➡ There are allegations that Biden was threatened with the 25th Amendment to leave office, with Obama being the one to convey the threat. In other news, the Epstein case has been reopened, with the Justice Department reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell for information. However, there’s frustration over the lack of records released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), despite promises of transparency from the current administration.

Did you know that Tom Fitton, before he came to Washington DC to head up Judicial Watch, he was actually a roadie for Black Sabbath. He was in charge of making sure Ozzy made it onto stage on a timely basis, which was not easy, Tom, back in the day. Man, that was a little bit before my time. Oh, sure. Make me feel old. I see. Well, Tom, things in DC certainly often appear to be a crazy train, let’s face it, and Ozzy was prescient about that. But these last few days have certainly unearthed quite a bit to sort of stoke the flames that a lot of us have been keeping going for quite some time, and that has to do with all roads leading back to Obama with regard to the Russian collusion hoax.

What do you think of the latest declassification and Obama’s denial now that there was anything inappropriate about him directing the intelligence community to come up with that assessment, apparently based on the conclusion he had reached? Yeah, and what the assessment was to bring your listeners up to date was that the core part of it was, that was purposely, it looks like leaked, was that Putin basically wanted Trump elected. And what the information shows is that there was really no good basis for it other than the Steele dossier. And, of course, the Steele dossier was a smear operation run by St.

Hilary of the Grand Jury funded by her campaign, but it was also a joint operation with the FBI because the FBI was also paying Steele, and Steele was an FBI operative and asset. So they put it into this document. The intelligence assessment gave it to 200 people despite it being super secret. It leaked immediately just before Trump came in. The Steele dossier was publicized in an aggressive way, and it all went from there to Mueller, et cetera, to try to destroy Trump and remove him from office. So, and let’s not forget, because we now have revelations from Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, that it apparently, FBI Director James Comey and his team there looking into the illegal private email server that Hillary Clinton used, neglected to actually do basic investigative work on some thumb drives that they had and discover exactly how extensive the crime was there with regard to the mishandling of top secret classified info.

We would never have known about that email server if it weren’t for you, Tom, and the team at Judicial Watch and your FOIA requests over it. That really is the root of all this. They came up with a Steele dossier to try to throw mud at Trump because her email scandal was so devastating to her campaign that they had to slime Trump as well. Right, and they basically had gotten information from a source showing that her server seemingly had been hacked by Russian types, and her emails were on these thumb drives. In addition, they had intelligence associated with this information that Loretta Lynch, the DOJ, was trying to rig the investigation to protect Hillary as well.

And Comey was so nervous about it that he thought that it might have been at least partly true given Loretta Lynch’s odd response to his briefing about it. And all of this was covered up for the American people. And thankfully, the election wasn’t rigged in that regard, but they sure as heck tried to. But in order to distract from her email, in my view, they came up with these Russian smears, Hillary and company. And it froze the Justice Department basically during most of the Trump administration and prevented any serious investigation that went on in 2016 and before them, related to not only her emails, but as we are talking about the effort to destroy him.

But rather than focusing on the interference in the election by Hillary and the Obama FBI and company, they focused on Russia, Russia, Russia, which was completely fake. And now, Telsey Gabbard has detailed this information, that Obama was sort of the ringleader behind all of this, orchestrating this, putting this all, sort of getting this all started. And I’m sure you saw yesterday, Trump called this treason. Obviously, Obama is not going to be going to jail for this, but what will be the consequences in your view? I know it’s early, but what will we see? Is it going to be the same sort of congressional hearings and then it all goes away and nobody pays a price? What’s your prediction? Well, if Trump does something different than has previously been done, there’ll be a serious criminal investigation.

There might be prosecutions. And if it’s what’s been previously done otherwise, though, nothing will happen, as you highlight. And I think that’s the challenge for the Trump administration. Can he rely on the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate themselves? And I wouldn’t if I were him. I’d have an independent investigator or prosecutor reporting directly to him that he selects, that has the resources necessary to do this type of investigation, because the FBI is implicated and the Justice Department is implicated. Well, that’s interesting, because I understand where you’re coming from there. But the difference here is that the director of the FBI, Cash Patel, and the deputy director, Dan Bongino, I mean, nobody knows more about this scandal than Cash Patel does.

He was Devin Nunes’s investigator on the Intel Committee, recognizing that the FBI is partly to blame here. I think, you know, I don’t know. I think that Cash is perfectly positioned to be able to do this investigation. Or do you think just because the FBI as an institution, regardless of Cash Patel’s position, this deserves a special prosecutor? There are more James Comies in the FBI than just Cash Potels. There are more Loretta Lynch’s in the Justice Department than Pam Bondi’s. And you’re asking these folks to investigate their own institution that basically has been so corrupted, and so irredeemably compromised.

I just don’t think it’s going to be correct. I’m not trustworthy of the investigation. You know, and frankly, with the way they handled the Epstein records, I mean, they can’t even get a disclosure case going in terms of reducing records to the American people. So I think institutionally they can do complex investigations. So politically fraught like this, I don’t think so. We’re speaking to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Tom, can you stick around, because we’ve got Hunter Biden back in the news, and I know that your eyebrows were raised quite a bit based on some of the revelations in that interview and some of the things you’re trying to get to the bottom of with regard to his pardon.

