➡ Judicial Watch’s president, Tom Fitton, discussed a leaked memo about the Epstein scandal. The memo, which was leaked to Axios, detailed the FBI and Justice Department’s investigation into Epstein’s death and concluded that Epstein killed himself and there would be no further prosecutions. Fitton criticized the memo for its lack of transparency and questioned its conclusions. He also expressed concern about the memo’s dismissal of public concerns and its refusal to release more documents related to the case.
➡ The article discusses the controversy surrounding the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s client list and the ongoing debate about Epstein’s death. The Attorney General, Bondi, is under scrutiny for her handling of the case, including her claims about the existence of Epstein’s client list. The article also highlights the public’s dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency and investigation into Epstein’s connections and his death. Lastly, it mentions President Trump’s frustration with the continued focus on Epstein amidst other national issues.
➡ The text discusses the controversy surrounding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s case files. It mentions that the files, including child pornography, were reviewed and that there were inconsistencies in the video evidence. The text also criticizes the lack of transparency in the handling of the case, with the Justice Department and FBI giving conflicting information about the release of Epstein’s records. The author expresses skepticism about the official statements and insists on the need for transparency.
➡ There’s a disagreement among U.S. officials Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi, and Cash Patel about the release of a document, causing a crisis in the Justice Department and FBI. The article also discusses a lawsuit filed for records about a victim of Epstein, Virginia Giffray, and a criminal investigation into former CIA director Brennan and James Comey for alleged perjury and conspiracy. The author suggests that the Justice Department and FBI have failed in their duties and that more transparency is needed.
➡ The article discusses an intelligence report that was allegedly manipulated to undermine President Trump. It suggests that the report, which claimed Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election, was based on false information and was used to justify criminal investigations against Trump. The article also criticizes the inclusion of the Steele dossier, a document containing unverified claims about Trump’s ties to Russia, in the report. It ends by expressing skepticism about the ability of the FBI and Justice Department to conduct unbiased investigations into these matters.
➡ The article discusses an investigation named ‘Arctic Frost’ against former President Trump, initiated by Timothy Tebowl, a former FBI agent, and approved by Richard Pilger, a Justice Department official. The investigation was about Trump’s actions during the 2020 presidential election. The author, who was subpoenaed under this investigation, criticizes the Biden administration for what he perceives as political abuse and weaponization of the government. He also mentions a lawsuit filed against the National Archives for records about Joe Biden’s activities during his vice presidency, expressing frustration over the slow release of these documents.
➡ The article discusses incidents of violence against ICE agents, allegedly incited by left-wing activists. It also mentions a case where a teacher was fired for criticizing left-wing ideologies on social media before her employment. The author suggests that President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act to counteract the violence and protect law enforcement. The article ends with a discussion on the importance of free speech, even when it’s controversial or unpopular.
➡ A woman was fired after 20 years for posting controversial comments on Facebook, which is now under appeal. This is one of many cases handled by Judicial Watch, an organization that fights legal battles, including high-profile corruption cases and Supreme Court disputes. They encourage public support to continue their work, which is tax-deductible. They aim to uphold the rule of law and the US Constitution.

It 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Hey everyone. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. So much happening, mainly from Judicial Watch’s perspective. We’ve had this eruption related to the Epstein scandal and it began with a leak, a leak to Axios, the left leaning publication by either the Justice Department or the FBI or maybe the White House. I don’t know who leaked it, but it’s the second leak that Axios got from at least the doj, it looks like. And the leak this time was of what is now an infamous document, which is the unsigned, undated, weird memo, as I call it, detailing the FBI and Justice Department’s supposed investigation of the Epstein matter, conclusions about Epstein’s death, whether there’ll be other prosecutions and whether we will get documents.

And you can imagine the blowback was significant in the sense that the memo concluded that Epstein killed himself, that there’s going to be no other prosecutions of anyone else. There’s no evidence suggesting that it ought to happen and we’re not going to get any more documents, which was news to Judicial Watch since we were in a FOIA lawsuit for the Epstein records. So it caused a significant blow up which has resulted in, according to reports, Dan Bongino getting to a political battle internally with Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, Dan being the Deputy Director of the FBI.

But let’s go to the memo first because I’ve never really seen anything like this memo before. It is so unusual. First of all, it was leaked Axio, so it wasn’t even put up on the Justice Department website. It was leaked over the Independence Day holiday and in it it dissed Americans who were concerned about Epstein. It showed really contempt for the Americans people, the American people’s right to know, and seemed oblivious to even FOIA law. And let me bring the memo up. I think I have it here. Forgive me, I’m not all that sure why. It’s not just doing it here.

So here you have the memo. I don’t know if you can see it on your screen. You probably won’t be able to read it. Let me blow it up a little bit. The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors. And over 10,000 downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography. Teams of agents, analysts and attorneys, and privacy and civil liberties experts. Well, that’s strange. Who are those experts? Combed through the digital documentary evidence with the aim of Providing as much as information to the public while simultaneously protecting victims.

I had missed that part of the document. Who were the privacy and civil liberty experts? Were they government employees, or were they people from the outside? Curious. Much of the material is subject to court ordered sealing. Only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial. As the seal only served to protect victims and did not expose any additional third parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing. Through this review, we found no basis to revisit the disclosure of those materials and will not permit the release of child pornography. Huh. So they’ve got material and they don’t want to release it.

Do we want child pornography? Clearly, we don’t. And there should be protections under law to conveying or communicating those images. Obviously for the children, and generally speaking. But this isn’t about child pornography. This is the first time that the administration or Pam Bondi or anyone else has talked about all this child pornography. This systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals, a part of his actions. So this is a government document, so you can’t. It’s not like someone’s talking and you kind of get a feel for what they’re saying.

You don’t have to wonder if they’re prevaricating or shading what they’re saying. So let’s look at this line closely here. I’ll bring it up on the screen. Let’s read this. Let’s go through this. Remember when we used to diagram. Did you all, when you were younger, get taught how to diagram sentences? I should like to diagram this sentence. But we’re going to logically look at it. This systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. Okay, so was there a client list or not? Seems to suggest there was. Except it wasn’t incriminating. Or it’s unanswered. So, so much for reassuring the public.

