➡ The speaker discusses the importance of transparency in government, mentioning President Trump’s team and their work. They mention a person named Pam Bondi who needs to clarify some information. They also discuss the Department of Justice’s focus on major priorities like violent crime, public safety, and election integrity. The speaker mentions a person named Maxwell who might testify in front of Congress, and the need for transparency in this process. They also discuss the work of Judicial Watch, an organization that advocates for transparency, and their interactions with government officials. Lastly, they mention a controversy involving Adam Schiff and potential mortgage fraud.

➡ The discussion revolves around the legality of certain pardons, the investigation into alleged perjury and conspiracy by Brennan and Comey, and the lack of transparency in the Department of Justice. The speaker suggests that some pardons may not be legal and should be challenged through prosecution. They also express frustration with the Department of Justice’s handling of investigations and call for more transparency, particularly in relation to an assassination attempt on President Trump.

Without further ado, though, I want to show you what our next guest, Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch, thinks is a solution to the Jeffrey Epstein thing. Take a listen and then I’ll bring in Tom. So I have a simple solution to the Epstein controversy facing the Trump administration. Judicial Watch has a Federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the Epstein records. The Justice Department just told a court in our case last week that they’re still searching for and reviewing FBI, DOJ, Epstein records. Give Judicial Watch the Epstein records. Produce what they can produce under law.

Tell the American people why they are withholding any information, if indeed that’s what they decide to do. But get the legal process in place so the American people have confidence that all the records possible that can be released under law are being released. Simple plan. Let’s bring in the man from the video himself, Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch. Tom, good to see you. Hey, good to be with you again, Sean. All right. In the video, you say that you’ve got a simple solution. I think right now, just to be honest with you, everybody wants a solution.

If you’ve got the simple one, let’s break it down. How would it work and what would it yield? So the problem the administration has had is they’ve released records or in the case of the release records, you know, outside the traditional process of FOIA, right? And I don’t want to be against the kind of general transparency. But the problem with public leaks is that people don’t trust where did the records come from? What’s been withheld? Where did you look? All of those questions can be handled through the FOIA process. Now, when they screwed up the last time, we started asking for records.

We didn’t get any and we sued for the Epstein records. And just last week, they said, well, we’re still reviewing records from the FBI and Justice Department for a potential release. And my view is we’ll just release the records. And our experience with FOIA, which is literally second to none in the United States of America, is that you release the records. There’s a process for withholding records. You tell Judicial Watch, the American people and the federal court, what is the basis for the withholding, why you’re withholding it, where you search for the records, how many records there are.

You get an understanding of the universe of records through a federal court process that, you know, you just can’t match through either productions to Congress or even just general productions to the public where you just put something online and tell people, well, you know, you’re going to like it. So just follow the process. And and if the president endorses it, I think people will be at least it’s not going to be a it’s not going to solve all the problems. I think it’s going to mitigate a lot of the issues that people have about transparency.

Okay, so let me see if I, in my non-legal mind, understood what Tom Fitton just said. So it’s not necessarily again, I’m going to put words in your mouth and you tell me if I’m right that we will get all the records, right? That there are certain things that we may not get because the court said that’s a victim statement or whatever. But under the process that Judicial Watch is outlining, when the court record for X is denied, they’ll have to explain it. And therefore they will do a better job of explaining, hey, that was a victim statement.

It is from a minor child that explained in explicit sexual ways, something that we don’t deem acceptable to be released. And therefore, that process itself is a better and more transparent way than any other way, because we may not get them, but we’ll understand why. Is that fair? Yes. And, you know, and on the transparency side, I would err on the side of transparency. You know, there’s material that obviously is not going to be made public one way or the other, and I’m not going to prejudge what that material might be. But I could, you know, we’ve been around the block a long enough to know there’s some material that we will never see and it would be inappropriate for us to see.

But they’ve kind of put a complete stone wall down on the release of any records, at least through this official memo that was signed off on by the leadership of the FBI and Justice Department. They got to lift that veil of secrecy and start erring on the side of disclosure. And I know the president is concerned that there may be people who had, you know, incidental contact with Epstein or business contacts with Epstein. And, you know, it’s not fair to put their names out there because, you know, you can’t have guilt by association.

Well, you know, that’s a legitimate concern, but the American people should figure it out. You know, in the end, yes, they can make their defenses. Many of these people are public figures anyway. They’re big boys. They can do what they need to do to defend their reputations. The American people want this done. And, you know, legally, I think the records should be released and have to be released. John, politically, when I see polls saying 80% of the people want the records to be released, my political advice would be get as many records as you can under law out there as quickly as you can and move along.