Plus, more Epstein news. Can you stay with us one more segment? Yes. Excellent. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch. That’s judicialwatch.org. Love those guys. We continue now with Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Let’s start with Hunter Biden. You’ve put forth a lawsuit against the Justice Department for details on the Hunter Biden pardon records. Give us the details there about what you’re looking for exactly. Is there a normal process, a normal set of research and paperwork that would normally go into a presidential pardon, and you’re looking to see if the Hunter Biden pardon was handled in a traditional way? Yes, normally you would have the Justice Department Office of Pardon Attorney produce records, and certainly a pardon that was under consideration and talked about as it was in the last part of the Biden Administration would certainly create records in the Justice Department.

You can presume the top people of the Justice Department were very nervous about Ponder and the prospect of pardons. And on top of that, you have the question of the validity of Hunter’s pardon and the other pardons because of Biden’s not only mental incompetence, but the fact that at least in part the Hunter Biden pardon is, I would argue, null and void because it’s a pardon about nothing that goes back 10 years that he’s pardoned for anything that might have happened. That’s not a pardon. That’s wishful thinking that a prosecutor is going to take that seriously and not prosecute it.

And I hope President Trump proves me right and just prosecutes Hunter or anyone else as if these pardons are not a factor. I’m sure you’re paying attention to Oversight Chairman Comer’s Committee as they look into what may have happened there with regard to the President’s health and mental and physical decline. Look at all of these people, and I think we’re up to three or four people who have pled the fifth against self-incrimination in a criminal matter when they’re asked questions like, did anyone tell you to lie about the President’s health? Did you see anybody else carrying out the duties of the President? It’s a remarkable number of people pleading the fifth, Tom.

That’s their constitutional right, but does this indicate that there’s a major scandal here? Well, I do think there are potential crimes here if White House officials were exercising authority unlawfully. And yeah, I still do think it’s a crime about how Biden was removed from the campaign. I do think it’s a crime that 15 million Americans had their votes erased in the primary just like that. Was there a conspiracy against their voting rights that by having their votes removed? I do think it’s potentially a crime if Biden was threatened with the 25th Amendment if he didn’t leave, as has been alleged by a report, and guess who conveyed that, the threat? Allegedly, Barack Obama.

I think the coup against our democracy, if you want to use that word, last year deserves a criminal investigation. And this would be part of it. Also, Tom, it is a busy day for you and all the work you do at Judicial Watch. We’ve got the Epstein story continuing to fester here. The latest development is the Justice Department announced that they’re going to reach out to Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorneys to see if she has anything to bring to the table here. And the Oversight Committee is going to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell. Is there a reason to believe that this woman is a felon, a convicted felon of some of the worst horrible crimes, what is it she can say, and how much of it should be believed that there’s no files or paperwork to back it up? Well, I mean, what you do is you test her testimony or you test her information if there is material to back it up, or other evidence that they don’t know about yet.

I mean, the news is they’ve reopened the Epstein case. That’s what we hear. When you start talking to the number one witness, it means that the Justice Department doesn’t do that because they’re curious about gossip. They’re doing a criminal investigation. They may not call it one officially, but the number two official at the Justice Department going to visit a witness like Maxwell in jail or meet with her is extraordinary development. But in the meantime, we still don’t have the records. We want the records released under FOIA. And I’ve been saying this repeatedly on this program as well.

The way out of this, in part, for the administration is just release the records under FOIA. We’ve got the big lawsuit. Just start producing records. I mean, I’d like one record at least under FOIA. You don’t have one record yet about it. That’s astounding. It really is. I mean, who’s holding things up? You would think that the Trump administration’s Justice Department would be a little bit more cooperative with you, Tom, and the people at Judicial Watch. Yeah, it’s strange. You know, I guess given the timing of the lawsuit, the fact we haven’t gotten one document, however outrageous, isn’t all that extraordinary because it does sometimes take time.

But if I were them, I’d focus on getting as much as I could out under law as I could. You know, I mean, material they want to withhold given all the statements that have been made by President Trump and others. But that sort of thing can be done under FOIA, too. You say, I’m withholding this. This is the reason. And if we want to litigate it further because we think there’s a good basis to do so, we can in court. But at least that process is playing out. And it shows to me a level of lack of concern about the FOIA process.

I don’t think it’s helpful either to the public interest or clearly to the Justice Department. Especially for a president who ran and a team at Justice and the FBI who, when they were nominated and they were testifying for their confirmation hearings, it’s been over backwards to say that they want to be transparent. They want to bring back the era of transparency so that the American people can trust their government again. And the fact that they’re not releasing any documents to judicial watch under FOIA requests is disconcerting, to say the least, and something that we’re glad you’re on top of.

And we’ll continue to work with you on it as well. Thanks, Tom. Always good to talk with you. You’re welcome. Thank you, guys. [tr:trw].

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