There. There is also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. So credible evidence is different than having no evidence. Now, that conclusion may be fair, but what’s the evidence? We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Okay, so that’s another. I meant to look up what the basis for predication is in the FBI regulations. So there may be evidence, but it’s not enough to predicate an investigation. So these are all judgment calls. And I’m not suggesting they’re the wrong judgment calls. I am suggesting that unless we get the promised details of the basis for the judgment calls.

Given the prior special treatment of Epstein, we should be willing to question and be able to question what’s going on here. One of our highest. Later down in the document, one of our highest priorities is combating child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends. What do you mean unfounded theories? To me, that’s a slap in the face. They’re saying, all of you who have been concerned about Epstein, who he might have been working for, who he might have been allied with, who was helping him, and who he might have been engaged with in terms of criminal activity, other powerful individuals, all of that we won’t get access to.

And in fact, this is the weirdest. This might be the weirdest part. To that end, while we have labored to provide the public with maximum information. Okay, that’s not true regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession. And it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. So that’s just classic. We’ve looked at all the evidence and there’s no evidence justifying further criminal investigations. There’s no there there. But you can’t look at the evidence either. So you’re just going to have to trust us.

I’m sorry, that’s not good enough. And then later they start talking about his suicide or alleged suicide, his death, they say. The FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell on August 10th of 2019. This conclusion is consistent with previous findings, including the August 19th, 2019 autopsy findings of the New York Office of the Chief medical examiner, the 192019 position of the U.S. attorney’s Office. What do you mean a position? Was that their conclusion or a position? Come on. It’s not an argument. It’s whether something factually happened or not. And they also reference the 2023 conclusion of the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General.

Unmentioned is the family forensic investigator who concluded that he was killed murdered. And the big difference is between the conclusion of the family’s forensic investigator, a well respected death investigation expert forensic guy, was that he was strangled to death by human hands because there’s a specific bone that’s broken that isn’t typically broken during a suicide. And this is rich here too. The conclusion that Epstein died by suicide is further supported by the video footage from the common area of the special housing unit where Epstein was housed at the time of his death. Anyone entering or attempting to enter the tier where Epstein’s cell was located would have been captured by the footage.

That’s not true. It’s clear from the footage. I don’t know if we have any of the footage. Can we show some of it? Bring that up while I’m talking. The FBI’s independent review of this footage confirmed that from the time Epstein was locked in his cell around 10:40 on August 9, 2019, until, well, around 6:30 until around 6:30am the next morning, nobody entered any tiers of the ship. There you have it. That’s the memo. So they released a video that doesn’t show his cell. I don’t know if we’re going to be able to get access to the video to show you here, but you can’t see clearly or completely the exit and entry to the area where his cell is.

So that’s what it shows. So if you look to. Let me. I need to get a little closer. So you see these two doors, right? Those aren’t cell doors. Those are one of them, at least as an entryway for staff. You basically look over the railing at, you know, one, you know, 11 to 12 to 1 o’, clock, you know, to 12 o’. Clock. See where the cursor is? It’s the stairwell all the way to the right of the brown part of both situ. So there’s one stairwell to the left and there’s another one to the right, but you can’t see the one to the right.

And that’s where Epstein is. So in theory, they’re saying that only people could be seen walking in front, but we don’t know what’s going on off to the side there. And of course, you don’t see into the area, so maybe someone was there and in hiding, but it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t show anything. And as Attorney General Bondi admitted, the video is not conclusive one way or the other. And so Bondi is in the hot seat over this, the Attorney General, because he told us there was a list on her desk earlier in the year.

Let’s go to that video. The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients. Will that really happen? It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump. I’m reviewing that. I’m reviewing JFK files, MLK files. Which is it? Did she have the records or not? And it caused a blow up in America because of this, because people are concerned about Epstein. They are upset of the double standards that someone like him is protected and people presume in large measure because of who he knew. Is it whom he knew or who he knew? He knew who.

I think it’s who. Boom, boom. Of course, he was wealthy as well. And I went on Fox News with Laura Ingram to. Well, and before I get to that clip. So simultaneously, the day after this memo is released or two days later, the Justice Department tells a court in our lawsuit for the Epstein records. We’re still looking for records. So it’s on the one hand, the Justice Department is saying no one’s getting one more record. Indeed, we haven’t gotten any records yet. And on the other, they tell the court we’re still looking. And I raised this issue when it was discussed with my friends Laura Ingram and Molly Hemingway of the Federalists on Fox News.

Let’s run that. And it’s Tom Fenton, Judicial Watch President Molly Hemingway, the Federalist editor in chief and Fox News contributor. Tom, here’s what Cash Patel said about that Epstein client list shortly after he was nominated as FBI FBI director. Watch you say that the FBI has Epstein’s list. They’re sitting on it. That doesn’t seem like something you should do. You’re protecting the world’s foremost predator. Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast, the. The largest scale pederast in human history? Simple. Because of who’s on that list. What the hell are the House Republicans doing? They have the majority.

You can’t get the list. Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are. Tom. He sounded pretty definitive there. So what changed? I think they decided for political purposes, they didn’t want to include the individuals who are on these lists and put them in the public domain. And they were concerned that some of them maybe may not have done something warranting the disclosure. I mean, that’s. That’s the most charitable interpretation, you know? But there is a list. There’s no doubt. I mean, they talk about in the memo they wrote, well, there’s no incriminating client list.

Well, what does that mean? I want the non incriminating client list. And of course, a client list is a term of art, right? Where. Where are his associates? Where’s the list of clients, contacts? You know, we asked under our FOIA lawsuit. Pam Bondi, give us the documents that you say you were looking at. Give us documents about the release of these documents. You said the FBI was obstructing the release. They came back to us that we have nothing. Molly. Well, this is A proxy for what we’ve seen with so many big stories throughout the years, where the American people just want to know what’s going on with whatever assassination attempts.

You know, whether it’s the one in Butler on Trump or the one that was successful against jfk, the Russia collusion hoax. The situation with Epstein, everyone understands that there might not be a, you know, smoking gun, but no one feels very satisfied with the level of investigation that was taking place or the transparency. And it seems that the FBI and other government agencies care more about managing the narrative than actually just revealing the information that needs to be revealed. Then we have interviews with former mobsters who actually was in the same jail as Epstein. Epstein. And had kind of a shocking claim.

