➡ Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is known and targeted by various political figures and entities due to its efforts in exposing corruption. The group has been censored by big tech and targeted by the Justice Department and the IRS. Recently, the Washington Post requested a comment from Judicial Watch for an article about the role of podcasts in casting doubt on election integrity. The group responded by accusing the Post of attempting to censor them and discredit their views on election processes.
➡ The article discusses concerns about censorship and election integrity. It mentions how platforms like YouTube have changed their policies, allowing more discussion about elections. However, the author argues that there’s still censorship, especially against conservative voices. The author also emphasizes the importance of clean and fair elections, stating that without them, democracy is compromised.
➡ The text discusses a controversy involving the Washington Post, radio host Hugh Hewitt, and election disputes. Hewitt, upset with the Post’s coverage of election issues, particularly in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, argues that the full story isn’t being reported. He points out that a lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee was successful, but this isn’t being adequately covered. The text criticizes the Washington Post for its perceived bias and unfair coverage of election disputes.

No matter who’s president, no matter who runs Congress, same goes to whatever elections are happening in your local community or in your states. The issues never go away. One of the reasons I know that Judicial Watch is effective, it’s like the old phrase, we love him for the enemies he has made. And Judicial Watch has many enemies among the cadre of corrupt politicians here in Washington, D.C. that have inhabited powerful positions. Bill and Hillary know who we are. I don’t know if Obama knows who we are. You certainly know. You can be certainly sure that the Biden White House knows who we are.

I don’t know what Joe Biden knows, so I’m not even going to venture President Trump knows who we are. But the left surely knows who we are and they are desperate to censor us. They hate us. And we’re repeatedly targeted and we’re one of many who are targeted by the left, to be fair. But you know, we’ve been censored repeatedly by big tech at the behest of government, at the behest of dishonest leftists. We’ve been targeted by this Justice Department many, many years ago. We were even targeted by the irs. So we’ve suffered the slings and arrows of government abusers and their allies on the left and we’re seeing more of it.

Just this last week I got a call or my colleague, our press officer, received an email from the Washington Post, a reporter at the Washington Post earlier this week. And normally when you get a request from the Washington Post, obviously you pay attention because it’s however terrible we think the Washington Post is, it is a powerful media entity and you want to know what they’re doing, especially if they’re going to be reporting about you or your organization. So we paid attention to the request and the request came in at five. Let’s go to the. Let’s go to the.

Because I posted what they sent to us. So they sent this to us on Wednesday, October 30th at 5:16pm and they said they wanted a comment for an 8pm deadline. So from the get go, it’s unprofessional. They’ve got an 8pm deadline. They send us an email after hours, after hours wanting a comment. And look at what they were asking about. I’m working on a piece about the role of podcasts. I don’t even know what are playing and casting doubt on the integrity of 2024 election. The piece includes interviews with researchers which you can be sure are leftists who say podcasts are an especially effective medium for Such claims because of how Techn challenging it is for companies to do content moderation.

So content moderation is the left wing code for censorship. That’s what content moderation is. And the Washington Post being a leftist activist group that sometimes does journalism, this is what they described they were doing targeting Judicial Watch and others. Their analysis found that the Charlie Kirk show and Charlie is one of the most effective conservatives in the country. He runs Turning Point usa, the nonprofit. He has a PAC and other political action oriented groups that he’s also running Powerful Voice because of his social media presence as well. And the story specifically mentions an exchange Kirk had with Tom Fitton on an Oct.

18 episode of the show titled Fixing Elections is Easy, which is why the left fights so hard against it. In the conversation, Kirk asks Fitton whether the election is fixed and Fitton responds that the voting process is structured in Arizona and Pennsylvania to steal the election if need be. And then they quote me further, if you normalize the counting of ballots after election day, which is what I’ve been talking about, right, and the fifth Circuit is, or at least partly agree with me, that sure makes it easier for fraudsters to come in and manipulate the outcome.

So I saw this and I got mad. You know, it’s 5:00. I work later than many other people do, but I don’t like working later and I don’t like having to work late to deal with a crisis like this. A left wing reporter for a powerful media group throwing out garbage inquiries like this, obviously to try to destroy and censor us. And this is my response to her stop trying to get me and Judicial Watch censored by invoking leftists who hate the First Amendment and free speech. Your inquiry is another reason Bezos. Is it Bezos or Bezos? Bezos.

