered on March 7th, now, it couldn’t have been March 7th. I think it was issued this week, but maybe it was. Actually, I have the order here, let me see what the date is. Yeah, it was filed March 7th. It took a while to get to us, I guess. In August 2023, plaintiff Judicial Watch submitted an open records request to defendant district attorney Fannie Willis, seeking, quote, all documents and communications sent to, received from, or relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith, and all documents and communications sent to or received from the United States House January 6th Committee.

Defendants claim to have no responsive records. Doubting this, plaintiff sued and has since secured a default judgment against defendant who, it turns out, does have responsive records. After several non-searches, one court order, and one, at least one actual search of unknown thoroughness, defendant revised her answer in essence, I do have records, but you can’t have them except for this one record you already have and gave me. This is a Fulton County judge, state court judge, talking about the district attorney of that state, of that county, Fannie Willis. Just incredible. Unsurprisingly unsatisfied with this post adjudication response, plaintiff Judicial Watch on December 17th petitioned the court for the appointment of a special master to conduct her own search of defendant’s files for responsive records and review the documents defendant has determined fall outside the ambit of the state’s open records law.

So the records they’re saying we can’t get because there’s an ongoing criminal investigation supposedly into Trump and all of that. And I would argue that she lost all the right to assert any privileges, because she never answered the lawsuit in court, you lose. On February 28th, the court held a hearing, and that hearing we played for you previously here, on our motion for a special master, which both sides presented our argument and made various factual representations to include an assertion that the universal responsive documents consist of 212 pages, some of which may be duplicative.

I love when government people say it’s duplicative. You know what they’re saying is duplicative? They say this is what they’re considered to be a duplicative email. Let’s say I send you an email to your John Jones. Hey John Jones, I need you to do this for me ASAP. And John Jones forwards that to a third person, Betsy Jones. Betsy, I need you to do what Tom said, and you need to do it quickly. So how many emails is that? That’s three. The government would say, well, that’s duplicative, and you can’t have all three.

There’s the email I forwarded, I sent to John Jones. That’s one email. And then there’s the email that he forwards on. That’s a second email. Maybe it’s just two emails. But you see my point. And they’re telling us that that’s duplicative, so it only counts as one. That’s not true. Each separate email is a different record. And it’s usually a different record. And isn’t an excuse to hide records from us. I mean, it’s not just a difference in counting records. They say, well, that’s duplicative, so you can’t have it. From these presentations or representations, the judge goes on to say, so he says, I heard all these arguments.

I heard these new factual representations made to me. The court rules as follows. No special master will be appointed for now. Too bad. But we haven’t given up hope. Defendant shall, through counsel, deliver to the court within five business days of the entry of this order. All records defendant has identified as being responsive to plaintiff’s requests but which are being withheld pursuant to one or more of the exemptions. Along with the documents, defendant should provide a list of indicating which documents arguably fall under which exemptions. So tell us what’s going on here.

Why are you turning the documents over and be specific? And he also wants a detailed description of the search and the search terms. Now if it were a federal FOIA case, we would, you know, there’d be a little bit more clarity as to what the requirements are since the law’s been laid out here. But we’re in Georgia State Court, so, you know, the court, you know, can kind of seemingly do what he wants to do here. I’m not sure about that. But in the end, we now know there are 212 pages of documents and the federal court ordered Fannie Willis to turn them over to him.

Why? Because he doesn’t trust her. Now, what is he going to rule? Is he going to rule that, you know, the privileges are overcome and, you know, that’s going to be more briefing in the future? But Fannie Willis was slammed in this. And I read you the court order. I mean, the court is mocking Fannie Willis, making fun of her behavior in this FOIA lawsuit. And it’s a pretty darn important FOIA lawsuit. It’s an open records act lawsuit under Georgia law. Because it gets at the heart of what was going on with the targeting of Trump.

Who was behind it? Was it organically rising in various jurisdictions? Or was there a grand conspiracy, as is largely being confirmed, to target him, run out of Democrats’ offices in Washington, D.C., whether it be in the White House Justice Department, or as has been confirmed, the Pelosi operation through the January 6th committee. So, there’s a lot more information we want. It’s a victory for accountability. Fannie Willis is being hauled before the court repeatedly as a result of her misconduct. Remember, she has been thrown off the case because of her conflicts of interest.

And her ethical, I don’t know, blindness, I don’t know, maybe that’s the charitable way of putting it, in hiring her boyfriend to run the investigation into Trump. I mean, by all accounts, based on my analysis of what went on, I mean, it’s even like more base than just the Democrats wanting to get Trump. She wanted to do this criminal prosecution of Trump to launder money for her romantic relationship with her boyfriend. So, Judicial Watch has a number of lawsuits on this abuse of Trump. And, you know, and I highlighted last week that, you know, we’ve got to get these records out.

I mean, we’ve got the Trump Justice Department under Pam Bondi going into court last week to defend Biden administration with holdings of who USAID is giving money to. I was just on a hearing this morning as a client, our lawyer was arguing for us, Michael Pekesha. We’re involved in a case with the Justice Department over the text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Six years they’ve taken to turn the records over. They began during the Trump administration. And now they say, well, we’ll complete the records that we’re going to give to you.

We will finish review and have them over to you by the end of, I think, the month. Six years later. And then now we have to litigate over the records they withheld. I hope things change after the Trump, under the Trump administration. I mean, just think of the categories of records that President Trump and his people should be focused on releasing now. Just think of the categories. The law fair against him. Biden corruption. The Biden crime family. The coverups of his misconduct and criminality. The abuse of the January 6th event to target and jail Trump and other innocents.

The censorship of American citizens. The Biden border invasion. The COVID coverup, the China coverup, the gain of function coverup. The election integrity mess, the efforts to suppress, concerns about how the elections were conducted in 2020 and beyond. I know there’s this focus on Epstein records. There’s this focus on JFK records. But I tell you, our republic was almost destroyed as a result of some of the scandals I’m talking about here. And I’m not saying you shouldn’t be outraged about any Epstein coverup or such. But that wasn’t going to make or break the country.

The categories of documents I’m talking about were part of an effort to destroy America and our constitutional republic. And so this Fannie Willis collusion fight, it’s part of that. So I’m glad the court ordered more disclosure there. Because I think our country needs it if we’re going to be around much longer. I’m serious. Because we can’t have President Trump in office for four years and have no advancement to the accountability that nearly destroyed the country. Because what would happen is if a different category of politician got in, you know, we’d be back to square one because nothing’s been done.

There have been no consequences. Accountability and consequences come from the disclosures. So that’s why this Fannie Willis lawsuit and our other lawsuits for all of the issues that I’m talking about are so important. And we’re not going to stop. We’re simply not going to stop. We’re going to stop. [tr:trw].

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