Watch. Jeffrey Epstein would have to be a magician to try to hang himself in that cell. I was in that cell. You just. There’s no way that. There’s nothing on the ceiling. The bed post is this high. I couldn’t even go to a restroom without them walking back and forth and having me on camera. You know, there’s no way he committed suicide, Tom. You know, and Pam Bondi yesterday said that video they released isn’t conclusive, but it’s a reset. That minute is a regular reset. And they’re looking, and they’re still looking for that minute. And to release video that doesn’t show what happened in the cell isn’t terribly persuasive.

I’m not sure what they were expecting there. The fact is there are two competing forensics investigations. One by Epstein’s family, which suggests it was a homicide, and one by the examiner up in New York. He says it was a suicide. So given those issues to say, because the video doesn’t show one way or the other, whether someone went in there to conclude, oh, well, there’s nothing to investigate seems odd. And they also said, we’re not going to give you any more documents. And kind of with this. Well, there are too many conspiracy theories out there, and I don’t like to be dissed like that.

And Americans, I think, by and large, have questions about Epstein. And to be told that, you know, we got to. I think Kash Patel made that point like, a year before being nominated. But, I mean, I think this all adds to the swirl of a bit of confusion about this and doubt. And again, the government only, I think, engenders trust among the American people with full transparency. So when Pam Bondi, and everyone knows how much I like Pam Bondi, I like her a lot. But when she says, well, those are basically never going to see the light of day.

But who? Was it downloaded child porn or was it. Were there individuals engaged in acts with children? That’s the question, I think. And unless either of you know what the definitive answer is, I don’t know. I mean, they talk about a thousand victims. I mean, so was Epstein the only victimizer for that number of victims? I don’t think so. Well, just again, in general, there haven’t been. There has not been the appropriate level of information shared. We know that the guy, I mean, maybe he, maybe he didn’t kill himself or maybe he did. Why. Why was he in prison? Why is Ghislaine Maxwell still in prison? Why are all these people talking this way? There’s no way that we’ve gotten a clear enough explanation of what’s going on.

How did he make his money? How did he get associations with so many high level people? People are willing to accept any number of answers, but they need to be treated like adults in the communications. Well, this is a sticky wicket. They have in front of them, Tom and Molly, both of you, thank you very much. That’s a good discussion. And on top of that, we’ve got Pam Bondi getting called out in front of the national media and President Trump during a cabinet meeting, which we kind of referenced there. And President Trump is mad about this issue coming up.

I don’t blame him for being mad, but it was these two agencies that caused this issue. And a reporter asked about, asked him and Pam. Well, asked Pam Bondi about it and Trump reacted negatively. And I think Bondi’s answer is interesting as well. So let’s run that. Number 26. Did it work for me? I like you better if I could ask the attorney general a question too. Sure. Your memo and release yesterday in Jeff Epstein, it left some lingering mysteries. One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked for an American or foreign intelligence agency.

The former labor secretary who was Miami U.S. attorney Alex Costa, he allegedly said that he did work for an intelligence agency. So could you resolve whether or not he did? And also could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse teeth on the native speaker? Yeah, sure, if I could. Pam, could I just interrupt for one second? Sure. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years. You’re asking. We have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable.

Do you want to waste the time and do you feel like answering? I don’t mind answering. I mean, I Can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we’re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration. But you go ahead. Sure, sure. First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it’s been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was was it’s sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK MLK files as well.

That’s what I meant by that. Also, to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what? They were never going to be released, never going to see the light of day. To him being an agent. I have no knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that. And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide. And what was on that? There was a minute that was off the counter.

And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night they redo that video. It’s old from, like, 1999. So every night the video is reset, and every night should have the same minute missing. So we’re looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night. And that’s it. On Epstein. Mr. President, on the tariffs again on August 1st, you said is the deadline. So the video was inconclusive. There’s a minute or so missing. Come on. And then she has an explanation for the documents. And I don’t think she’s necessarily lying about it, but our concern is she said she had the records on her desk generally.

And I know in our lawsuit, they told us she had no records. So something’s going. Something’s wrong. Either they don’t know how to deal with FOIA or basic transparency law, or they’re kind of panicking and just trying to move past this by saying, like, silly things like, we’re not going to give you any more records about this issue. That should suffice. It’s very strange. And I commented to Bannon the other day, I was on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, and I made the point. I said, I don’t even think the Biden administration would try to come up with something like this.

I know they’re not the Biden administration, but the point being, an administration we would be very skeptical of, and a Justice Department would be very skeptical of. They would know that this wouldn’t fly. And it’s concerning that they thought this might fly, this memo. And you can see the President’s furious and he’s down in Texas as we speak, you know, trying to provide solace in leadership on the awful flooding and the hundreds people killed, the children killed, and his FBI and Justice Department are doing this. It’s awful when he should be angry. And so they say that we’re not going to release anything.

And then as I was highlighting, the Justice Department with Judicial Watch filed what is called a joint status report in our lawsuit for the Epstein records. So this is what happened. The Epstein records were released in part to some journalists, social media influencers. I don’t know what it’s called now. Social media influencers. I think that’s the best way of putting it. And it was not received well by a lot of folks because it was a selective release to a select group of people. And, you know, it turned out some of the material had already been released and there wasn’t much understanding of what has been withheld and such.

And then you had Congress, excuse me, Attorney General Bondi and Cash Patel complaint that they were obstructed in the review of documents by the FBI, I think, up in New York. And all of a sudden they got thousands of pages that needed a review. And so we’re looking at it here at Judicial Watch saying, what’s going on here? So we asked, forgive us, the Epstein records and give us records about the handling of the Epstein records. And as I said earlier, they told us almost immediately, Pam Bondi has nothing. How does that comport with what she told Fox News earlier this year? How does it comport what she told with what she told the American people during the Cabinet meeting this year, just this past week? So here’s the headline from our press release, which is caused in light of that memo where they said, you’re not getting any records.

Imagine seeing that and then seeing this. Justice Department reports to court. It was reviewing the FBI DOJ Epstein records for possible release. So they just leaked something to Axios and then ratified it subsequently. There’s nothing to see and you can’t have anything. You have to trust us. But then they tell the court in our case in FOIA federal law, federal court, oh, we’re still looking at the records. And here’s specifically what they said. If you go, I’ll show you what the joint status report looks like. So what happens in FOIA litigation I’m not a lawyer, but I do sit through a lot of cases, hundreds of them in my.