Bezos needs to clean house at the Post because there’s been controversy about Bezos acknowledging that the Post is full of leftists and no one takes it seriously. This is why no one takes the Washington Post seriously. Because of agenda pushing leftists like this reporter. And as I respond so the Post then published this story. Let’s bring the story up in an episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. Last week, the host who leads the pro Trump youth group Turning Point usa, asked his guests whether the election is fixed. Tom Fitton, head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, responded by falsely claiming.

So that’s the smear. Falsely claiming that it is illegal for votes to be counted after election day. How is an opinion false even though some states explicitly mandate that practice? By the way, this was written after the 5th Circuit ruling. I mean, so it’s really egregious that she smeared me in this regard. And Judicial Watch and Charlie, he said the voting processes in Arizona and Pennsylvania is structured in a manner to steal the election if need be. Is there any doubt? I talked about the post Election Day counting. It’s outrageous. It undermines voter confidence. It invites fraud.

How is that even a controversial comment? If you normalize accounting, and this is an accurate quote, I don’t understand what’s controversial about it. If you normalize accounting of ballots after election Day, boy, that sure makes it easier for fraudsters to come in and manipulate the outcome. Fitton’s comments echo false claims. Again, there’s that word false that Trump made in 2020 when he said he had won the race because he was ahead. It’s not a false claim. It’s an argument that should have been taken seriously legally. He should have probably pursued it legally, more aggressively than his team did.

But it’s still a legal argument, partly vindicated by this decision that at least in the lease says counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is illegal. So this is a smear operation. And here’s what I responded to. Here’s how I responded to it on Twitter or X. You know, we obtained this 5th Circuit victory, and it didn’t stop the activists. Here are the reporters Kate Zach Zachary, Naomi Nix and Jeremy B. Merrill. Those are their handles. From smearing me by dishonestly characterizing as false my expert Judicial Watch opinion. Accounting ballots after election is unlawful under federal law.

Now, I purposely put in the word expert. I know the left doesn’t want to take that seriously because the left hates everyone that they disagree with. But I’m an expert, and Judicial Watch is an expert on election processes. I’ve been doing this for 26 years at Judicial Watch. I’ve testified to Congress on the issue. Judicial Watch has one of the top legal teams on the country on issues of election integrity and law. And so if it’s my opinion that federal law prohibits the counting of ballots received after Election Day, which it does in all sorts of circumstances.

And if it’s my opinion that even counting ballots after Election Day is illicit, it ain’t false. It’s my opinion stated in good faith. Let’s go back to the tweet, because I forget what else I yelled about both the Washington Post and the New York Times. So there was a New York Times story similarly pushing for censorship of content almost. I think it would appear today before the Washington Post story. So here Are the interview segments that Jeff Bezos activist employees. He really needs the clean house over there. Don’t want you to see the segments. I had the interview part of the you should watch the entire interview with Charlie.

Charlie Kirk. But here are the sections that the Post smeared me over and I want you to see the complete comments so you have a fuller understanding of what I was the points I was making in my conversation with Charlie Kirk about elections and I was on talking about the book rights and freedoms in peril. Let’s go to the tape. It’s the question of is it fixed or is it fixed? Right. So it’s the fixed can be have two different words. So they’ve structured the voting process in places like Arizona or up in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania to make it easier to steal the election if need be.

So if you normalize the counting of ballots after election day, boy, that sure makes it easier for fraudsters to come in and manipulate the outcome. And they don’t care if voters get nervous about it because it’s all about winning. In 2020. He had the votes to win on election night. Right. And that result was changed as a result of unprecedented and I would argue unlawful counting that occurred for days after election day. And I tell you, if we don’t know who won on election night, I think it’s going to be very unpleasant in terms of what the outcomes are in terms of voter confidence.

How was that controversial? You know, outrageously. YouTube a year ago wouldn’t have let me raise those issues about 2020 because they said you can’t ask questions about elections and they would kick you off. They’ve changed that since then. Straightforward analysis. I mean, the whole argument over election integrity is we want stronger rules in place because it makes it easier to set up the steel if need be for any party. And it’s the left that opposes all these election integrity measures, that want to count ballots forever in a day, that oppose voter id, want non citizens to remain on the voter rolls.

That is the position of this Biden Harris administration. Told the Supreme Court to let him do it. And what’s the response from the Washington Post? Take Fitton’s video down. Take Charlie Kirk’s video down. Don’t let them talk about post election day counting. Don’t let them ask questions about government abuse, government misconduct. Don’t let them ask questions about Biden Harris election victory. Don’t let them ask questions about the next election. And frankly, the good news is the article being published the week before the election shows they’re upset because There hasn’t been the censorship they had last time around.