Because as the president says, they’ve got all sorts of other things to do. And, you know, his Justice Department and FBI put him in a corner and it’s really, you know, a terrible mistake. And, you know, they blew it. You can all the negatives, but there’s got to be a way forward. And the way forward is just be, you know, okay, we made a mistake on this transparency issue. You know, we thought that our investigation and our assurances were enough. It’s clear you want more information and here it is. Actually, I think that they should just bottle what you just said and say that, which is we thought this, we were wrong.

And here’s how we do it. But that, that when Alan Dershowitz says he doesn’t believe there’s an actual list because he was the lawyer and he saw everything, but there are certain court and judges that are holding this. Do you believe based on the experience that you and judicial watch have in this area, that that’s believable? There’s this focus on the two words client list. And that’s a term of art. I don’t know what that means. A list of names that’s not labeled as client list. I, you know, Alan’s probably technically correct, but, you know, it practically speaking, doesn’t make a difference.

You know, we want the names that he was dealing with and we want a general understanding of who he was talking to. Call it a contact. The fact is all of that information hasn’t been released yet and it should be released. And if there’s privacy issues, you know, maybe we’ll have to fight it out in court, but at least we’ll know what we’re fighting about as opposed to like vague statements saying, well, there’s no incriminating client list. John, what is an incriminating client list? How about a non-incriminating client list? And let us figure out whether it’s incriminating or not.

I’m glad you brought this. I’m glad you brought it up, Tom, because I said the same thing that this is semantics, whether or not Epstein had a list that was like under his computer that said bad client list or incriminating client list that like somebody put a list together at some point. Like maybe the FBI did it when they started getting all these affidavits and said, okay, let’s put a list together. But to ask us to believe that all lists, it’s all semantics, though. They want us to believe that like how they phrase it.

It’s like, I don’t have a list that’s on my Excel spreadsheet that begins with the letter B. Like it’s it’s so last yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson sat with Benny Johnson and he was asked about the Glane Maxwell issue. And I want to play for you the actual clip. This is what Speaker Johnson said to Benny Johnson about that. Speaker Johnson, this is sort of on the heels of something else that a lot of people are asking questions about. And because we’ve been lied to by our federal government for so long, I feel like there’s some type of like, and there’s a pain point, right? And the pressure cooker that that gets heated up on issues like the Epstein issue.

Right. And obviously, that’s something that’s taken over a lot of the online dialogue, but a question here about it that concerns either testifying or testimony for Joanne Maxwell, potentially before Congress, or if you would support members like Marge Taylor Green or Anna Paulina Luna on the release of subpoena subpoenaing the Epstein documents from the DOJ, whether you would support either of those. Yeah, I haven’t talked to Marjorie or Anna about that specific subject, but I’m for transparency. We’re intellectually consistent in this. We look, Reagan used to tell us, we should trust the American people.

I believe in that principle. I know President Trump does as well. And I trust him. I mean, he put together a team of his choosing and they’re doing a great job. It’s a very delicate subject, but we should, we should put everything out there and let the people decide it. I mean, the White House and the White House team are privy to facts that I don’t know. I mean, this isn’t my lane. I haven’t been involved in that. But, but I agree with the sentiment that we need to, we need to put it out there.

And, you know, Pam Bondi, I don’t know when she originally made the statement, I think she was talking about documents, as I understood that they were on her desk. I don’t know that she was specific about a list or whatever, but she needs to come forward and explain that to everybody. I like Pam. I mean, I think she’s done a good job. We need the DOJ focusing on the major priorities. So let’s get this thing resolved so that they can deal with violent crime and public safety and election integrity and going after act blue and things that the president is most concerned about as we are.

So I’m anxious to get this right. Tom, more specifically, I mean, obviously, he sounds a lot like you in terms of he wants transparency, but should she testify? She has said she’ll testify in front of Congress. Oh, Maxwell? Yeah. I couldn’t believe what Speaker Johnson said. I remember hearing about Maxwell testifying. It’s like, oh, Congress is never going to allow that to happen. He embraced it immediately. You know, I know Speaker Johnson well enough to know he’s kind of a conservative on these issues and pretty cautious. That was not a cautious statement. That was now these records out will bring in whoever it is we need to bring in to testify.

And which tells me something about the politics of it that members of Congress are hearing in large numbers from their constituents about this issue. So that’s someone who’s going to be his people are going to be on the ballot in a little over a year, basically ringing the alarm bell saying we’ve got to move on this. And and I think there’s a way forward. And I do think, you know, we can there’s a there’s a way to end the crisis. There’s going to be there’s going to be a bad taste in the mouth for a lot of voters for a long time over this.