My time here at Judicial Watch. You know, courts want to be kept abreast of how the cases are proceeding. We’re suing for documents. The goal of the court is to get to the end point, right? Get the documents out, Federal agency, fight with whoever you want to, you know, fight over whatever you want to fight about in terms of potential withholdings. But we got to keep things moving. And one way for the courts to make sure that things are being kept moving is by requiring the parties in this case, Judicial Watch and the Justice Department, which sued the Justice Department and the FBI.

When you sue the FBI, you’re actually suing the Justice Department for the Epstein records. They said, tell me what’s happening with this case. And so the joint status report was filed, and this is what it looks like. Oh, one second. I’m going a long way. You see? So there’s the joint status report. See, it’s a nice. Got the caption. Judicial Watch versus Department of Justice. So part of the joint status report, it’s kind of jointly written. You know, each side gets to contribute, and in this case, the Justice Department contributed the Justice Department attorney a detail about the records.

And it’s worth reviewing because this is the reality of what’s happening with the Epstein records. That memo signed on. Well, unsigned, undated, leaked memo initially isn’t reality. It’s not a court document. It’s a memo stating a policy about document releases. Well, they didn’t tell the federal court they weren’t giving the American people any more documents. This is what they said. The anticipated number of documents responsive to plaintiff, judicial watches to plaintiff are FOIA requests and the anticipated dates for the release of documents requested by plaintiff. So they don’t provide a. The number of documents or the date.

So we don’t know when or if we’re going to actually get documents, to be clear. But they’re still reviewing and looking at the records for ultimate potential release. So according to this, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, any and all Epstein records. The FBI has run its initial searches and is in the process of reviewing those search results for the FOIA request numbered, you know, 1662, etc. Communication of Director Patel regarding the Epstein client list. The FBI’s search efforts are ongoing, and again, they don’t have an anticipated number or anticipated dates for release. The Executive Office of the United States attorney.

So the U.S. attorney’s offices are where the prosecutions for Epstein took place initially. In Miami and then up in New York, they’re still looking. This is an interesting one. The Office of Information Policy issued a final response to us on April 15, informing plaintiff that no responsive records to our request was located. So that means that’s the Attorney General’s office. So she has now twice said that the Epstein records were on her desk in one form or another, either a client list or something else. Broadly. She complained about the records being obstructed in terms of her review.

Someone in the FBI obstructing them, the process of reviewing. And there’s no records from her office about it. I’m skeptical. And we’re not, you know, we’re so skeptical that we are asking the Justice Department what’s going on here outside this joint status report. So Judicial Watch isn’t going away. They may want to shuffle and slide this Epstein scandal away and think that this is going to be sufficient. It isn’t. We are in federal court demanding answers on this. And as I said in the release. Let me see what I said in the release because usually I say something pretty good in the releases and I forget it and don’t tell you about it.

The Justice Department and FBI are sending out contradictory messages telling the American people that no more Epstein material will be released while telling the federal court in our case that the Epstein FOIA review is proceeding, but no manner. Our FOIA lawsuit for the Epstein material continues. We will be relentless in demanding transparency under law. I’ll say it again, Judicial Watch will be relentless in demanding transparency under law. And how else do I know there’s something out with this foia? We have the Director of the FBI, Cash Patel, his deputy director, Dan Bongino, and, and the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, in a battle as we speak over who’s to blame for the memo.

It is now being reported that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino are threatening to quit unless Pam Bondi is fired. The reports are that Cash, at least Dan, and at least Dan and Pam were in, were getting into fights at the White House over this document release. Bondi’s people were mad that there was a story leaked that suggested that Cash and Dan wanted these records out months ago and that she was the hold up and the obstruction. So the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI are in crisis right now because of their failure to handle properly the disclosure of this information.

Now, of course, if they had asked me, I could have helped because I would have told them, hey, look, you’ve got this little old FOIA lawsuit Here, why don’t you respond under law through the FOIA lawsuit, Disclose what you think you are able to disclose under law, withhold what you think you ought to be able to withhold under law. Maybe we’ll fight you on it, but at least the process will be there. We will know what documents are being released, what’s being withheld, where you searched, what are the reasons for withholding any documents. Make your arguments.

Make your arguments to the American people. Make your arguments to a federal court. Instead, they do this public debacle of a release earlier this year, and then they send out this memo the likes of which I’ve never seen before. So you can be sure we’re going to do a FOIA about the memo. And I don’t. You know, if these leaks are true about Dan and Cash being mad at Pam for not releasing the records, then why did the FBI sign on to a memo saying we’re not going to release any more records? So I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong.

I like Pam Bondi. I like Dan Bongino. I like Kash Patel. But, you know, from my perspective as president of Judicial Watch, I just want the documents. I want accountability. The two agencies, the Justice Department and the FBI, nearly destroyed our republic last year and before that, and I’m not seeing it yet, I’m seeing elements of it. I’m seeing a little bit more transparency in some cases. But this is a cluster, don’t you agree? And they’re mad at me. I hear it time and time again indirectly, because I’m talking about this stuff. I mean, I had a video explaining.

I mean, this is what. This is the kind of thing, I guess, that drives them crazy. So I’ll just play it for you. Play. Where’s that tweet in the video of my talking? Is that number 10? I don’t like the. Is the sound on? I thought you had it separately up. So this is concerning. And it’s Judicial Watch that, again, is kind of like the honest broker here. Right in the middle of it, we’re expanding our investigations. You can bet there will be more lawsuits. And not only are there going to be more lawsuits, I’m emboldened to file more lawsuits.

And my colleagues at Judicial Watch are very much interested in this because of the way things are being handled here. Did we get the video fixed? Okay, forget about it. Let’s move to the next thing and to the end of getting more accountability. We filed another lawsuit on an Epstein issue today. Actually, we filed it yesterday. But we noted it today. We filed for records about his most famous victim. Judicial Watch sues for FBI records regarding Epstein victim Virginia Giffre. Ms. Giffray committed suicide in April of this year. She’s one of the most, as was reported by NBC, one of the most prominent survivors of his sexual abuse.