And that thankfully is largely due to Elon Musk, in my view. And obviously Republicans have been putting pressure now that they’re back in control of the House on the issue as well. But Musk has really set the standard in many ways to allow a fuller debate on these issues, making it harder, not stopping completely, but making it harder for censorship to continue. But it’s obviously a coordinated effort because the New York Times had a story the night before stated October 31st. Maybe it was the same day when it was the same day. Yeah, it was the same day.

So they had two stories. New York Times, Washington Post puts out two stories saying that people aren’t being censored enough by YouTube or on the Quote podcast. The election falsehoods took off, take off on YouTube as it looks the other way. So YouTube is still a mess when it comes to certain election controversies. I mean, you may have seen how they vandalized content. I know they vandalize our content with disclaimers that go, look here for the truth on elections and things like that, suggesting the content is off. That’s censorship and suppression. And they don’t reference Judicial Watch in this material, but they talk about how this whole story is based on research done by a radical extremist left wing group called Media Matters that hates conservatives and wants to ensure that they have no voice on anywhere in the media.

And they try to controversialize all comments by conservatives in order to get them censored, suppressed, destroy their advertising, you name it. And I’m like, well, we weren’t mentioned here, but I wonder who else is on the list that Media Matters was targeting. And sure enough, let’s go to the Media Matter story. Oh, here we are. I’m on the list. Judicial Watch is on the list. And dear viewer, dear listener, if you are a supporter of Judicial Watch, it means they’re thinking of you as well. And they’re suggesting. What’s the title of this report? YouTube Let right wing figures undermine the 24 elections even before any votes were cast.

Pushed election misinformation. Right, which is code for information that should be triggered. I mean, censored. They want to trigger censorship. So scroll down and see what they were saying about Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton argued, quote, the 2024 election has already been compromised and announced plans to buy his organization to sue states to overcome the election rigging. I don’t know what that last one was. Maybe it’s from a speech I made in 2021 that they seem to reference or somewhere, I don’t know what they’re talking about. So what’s the issue with saying the 2024 election has already been compromised? It’s a straightforward complaint about the Biden Justice Department, by the way, saying that the Biden Justice Department compromised the election with illicit prosecutions of Trump.

They say that’s false. There’s no evidence of that. That’s the less mantra. And including, like supposedly regular media entities regularly say that you’re not allowed to say that that’s false. And the reference they’re doing is they’re pointing to a speech I made to cpac, which is a conservative meeting, big convention that takes place every year here in the D.C. area. And here’s how I opened the speech. And here’s a speech, at least part of the speech, they didn’t want you to see. But frankly, you gotta begin with some bad news. It’s too late. The 2024 election has already been compromised by the Biden Democratic Party’s unprecedented prosecutorial assault on the civil rights of President Donald J.

Trump. There is a storm front, a storm front of selective vindictive political and anti constitutional prosecutions going from Miami up through Fulton County, Georgia to here in D.C. and of course up into New York. And the front has expanded to other states where lawyers, Republican Party officials and volunteers are being harassed, sued, disbarred and prosecuted for exercising their God given First Amendment and other rights to dispute an election. You know, let me be clear. Moving to jail, the leading presidential candidate, seizing his assets, destroying his business and keeping his name off the ballot, or all about turning America into a one party state, by the way, isn’t fraudulently using the 14th Amendment and falsely accusing Trump of insurrection to keep him off the ballot.

Insurrection in itself? If those abusers want to play the insurrectionist game, then virtually the entire deep state, left media and DC ruling class have some questions to answer. Good little speech, huh? I’m glad Media Matters attacked me and attacked Judicial Watch because there’s some good points there to consider before the election because the election has been compromised by these abuses of Trump. And the only question is, will that the compromise nature of the elections undermine the outcome in a way that people aren’t confident that what happened was legitimate. How is that? Quote, misinformation. They want to censor us.

Okay. And this is an issue that I’ve raised. I don’t know if I’ve raised it on this program before, but I want to raise it again with you. Either way, because of the election coming up. Now, you may be upset about the outcome of the election, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. And this message is in terms of those of us concerned about conservative public policy outcomes and the continued protection of our Republican form of government, the US Constitution, and our rights and civil liberties, our freedoms, our sovereignty, etc. Those issues won’t go away if Harris is elected, obviously, and they won’t go away if Trump is elected.

