Our guest today is Tom Fiton, president of Judicial Watch. And, Tom, great to have you with us. Tom, it seems like I, of late, have had to begin nearly every interview by complimenting you and congratulating you and judicial watch on your latest achievement. It’s remarkable how much effort you put into your job as a government watchdog and the magnificent results you’re getting looking out for the american people watching over this government.

And I thank you personally, and certainly I thank judicial watch. We’re happy to do the work. And what’s frustrating is it’s not rocket science, and we just wish more would do what we’re doing, especially those in responsible positions of government power. Well, right now, speaking truth to power is a very important thing because certainly the Congress is not succeeding in doing so, despite its, no question, historically low margin of control of the House.

But still, it seems the republican party in large measure has lost its way when they should be the party of the loyal opposition and doing far more than they are doing, with the exception of the investigating committees of the judiciary, the oversight and Ways and Means committees. It’s not pleasant to watch a weak leadership doing few things, in my judgment, correctly. Your thoughts on Mike Johnson? If I can start know, Speaker Johnson is the first conservative movement activist to be speaker of the know.

That’s no small. My, my instinct is to give them a chance and breathing room. But as president of Judicial Watch, I got to call it as I see it. And what I see is what, in effect, is a plan which has been consistent with prior speakers to fully fund everything we hate, including the invasion of the United States, the destruction of our republican form of government, rule of law, with these prosecutions of President Trump and other innocence, the censorship of Americans, et cetera.

And I’m not seeing any willingness by Speaker Johnson to say, I’m not going to fund x, y, or z and pick one. And I understand the challenges of doing that. And maybe he doesn’t succeed or, you know, I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be able to vote to fund Joe Biden moving millions of illegal aliens to every town in America. I just can’t imagine why this has happened, and it’s consistently happened.

Over the last year or two, the republican controlled House has complained about all this illicit activity by Biden while at the same time fully funding it. Now, maybe they can square those two issues. I can’t. And so I don’t think they deserve an out on that. Yeah, and I agree with you. And he goes down to the border with 60 apparently 60 representatives in tow with him and acts as if it’s the first time that he’s understood that there is a crisis in the country.

Even though we’ve had ten to 12 million illegal immigrants brought into this country in the course of three years from the day that Joe Biden took over. And they keep talking about two and a half million, 3 million, we all know the numbers are vastly larger than that. And we also know that this speaker then, subsequent to that visit, says the border is an issue we’ll die on.

That isn’t the way to. I hate the rhetoric. I do, I guess, like the sentiment, but he put it in the most negative terms possible. And by the way, every time he said anything approaching that, he has relented and withdrawn from the issue rather than going up to take that hill. So I don’t know what to make of him. Yeah. And it’s not like we’re getting any fiscal benefits for giving up on these policy issues.

Not that they don’t say they’re giving up, but they’re essentially setting up a situation where it’s impossible for our policy desires to pass, mainly address these crises. I mean, it’d be one thing to say, well, we don’t have the votes for a border, but I tell you, we’re cutting the budget by 20% because inflation is destroying the land. I’m trying to see where the wins are here for those of us who have a conservative outlook and are concerned about the future of the republic.

And to me, we don’t have any time to waste. This is not like, oh, we can get to the border next year, or we can get to the jailing of Trump next year. If you don’t do it now, there may not be a next year, practically speaking, in terms of being able to deal with any of this in terms of having a functioning republic, and you couldn’t be more right.

And this time, there’s just no element here of figurative speech. With this election on November 5, 2024, we’re going to decide whether or not we have a republic or not. I truly believe that, Tom, if Donald Trump is not reelected and in charge of this government on January 2025, this country will be in deep, deep, and I’m afraid, mortal crisis. Because this is a takeover of the federal government by the Marxists.

It is a takeover following. They’re having taken over the Democrat party. There is nothing happening in Washington, DC right now in the executive branch that is remotely positive and in the national interest or the interest of the american people. Do you mean we’ve got this corruption and this abuse of power. Right, which is troubling as it is. And then you’ve got this collapse of the national command structure of the United States military with Defense Secretary Austin being AWOL, effectively for a week without his colleagues knowing about it, the ones who are responsible, namely the president, the national security advisor and his top mean.

That’s downright scary. Well, it is scary, and it’s going to get scarier, folks, because Tom Fetton, the president of Judicial Watch, and I are going to be talking about what judicial Watch is doing. In addition to filing a $30 million wrongful death and negligence lawsuit against the US government on behalf of Ashley Babbitt, her estate and her husband, we’re going to take up all the other initiatives undertaken by judicial Watch to try to save this republic.