And unfortunately she died by suicide at the age of 41 in 2015. Jeff Wray, who is a US citizen at birth, was among, I guess she’s lived in Australia. So she’s in. She left the United States, was among the first Epstein victims to go public. She was recruited by Maxwell Gifrae, reported years of sexual abuse and alleged she was trafficked to prominent individuals, including Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom. And she filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew which is settled out of court in 2020, 22 for an estimated 12 million pounds, which is $15 million in U.S.

money. And she’s dead big witness. And so where might there otherwise be documents that we’re getting the run around with on getting the runaround on now in her FBI files. So that’s why we asked for her FBI files. And the records we’re seeking are pretty straightforward. This request includes, but is not limited to all reports, transcripts, summaries or similar records documenting any interviews or other conversations with Ms. Gifre, as well as all records she provided to the FBI and any records other the feds the FBI had with other law enforcement. So as I say in the release, we are just, you know, pushing, pushing, pushing for more transparency given the justice department and the FBI’s decision to abandon the Epstein investigation.

Judicial Watch has to step into the gap and we are, and we’re going to provide leadership. Our FOIA lawsuit for records about Epstein’s most well known victim is an important next step for accountability. Just incredible. So the other big news this week, actually a positive piece of news, was the announcement or again the leak that there’s going to be, there is a criminal investigation of Brennan, the former FB CIA director under Obama, and James Comey for alleged perjury and conspiracy. I don’t know if that includes Comey as well in terms of the directed charges or potential crimes, but they’re trying to investigate them over, it looks like their role in the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, abuse of power, targeting Trump.

The question is, did they lie under oath or conspire to lie, conspiracy to commit perjury or something like that in a way that would require prosecution. And the reason this issue has popped up again is because John Ratcliffe, who is the CIA director appointed by President Trump, directed an analysis of what is called an intelligence community assessment that the Obama gang started up to undermine President Trump. And the assessment, which is supposed to be top secret, was almost immediately leaked as soon as it was created. And it generated a lot of news because it provided a hook based on the false allegation that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.

And they had this dossier that showed that Trump was on the hook with the Russians. It was the Russiagate smear, the Steele dossier smear that they used to try to destroy Trump. And Brennan’s testimony about that and his role in this is being criminally investigated, it looks like, and maybe Comey’s as well. Now, separately, I still don’t know why Comey hasn’t been arrested yet, but for threatening or promoting the murder of Trump online. But that’s another matter. So in this CIA note, which I encourage you all to read, because, by the way, take it with a grain of salt, because it’s the CIA covering its.

You know what, in this document, Brennan isn’t around anymore. William Brennan isn’t around anymore. So they can diss him, but they’re going to protect the institution. So essentially what they say is this intelligence community assessment into Russia’s foreign interference was compromised by Brennan and the leadership of the FBI and the White House, etcetera, Forcing the use of the Steele dossier, which, which was garbage, as a basis to suggest that Putin aspired to get Trump elected. I’m summarizing the document. I’ll get some into detail. And there was really no basis for that other than the fake dossier.

And in fact, there was other bases to suggest, which I thought was much more plausible at the time, that the Russians wanted to see Hillary reelected or elected. Excuse me. And that efforts to interfere in our elections were designed to undermine Hillary if she were president. But that didn’t comport with what the goal of the Obama gang was. Obama did it. I just want you to remember Obama did it. He directed this fake document that I’m referencing here be produced. The review identified multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ica. The intelligence community assessment. I guess I should bring it up now so you can see some of it, at least.

Let me see here. Yes, I’m starting to read from the bottom here. The DIA review identified multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ica. These included a highly compromised production, compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to the departures from standard practices in the Drafting, coordination and reviewing of the ica. These departures impeded efforts to apply rigorous tradecraft, particularly to the assessment’s most contentious judgment which was that Putin aspired to get Trump to become president. It was false. And here’s some sections I thought worth sharing with you.

I encourage you to read the entire document which we will link below on page three. A DI report in 2017 indicated that the highest classified version of the ICA had been shared with more than 200 U.S. officials. That’s a way to guarantee it gets leaked. This is unusually high for such a highly. There is that word again compartmented product. And calls into question whether the extreme limitations on access to underlying intelligence within the ic during the ICA’s preparation was justifiable. So what they’re saying is we couldn’t look at a lot of the so called evidence that was being used to justify this crap, yet then they share it with 200 people as if it was the.

Even though supposedly it was one of the most top secret documents in the government. You know what they were doing. And then Brennan was trying to rig it. One business day before IC analysts convened for the only coordination session on the ica, Brennan sent a note to the CIA workforce stating he had met with the DNI Director of National Intelligence, an FBI director. I think Clapper was Director of National Intelligence at the time. Is that right guys? And then Comey was the FBI Director and that there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent intent of Russian interference.

There you go. They already knew before they even wrote the report what it was going to say. They wired it. While officers involved in drafting the ICA consistently said they did not feel pressured to reach specific conclusions, Brennan’s premature signaling that agency heads had already reached consensus before the ICA was even coordinated risk stifling analysis debate. Of course it did rigged it. I don’t care what they said. They didn’t feel pressure. Their bosses said we already know what the conclusion is going to be. Do you think they’re going to cut put their heads on a block and conclude otherwise? The decision right under that block by agency heads to include the Steele dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.

What does tradecraft mean? It generally means the kind of rigorous process through which an intelligence agency officer entity collects information to ascertain its credibility. Its where it came from. Who you know, let’s say a source or sources say this happened. Well what’s the source interest in saying it. Who else might have an interest in pushing that with us? How is it we are sure that this isn’t. We’re not being played. All sorts of things have to be in place in order for something to be validated as being in line with tradecraft principles. The ICA authors first learned of the dossier and FBI’s leadership’s insistence on its inclusion on 20 December, the same day the largely coordinated draft was entering the review process at CIA.

FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the ICA hinged on the dossier’s inclusion and over the next few days repeatedly pushed the weave references to it throughout the main body. Dica. So remember what the DICA was. It was a joint series of memos or a series of memos jointly funded by the Clinton campaign in partnership with the FBI. Christopher Steele was the individual who was managing the creation of this information. And it was full of malicious smears, half truths, no truths, falsehoods about President Trump and Russia. I’m not even going to bore you with the details of how wrong it was, but it became the fundamental basis for this ica.

James Comey insisted it be put in there. His buddy Brennan said, sure thing. And it was rigged. And it was used to justify the attempted destruction of President Trump for four years by Mueller through impeachment and all the rest. And here’s the part where the key thing was under the key judgment which was false, that Trump, that Biden, excuse me, that Putin aspired to put Trump in office was false and elevated among other more likely judgments. In one instance, the authors cited part of a credibly sourced report that supported the high confidence assessment on the first two goals of the Putin direct directed campaign, undermining US Democratic processes generally right, and denigrating Clinton, but omitted information that conflicted with the aspired judgment, meaning Putin aspired to put Trump in the omitted information, as well as a small body of other credibly sourced reporting that was also not cited in the ica, suggests that Putin was more ambivalent about which candidate won the election.