The left isn’t going to stop trying to destroy the Supreme Court, the rule of law, the First Amendment, promote open borders, allow aliens to vote in the elections. They’re not going to stop any of that. They’re not going to stop their diversity mania to destroy America through repackaged Marxism in a way that separates us by race and division and segregation. The left ain’t going to stop now. The challenges will be different depending on who the president is. The challenges will be different depending on who controls Congress. But the concerns we have as to what needs to be done to defend the republic and kind of restore the rule of law or strengthen it.

The left isn’t going to stop messing with efforts to ensure fair and clean elections. The left isn’t going to stop opposing that. So no matter who’s president, no matter who runs Congress, same goes to whatever elections are happening in your local community or in your states. The issues never go away. And I would argue your obligation as a citizen to be a watchdog, to be vigilant, never stops. So the censorship issue, obviously they’ve got this timing issue. It’s before the election. They’re trying to scare big tech platforms into censoring me. Censoring you? Censoring other conservatives. Charlie Kirk, who else is in this? I can see pictures.

Ben Shapiro, Cash Patel, Tim Pool, Tucker Carlson, Rudy Giuliani. They want to censor them. You think they’re going to stop on Election Day? No. And Judicial Watch has been not only kind of pushing back, obviously, as I’m talking about in this program, but we’ve been litigating on the issue, exposing the improper censorship, suing to stop the improper censorship, and we’re not going to stop. And Media Matters, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Biden White House, the Harris White House. Assuming it comes to be some deep stater in the Trump administration who doesn’t like what we’re doing, some state government official who doesn’t like what we’re doing, we’re not going to back down.

We’re going to continue to stand strong for the rule of law, clean and fair elections. If we don’t have clean and fair elections, everything else is for naught. If we don’t get to select who runs the country in a way that’s legitimate, we’ve lost. So we will continue with the heavy lifting, no matter the opponent, and we’re able to do it. And the reason they’re targeting us is because we’ve got such strong support from you, the American people. And I hope it continues. Oh, yeah, by the way, it’s still going on because I was thinking about that Washington Post piece.

There was just a story up in Pennsylvania that they were messing with voters waiting in line in Bucks county, improperly telling them to go home. And the left is like yelling at us for exposing that and yelling at Trump for being upset about it. I mean, the Washington Post is just horrible. Did you see this? I don’t know. Do we have the video still of you? Hewitt? So Hugh Hewitt is a radio talk show host, writer, He’s a contributing writer, op ed columnist for the Washington Post. And he was on with two leftists on the Washington Post talking about the election controversies that may ensue as disputes arise related to the election here.

Let’s just go to the tape here. Me or does it seem like this week Donald Trump is laying the groundwork for contesting the election by complaining that cheating was taking place in Pennsylvania, by suing Bucks county for alleged irregularities. And this is on top of his continual assertion that if he loses, it’s because of cheating. Yeah, that’s what he’s been laying the groundwork for, this just not in the last week, but in the last umpty months. No election can be fair unless Donald in Donald Trump’s mind, unless Donald Trump wins it. And I think we are going to see him both rev up his supporters to contest elections outside of courtrooms and go to every courtroom he can in America where it’s relevant to make whatever arguments he can, no matter how far fetched.

We saw Jonathan. I worked out last time, but it didn’t work out. May not work. It may not. That may not happen this time. And now I’ll let you go, Hugh. Well, I’ve just got to say we’re news people. Even though we’re at the opinion section, it’s got to be reported. Bucks county was reversed by the court and instructed to open up extra days because they violated the law and told people to go home. So that lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee and it was successful. The Supreme Court ruled that Glenn Youngkin was successful.

We are news people even though we have opinions and we have to report the whole story if we bring up part of the story. So, yes, he’s upset about Bucks county, but he was right and he won in court. That’s the story. I’ll let you keep going, Jonathan. No, I just. I don’t appreciate being lectured about reporting when. Hugh, many times you come here saying lots of things that aren’t. I won’t come back, Jonathan. I’m done. This is the most unfair election ad I have ever been a part of. You guys are working. That’s fine. I’m done.

Well, I don’t blame Mr. Hewitt for leaving. And evidently he quit writing after that. That’s how awful the Washington Post is. And that’s the company that’s targeting your Judicial Watch. And that’s what they think of anyone who dares to dispute anything in the elections. It’s snark, nasty partisan, leftist ideology that is guiding coverage of our elections. And you need to understand that as these debates ensue. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

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