Stay with us. We’re coming right back. We’re back. Now we’re talking with Judicial Watch’s Tom Fetton. And Tom, the lawsuit that you filed against the US government on behalf of Ashley Babbitt, it is stunning to me that not a single legislator, representative of the House or Senate, anyone, has taken up her cause over this time since January 6. And thank you for doing so. And the information that you’ve already developed and revealed in the papers and filings that you’ve made, I think will astonish most Americans, don’t you? Yeah, I think it’s troubling, not only as president, judicial watch, but as a citizen who’s obviously watched this as other Americans have.

It’s a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit for Aaron Babbitt, her widower and her estate. And it shows that Lieutenant Michael Bird, the US Capitol police officer who worked for Congress, the defendant is the federal government. He’s a federal employee, in the end, shot her without justification. I’ve talked to you about this before, Lewis. I’ve watched the video repeatedly for obvious reasons. And forget about the lawsuit and all that.

Just personally watching it time and time again, the first thing I think is, I can’t believe he shot her. I can’t believe he shot her. I just can’t believe it. And certainly any police officer or honest law enforcement official or, uh, alert citizen would see that’s not a right, correct shooting. So we know the rules were all broken, that the US Capitol police had by bird in that shooting.

We know separately that after he shot her, he issued a call on the radio, shots fired. Shots fired. And suggested shots were being fired at him, when in fact, he was the only person who shot. So what was he doing then? Was he trying to create a cover or just further highlights the impropriety of what he had done? And then, of course, he had a record suggesting he should have been nowhere near that situation.

By the way, he was incident commander there. So he was one of the top security officials in the House that day, and he had left his loaded weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol visitor center, which is the major way visitors in tourists and such enter the US Capitol complex. I don’t know how long you lost the gun for, but it was found by someone else. And then secondly, he shot at his own car because it looks like some juveniles were trying to steal it.

And that was a crazy shoot too. Bullets went all over by the account, we understand happened. So it was a horrible situation. And Ashley Babbitt was needlessly killed. And because her death and the reality of it was harmful to the last January 6 narrative, Lieutenant Bird wasn’t held accountable, he wasn’t criminally prosecuted. I don’t know whether he should have been or not. We can’t trust the Justice Department to have considered it fairly, that’s for sure.

Under Joe Biden and then separately, the US Capitol police, the Pelosi operation, there had no interest in holding him accountable either, administratively. So it’s up to us to do this through this lawsuit. And Ashley deserves justice. And so that’s what we’re trying to achieve here. And good for you. And I think you’re exactly right. There’s more at work here, though, than simply a tragic shooting and a misunderstanding about various aspects of it.

I did not realize he had sent out that radio call until I read your filings, that it had occurred that within 1 minute of that shooting, he is coming up with a fictional cover saying shots fired, and he’s prepared to fire in return. That’s a bizarre thing to have happened, but it is also to me, you don’t have to be a very diligent or brilliant detective to say, you know, that looks like somebody’s trying to cover something up.

And then you go through, as you said, and as you go through this, he’s put in the distinguished visitors suite at Andrews Air force base. I mean, this is designed for military high military officers. And he’s there not for a night, not for two nights, and not for any sensible reason other than to keep him out of public view. And he’s there for six months, for crying out loud.

Is there any explanation for that? Other than they wanted to keep him out of the public view and hide him from the media? Yeah, it’s incredible. Remember, we didn’t even know what his identity was, what his name was, until months after the shooting. Some folks had guessed who he was, but that wasn’t official. So you didn’t know. And it was clear his identity was, they tried to hide because if his identity became known, this other background information we were able to uncover, and certainly there was a story well known about him leaving the gun behind wouldn’t have been helpful.

So they tried to stall as long as they could. Again, you don’t have to be a detective, as you say. You don’t have to be a police officer or law enforcement official. We’ve all seen how we handle police shootings in this day and age. Right. Whether they’re justified or seemingly unjustified. If you unholster your gun and fire it and you’re a police officer, you can expect significant investigation that did not occur.

For Lieutenant Bird, it simply did not occur. And he was given a kid gloves treatment in a way no other officer would have. You know, given the obvious circumstances of the shooting, he should have faced a severe sanction. Yeah. Well, severe sanctions. It looks to me now, on the face of it, that far more than sanctions is in order. We’ll see. As your case moves forward. I want to take up a number of issues with you on this and continue on the Ashley Babbitt case as well.

And I want to ask you next about all that we’re learning now about the relationship between the White House, the Justice Department, and the state prosecutors, whether it’s Fannie Willis in Fulton County, Georgia, or whether it is with the Manhattan district attorney or the state attorney general of New York, Letitia James. This looks like a concerted, cooperative conspiracy to persecute Donald Trump. And we’ll take that up with Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial watch, next.