So they withheld evidence and manipulated. The placement of evidence in this intelligence community assessment that was used to destroy Trump and justify criminal investigations and the destruction of him and his family and countless others. And by the way, none of this is new. I remember making these observations initially when they said Putin wanted Trump to win. I was like, what was the basis for that? There was no basis. I remember reading the ICA because it was leaked immediately, trying to destroy Trump even before he got into office. It was used to push out the steel dossier.

That smear operation eventually led to the destruction of General Flynn’s career at the time and countless others. And it was quite obvious that to the degree the Russians were interested in our politics, it was because they thought Hillary was going to win, like everyone else in the country, practically. Do you think the Russians knew that Trump was going to win? No, they were following what everyone else was thinking. I didn’t think Trump was necessarily going to win. The odds were he was not going to win. It was a surprise. And for them to pretend that Putin was rooting for the underdog when Hillary was on his payroll, practically speaking, is absurd.

These are a bunch of criminals. I’m not going to read any more of this garbage. You know why the rest of it’s garbage? Because then they kind of highlight how Brennan manipulated the ica, but then they say, oh, by the way, generally our product otherwise is perfect. Which of course is ridiculous. The CIA had it in for Trump as much as anyone else did. Not only with this ica, specifically this fake report or assessment they put out, but generally speaking, it was an intel operation against Trump. It involved the CIA. Now Brennan’s under criminal investigation. Now people say, well, Brennan being under a criminal investigation and Comey being under a criminal investigation over these issues was a way to distract from the bad news and the disruption over the Epstein fiasco.

Maybe I don’t rule it out, but it’s better than nothing. But I have to tell you, I don’t trust the FBI to investigate this. I don’t trust the Justice Department to investigate this. And remember, this is just one aspect of the whole lawfare against Trump. What about what they did to Trump the last four years? Trying to jail him for disputing the 2020 election, trying to get him killed, literally trying to get him killed by depriving him of needed Secret Service protection. We’re coming up on the one year anniversary of Butler, and there’s been zero accountability, practically speaking.

Oh, yeah, some Secret Service agents were reassigned or, excuse me, suspended for a few weeks. That’s it. No one’s fired. No one’s being seriously investigated for withholding Secret Service protection and assets from Trump. So forgive me for still being very, very skeptical of these agencies. I’ve made the point once and I will make it no matter the issue. President Trump should, when it comes to these big political cases, cases that touch on politics because of who the potential targets are, he should be running the show. He shouldn’t rely on the Justice Department to investigate the Justice Department, the Secret Service to investigate the Secret Service, the FBI to investigate the FBI.

He should pick his own people who report directly to him to run any criminal investigations or potential prosecutions. He is the chief magistrate, and that’s what he should do. I mean, look at the conflagration between Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and Dan Bongino. Now, do you think those agencies, as they’re currently run, even if they wanted to, could run a complex investigation or serious criminal investigation, not only of people like Joe Biden and his gang, their family, you know, you name it, what needs to be investigated, but also the role of their own agencies in this criminality.

They’re conflicted and compromised. And it’s not a criticism of them, it’s an observation. The agencies are conflicted and compromised. Let’s say they’re all great people over there, but they can’t investigate themselves, especially if there are other ways to do it other than the FBI or Justice Department, because others can do it. The President can empower them. So I don’t know what the Justice Department’s doing, but I know what Judicial Watch is doing. I mean, we just sued the Justice Department for FBI records on the Biden lawfare scale scheme to let me start over on this one.

We just sued the Justice Department on the FBI for FBI records on the Biden gang lawfare scheme to target Trump. Again, this is another opportunity to get the truth out about this. And for whatever reason, the agencies aren’t doing it. So they initially called the investigation of Trump before Jack Smith took over as Arctic Frost. And we basically want records about it all notes, reports, summaries and interview transcripts or similar records pertaining to the FBI investigation Arctic Frost. And we explained in the release what that’s about. See. So to their credit, Cash and Dan have been trying to get some documents out, but this is even before then.

Chuck Grassley found that records. Here, look at this. Internal FBI emails and predicating documents provided to Grassley and released jointly by the two senators show Timothy Tebowl, a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in charge who was forced to retire from the Bureau after Grassley exposes public anti Trump bias. Authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 presidential record. Election records show Thibaut essentially opened and approved his own investigation. The FBI titled the ensuing investigation Arctic Frost. Records further reveal Richard Pilger, an official in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, reviewed and approved the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, authorizing DOJ to move forward with a full field criminal investigation and grand jury investigation that ultimately transformed into the Trump elector case.

Grassley published a 2021 report that raised concerns regarding Pilger’s troubling record at DOJ. We ran into Pilger before, by the way, during the Obama IRS abuse because Pilger was pressuring Lois Lerner, as I recall, to prosecute or provide information in order to prosecute individuals who were organizing against President Trump. It would have been the most widespread political prosecution of a president’s enemies in the history of American politics. And no surprise, he shows up a few years later trying to rig another election by trying to keep Trump out of office for during his another race when he was trying to seek reelection.

And I’m personally aware of this investigation because I was subpoenaed under Arctic Frost. So I’ve told you about how the FBI came to my home in, I think it was October 2022. That was the investigation. They gave me the subpoena because they wanted to ask me about our work on challenging and disputing elections and educating Americans about it. Completely retaliatory because we were blowing the whistle on their abuse of Trump and their political abuse and weaponization of the government. And then Jack Smith took over, and then I had to go before the grand jury with Jack Smith.

But initially it was the Biden gang who subpoenaed me and Judicial Watch. So who knows, maybe we’ll get some stuff about Judicial Watch in this document. Frankly, we shouldn’t have to sue to get these records about how the Biden gang at the FBI and DOJ tried to rig an election by jailing Trump for disputing the 2020. Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Patel should focus on transparency under law so the American people can know the full truth of this lawfare, its attack on Trump and our constitutional republic. Of course, we have many, many lawsuits about this issue, whether it be Fanny Willis, as I’ve told you about before, we exposed her collusion with the Democrats on Capitol Hill documents she said she didn’t have, we forced her to admit she had, and many other ongoing lawsuits about the lawfare against President Trump.

And we just filed a new one. We are also in court this week. We were in court over a lawsuit we filed against the National Archives for records about Joe Biden’s crime family. That’s the best way I can summarize it. And I’m going to show you what we asked for because it shows you how comprehensive the lawsuit was. Let me see here. Federal court Hearing set. Okay, so federal court hearing set. It was already sat. We already had it. But here’s the lawsuit parties. Let’s go. Statement of facts. And here’s the list of the request records and communications from former Vice President Joe Biden.

So what we did was we said we know Joe didn’t become a corrupt politician just because he got into the presidency. We knew he was corrupt during the vice presidency when his son was working in Burisma. So that’s what we went back to. Let’s give us Obama library records. Right from the archives. And so look at this. Any communication with Robert Hunter Biden, James Bryan Biden, Francis William Frank Biden or Sarah Jones Biden between January 20, 2029 and January 2020 17. Any international domestic travel financial activity. And then communications about Tony Bobulinski, who blew the whistle on all this, their Chinese connections, Burisma, all of these key entities.

And it just goes on and on. Look at that, there’s 26, 27, 28, 20, like 31 subparts and categories. And they’ve been giving us documents and we’ve been getting some documents over time, but it’s been taking forever to get the access to the information. We received documents showing that Hunter for instance was cc’d on records or I think a call with information about a call with Ukraine. Let me make sure that I’m right on that. Let me get back here. The lawsuit forced the release of records revealing emails sent by Joe Biden using alias accounts. Biden approved ending Secret Service protection for both Hunter and Beau Biden’s daughter Natalie during a trip to Kosovo.

That was weird. Emails included messages to Jim and Hunter Biden regarding the then Vice President’s schedule and meetings. So they knew what he was up to. Emails also showed that Hunter and Jim Biden accompanied Joe on taxpayer funded trips. Forgot an email password, which I guess isn’t unusual. Forced the release of records showing that then Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter received in May 2026. I did remember this correctly. 2016 email detailing a scheduled 8:45am prep for an I am phone call with President Poroshenko who was then the President of Ukraine. Why is Hunter involved with calls for the President of Ukraine? The lawsuit is an opportunity for the Trump team to stop the deep state sloanwalking of the release of Biden family corruption records.

So we go into court, we’ve gotten some records, but there are like 700 documents left. And so when you’re dealing with the courts, they talk about records like well, they talk about Records being the by page number. Right. Or the number of pages. So you could have it. Let me start over. You could have a document that has 12 pages. So they have 700 documents. They have to review how many pages those are. I don’t know. Let’s say they’re all 12 pages, maybe a few thousand. Not a big deal in terms of government review, but they want 30 months to turn them over.

So once again, we’re in court before Judge, I’m afraid, to mispronounce her name, Judge Sparkle L. Sukanan Suknanan. Excuse me, Sukhnanan. S O O K, N A N A N. Who’s a fine judge, seemingly. I mean, she’s a Biden appointee, but she seems to be interested in moving this FOIA case along. So she hears that the government wants 30 months to turn over or review and process 700 documents, and she’s like, well, that doesn’t sound right to me. And so she’s suggesting that there should be a quicker way to get things done. And she ordered the Justice Department and Judicial Watch to consult together to either narrow the records that need to be reviewed or find a way to accelerate the process.

But it’s frustrating to have to hear a lawyer from Pambani’s Justice Department come in and say it’s going to take two and a half years before you find out all the details about Joe Biden’s criminality when he was vice president, as might be evidenced in these emails. And I don’t understand what the reason for it is, what the excuse is for it. They want to release their records, they’ll release the records. So the point is, I mean, we’re in court almost once a week now, multiple times a week, sometimes against the Trump Justice Department, Pam Bondi’s Justice Department, as they, you know, defend the withholding and of information.

I mean, suing is one thing, Right? You know, but once the suit is filed, you would think they’d say, okay, let’s pay attention to this and get these records out there, because we know what Judicial Watch’s reputation is. They’re trying to uncover government corruption. Now, I don’t want to be completely negative because they are changing their positions on some issues, however slowly and incrementally, to allow for more disclosures. So there has been positive movement, but more needs to be done. There needs to be a prioritization of this. And the best example of this is the Epstein files.

Epstein? Is it Epstein or Epstein? Now I’m getting confusing myself, Right? So if they get Their act together on transparency. A lot of other things will fall into place. I think in terms of public confidence, I really do. I mean, prosecutions are one thing and you know, we can talk a lot about whether there should be prosecutions or not. But I recognize that’s a complicated issue and it may not be everything I want to happen. But there’s really no excuse for lack of transparency. There really is. So I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s been a increasingly violent and expanding left wing insurrection against the federal government over the last few weeks and it’s metastasized so much in the last week.

People are getting harmed, including the lefty communists who are trying to kill federal officials, ICE agents, and the rule of law is it’s almost anarchy in certain circumstances. And in San Francisco, I watched this video of what happens when these lefty commies try to intimidate and violently attack and seemingly threaten to kill this person. Obviously thought he was this ICE agent driving this vehicle, obviously had reason to believe he was going to get seriously harmed. And you’ll see what happened. Let’s watch this. You see here these leftists trying to get ICE law enforcement killed, also trying to get themselves killed.

These communists are going to cause more violence in their effort to destroy the country. Watch what happens at the end of this video. Yeah, so that one leftist got run over at the end and then someone was killed, evidently trying to. After he was firing upon an ICE facility in Texas. Looks like a leftist was killed and then a dozen leftists. I think there’s some pictures of them here. Here’s how many of these there are. Ten, I think. Now those who are charged are 11 or 12, including one who’s on the run. We’re trying to lure ICE agents out in order to shoot in the death as alleged.

And then just recently there was an ICE raid of a pot farm. They grow marijuana illegally, which is just outrageous to me. But that’s another debate. Right. And they were confronted by violent demonstrators, including, I think there’s some video. Do we have any video of the raid? No, we can try to find it. That. Well, you’ve seen the video, so I won’t belabor it, but you’ll see the video of the raid. And they were using helicopters and such. They found ten unaccompanied alien minors. So illegal kids who were there looks like might have been working illegally.