Please stay with us. We’re coming right back. We’re back now with Tom Fitton. And, Tom, I just wanted to ask you, when the January 6 committee destroyed all of those documents and their investigation, do you suppose they also then would have had access and pertinent material to the shooting of Ashley Babbitt by Lieutenant Michael Bird, could that have been within that evidence that they destroyed? That’s a good question.

That’s a good question. Well, one thing about why wouldn’t we conclude other, why would, why should we conclude otherwise? I was thinking one of the things that Johnson could do and the House should do is they should retract the January 6 report that that Pelosi committee issued. Retract it. Yeah. Say it’s invalid, it’s not trustworthy. No one can rely on it. Yeah, that’s a great idea. I think that’s a splendid idea because it has the concomitant truth that it is all real and valid to suspect everything that they did.

And in that regard, I want to turn to the report in Politico that Fulton County’s district attorney, Fanny Willis, not only apparently has some personal relationship, I’ll put it that way, with her chief prosecutor, she also secretly meeting with the January 6 committee to get whatever she was getting, whether it be orders or whether it be further evidence of something or some way to which she could create evidence.

We’re seeing it everywhere. A Justice Department going up to the Manhattan district attorney’s office, dispatched to serve there to persecute and prosecute President Trump. Also, Letitia James going down to talk with the Justice Department, the White House counsel, apparently. I mean, if this isn’t a conspiracy and a collaborative persecution of a president, I don’t know what it would be. Your thoughts? Yeah, I agree with you. There is a national democratic party conspiracy to jail Donald Trump and other political opponents of the democratic party.

And part of it is to intimidate people from participating fully in the public policy process. Meaning, if we can do this to these people, we can do it to you. And what does that serve to do? It serves to ensure that fewer people might object again if the election is questionable in 2024. They don’t want Republicans or conservatives to participate under law in the debate about elections and election outcomes and the administration of elections.

And so that’s kind of like one of the meta issues there. And then, of course, you’ve got the direct issue was they just want a one party state, and the way to achieve that is by jailing their political opponent or keeping them off the ballot. See, that’s how they run things in Russia and China. You get a 96% vote for a candidate because no one’s allowed to run against them.

So you’ve kind of got this general. We want to intimidate our opponents, and we’ll jail others by making an example of them. And then you’ve got the base one of, oh, well, we want to get this candidate out of the way. Yeah. And they’re pursuing it every minute of every day, nonstop. Watergate. I think back to Watergate, and this was supposed to be a different country. As a result, following the Watergate, the church committee reports an investigation.

But Watergate is really nickels and dimes compared to what Joe Biden has done. Here, what the marxist dems have done. It all started with the Hillary Clinton Russia colluding rumors and that she started ginned up and created charges out of it in 2016. And now here we are in 2024 and the Democrats are still ginning stuff up. It is outrageous. No, it really hasn’t stopped. And Hillary obviously wants to be president still, so there’s a reason she’s still floating around.

But it’s kind of like two sides of the same coin, right? There’s one way to rig an election in one election campaign, and they’re coming up with new ways. And as far as I’m concerned, the 2024 election has already been compromised by this election interference that I described with these illicit prosecutions of Trump. So the question is, is Trump, assuming he’s the nominee, going to be able to overcome the compromised nature of the election and win? I don’t know.

I don’t know either. Unfortunately. I think there are very few people, if they do know, they’re not raising their hands. Your judicial watch again, discovering more emails under the Aliases used by Joe Biden. It’s just remarkable what the man has done. All of this. These are flares in the darkness telling every one of us who this man is, what he is, and that’s why it looks like he’s going to be impeached.

They’re going to proceed with it under this house led by Speaker Mike Johnson. Is that your sense of things as we wrap up here? Yeah, I think there’s enough to impeach him for bribery and other charges related to his racketeering operation. And he’s been running for probably since he’s a senator, but certainly, which has continued to the presidency. And we kind of saw if that wasn’t. Do you remember the good, remember Godfather when Al Pacino was testifying? No.

One of the whistleblowers was testifying and they brought his brother in from. And, you know, he changed his. That’s, that’s what that reminded me yesterday of. Hunter Biden showing was it was a mafia like operation that we saw in Congress yesterday by the. And, you know, it used to be only in the movies, but there we saw it yesterday. Well, Hunter Biden and the Biden family are living a movie right now, and they now are without question, they’re going to be hard pressed to sell many more tickets like they have sold over what it looks like about a half century, as you say.

Tom Fetton. Again, thank you for being with us. We appreciate your time and all that you’re doing. And for bringing us along on all the developments that are resulting from your tremendous work at judicial watch. We thank you so much, Tom. God bless you and thanks so much. You’re welcome, Lou. Thank you. .