And they were confronted violently. And you know, it’s an insurrection and it’s broad and it’s across the country, Texas, California, other areas of the country. And if I were President Trump, I nationally would invoke the Insurrection Act. The left is encouraging this nationally. It’s happening no matter where ICE is conducting operations to reverse the invasion. And as far as I’m concerned, President Trump should use all the tools available to him under the Constitution and federal law to protect life, property, and public safety, preserve the public peace. And it’s not happening under the current circumstances, because even in places like Texas, where it’s friendly to President Trump, the numbers of violent aliens are significant.

When they are, there’s some more mugshots of them, and they’re being egged on by the politicians from the highest levels. Newsom is egging them on, inciting violence. Mayor Bass, the lefty mayor of la, is inciting violence. Politician after politician at the national level is inciting, condoning, and justifying violence against ice. And it’s going to get. And I’m worried what’s going to happen is that one of these incidents right now, there’s a dead person because of this incitement, this ideological war against America by the Communist left. Their goal, as you saw with that first incident, they’re putting their own lives in danger.

They want people to be killed. And you’re either going to get protesters killed in a terrible way because of law enforcement trying to defend themselves, or military trying to defend themselves, National Guard or Marines or. Which is, frankly, more likely. We’re going to have law enforcement killed in a large number. There’s going to be an incident where a number of law enforcement get killed by these leftist insurrectionists. And I think the President should do everything he can to protect that and end that. You know, he’s already taken some key steps by deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles.

He should just make it nationally an insurrection. Detail why it is an insurrection. There’s strong arguments that it is and provide the necessary support, no matter where it’s taking. His ICE needs to operate in order to preserve the rule of law and our sovereignty. Boy, Judicial Watch has been busy. We. Oh, I just dropped what I needed to read. Hold on a second. So we represented a teacher up in Massachusetts who was fired. She literally just started work, and she was fired for posts she made before she worked. Just straightforward posts criticizing some of the craziness by the left.

And so we took it up to the Supreme Court on behalf of our client, and the court declined the grant cert, meaning they declined to take up the case. But what was interesting is that Justice Thomas issued an opinion related to the order denying Certified. Let me go back to the press release so you can look at some of the details with me as I look through it. So the Supreme Court denied its petition that challenged the lower. Denied our petition that challenged the lower court decision against Carrie McCrae, a Massachusetts high school teacher who was fired in retaliation for social media posts which decried woke values such as critical race theory being taught in schools.

The post predated her employment at Hanover High School in Massachusetts. Judicial Watch argued that the Supreme Court should take up the case as the lower court misapplied the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. And as I said, let’s cut to the chase. Carrie McCrae was fired because she spoke out against rogue critical race theory before she was hired. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up this case is a missed opportunity to defend and protect the First Amendment and the Constitution. Now, Justice Thomas decision or concurring opinion. So he agreed that the case should be not taken up because it didn’t necessarily put front and center, according to Justice Thomas, an issue that the court should it could hear at that time.

But he did raise significant concerns about what happened to McCrae and he issued this opinion here. And let me bring it up for you because he even included the pictures that she posted or the memes that she posted for which she was fired. So I think it’s here. Oh, this is going to be a big one. Hold on, guys. Here it is. I can see the pictures here. So you see these pictures. There’s a picture joking about. I forget his name now. What’s that person’s name? You’re all telling me as I’m blanking out on it. I guess it doesn’t matter.

Rachel Levine. Rachel Levine. That’s who she is, who he is. She calls himself as he. And then there’s this picture of this big guy. Quality doesn’t always mean equity. Hi, my name is Megan. I’m here for the girls track scene. So making fun of men participating in sports. This is what she was. This is what she was fired over. And Justice Thomas puts it all in there, including a quote from just Tom Sowell, who is one of my favorites. Racism is not dead. It is on life support, kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who want to get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racist.

And this is what Justice Thomas said in part in his decision. The First Circuit’s analysis strikes me as deeply flawed. The first Circuit is the case over is the circuit that handles Massachusetts to start. I do not see how the tone of McCray’s post can bear on the weight of her First Amendment interest. Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection, and the inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question, to whether it deals with a matter of public concern. Humor, satire and even personal invective can make a point about matters of public concern.

So you may not like her post, but it’s no basis to fire her as a government employee was on her own time it was before she was hired. It undermines core First Amendment values, he later says, to allow a government employer to adopt an institutional viewpoint on the issues of the day and then, when faced with a dissenting employee, portray this disagreement as evidence of disruption. And the problem is exacerbated in the case of an employee such as McCrae, who expressed her views only outside the workplace and before her employment. So this isn’t the only case we’ve been working on related to teachers and the free speech rights of teachers.

We represented coach Mike Flynn who was fired for protecting his daughter, his young daughter, because he was complaining about the woke garbage she was being taught. We settled that case. We have an ongoing case in Illinois, kind of a similar issue. Let me get the detail on that so I’m not going off the top of my head. In 2021, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a tenured high school teacher, Ms. Hedgepeth, who was fired by the suburban Chicago school district where she had worked for 20 years after posting comments on Facebook criticizing the riots, violence and shootings in Chicago and the aftermath of the 2020 killing of George Floyd.

Hedgepeth made the post on her personal Facebook page while vacationing after the end of the school year, just as some of the most severe violence was occurring. In her post, Hedgepeth recommended studying Thomas Sowell. There we are again. Whom she described as a treasurer and a truth seeker, and praised political commentator and activist Candace Owens and talk show host Larry Elder. Larry’s one of my favorites. She alleges that the firing violated her First Amendment rights. So that case is still percolating along. I think it’s on appeal. So she’s posting comments from her Facebook while she’s at the beach.

She gets back after 20 years and gets fired because she said the wrong things about that, offended the race mongers and race baiters that were controlling our country and in ascent after the George Floyd killing. So I went through a lot with you today on the Judicial Watch update and I hope you have a sense of the scope, breadth and importance of Judicial Watch’s work. Whether it be Epstein files, whether it be fights before the Supreme Court, whether it be exposing some of the worst corruption in the history of America with the lawfare against President Trump, whether it be being victimized by such lawfare directly.

Me and Judicial Watch as well. There’s no one doing as much heavy lifting for the rule of law as your Judicial Watch, and I encourage you to support our work. Go to judicialwatch.org and make your most generous contribution now. It’s tax deductible, and as long as we have your support, we’ll be able to continue to fight in court on behalf of your values and the US Constitution. God bless you and God bless America. 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.