But the politics of it aside, the law requires transparency. Follow the law. It’s usually your best bet. Just out of curiosity, because you guys have been around a long time. And one thing about judicial watch that, like, if you’re in power, regardless of what power, what party you’re in, judicial watch is a pain in the butt. You guys are equal opportunity as offenders. You fight for the principle of transparency. And when you see a situation like this, maybe not anymore, because Tom Fitton and judicial watch have been around so long. But are you getting behind the scenes? Any kind of like, hey, Tom, can you can you pipe it down? Can you guys like let us figure? I mean, does that still happen or is that ship sale because they’re like, it’s judicial watch.

They’re going to come after everybody. I don’t know. Are they coming after you? Well, they’re a little afraid of me, I think. But so I do hear things indirectly. Yeah. And is it like, guy, I mean, is it like, please stop here? You’re right. You don’t know everything we know. Yeah. And what we have planned to do. And, you know, I’ve been doing this for 27 years. There isn’t a reason or excuse I haven’t heard before. Right. And that’s why I’m saying like, you guys are equal opportunity offenders. And I say that as a badge of honor because you’ve never ducked and said, OK, the Republicans are in power.

You guys just go for it every time. And I wonder how much if people have just said it’s not worth the fight. Tom doesn’t care. Or do you still hear it anyway? No, I think that, you know, I think they get frustrated that we can’t we’re constantly highlighting issues about transparency and they feel like they’ve they’re doing a lot of other things. And why why are you bugging us on these issues? And my view is, well, I’m bugging you on issues. Judicial Watch is asking questions about a plot to destroy the republic last year.

Can we get some info on that, please? Well, and just so we’re clear, that’s that’s the operation Arctic Frost, right? Yeah, I did. I didn’t I didn’t promise to release all the Epstein records. They did. Right. And then they said you’re not getting any Epstein records. And we found no evidence. Anything went on and you can’t see any of that evidence, literally none of it public or non public. So, you know, that’s not, you know, and to me, that’s not the Trump way. You know, President Trump, to his credit, is the most personally transparent president in the history of the darn country and his top agencies on one of the most sensitive political issues related to government scandals in recent memory announced they’re not going to release anything extra on it.

Boy, oh, boy, they put him in a corner. Yeah. No wonder he’s ticked about the issue. All right. The last thing, because I want to ask you about something else in a second that you guys, but but how I mean, just you’ve done this, as you said, 27 years, you guys have more experience in this area than anybody else. Just putting that hat on for a second. What is the most likely outcome of how this ends? Meaning, do you see them kicking and screaming to the end? Do you see them saying judicial watch just gave us an offer and let’s take it.

Do you say, I think that they’ll probably go for hearings on the Hill. What’s the most likely political obvious answer? I think you’re going to have hearings. I think you’re going to have records disclosed in a way that many will see is not fast enough, but relatively fast for the government. So we’re going to get more information. The question is how, how willing is the administration going to be in terms of the discretion? They have the release records to exercise that discretion. It’s always a political decision in the end. I mean, there’s a rare, you know, when you go in and ask for records, Sean, like I, they’re, they typically are not literally allowed to release someone’s social security number.

Okay. That’s an example, perhaps of something that’s non discretionary in everything else is discretionary. Like the privacy issues we’re hearing about, that’s a discretionary release. Yes. That person has privacy issues. You weigh it against the public interest in the disclosure of the information. So are they going to err on the side of secrecy or disclosure when it comes to Epstein’s colleagues, friends, and acquaintances and business associates? I would recommend, I would recommend they give that public interest section of the analysis really significant way. By the way, I will predict this. I think Democrats are going to ruin the day that they wanted this released because I have a feeling that Jeffrey Epstein associated with a lot more people that were Democratic donors, politicians, et cetera, than Republican.

But that’s, that’s my two cents on this. I want to ask you about something else. President Trump tweeted this out yesterday that he’s always suspected that Shifty Adam Schiff was a scam artist. And now that I’ve learned that Fannie Mae’s financial crimes division have concluded that Adam Schiff engaged in a sustained pattern of possible mortgage fraud. He said his primary residence was in Maryland to get a cheaper Morgan to rip off America when he must live in California because he’s a Congressman. Okay. Well, I don’t, again, I’m not the lawyer here, but I’m not either.

Right. But I’m just saying, like, I don’t, so that being said, he obviously has to reside in California legally to be a California member of Congress. That’s in the constitution. Uh, is this a big deal or is this just a screwing with Adam Schiff? I think they figured out with Latisha James, there was an issue. And my guess is someone else figured out it’s probably an issue for a lot of members of Congress that they’re messing with the mortgage system in declaring primary residences and getting the, the benefit of lower rates in doing so.

According to the press report, I just read, I may be, I’m going on memory here. So double check it. Those of you googling and such, uh, the allegation is he met, there were at least five loans at issue where he may have misstated information. So it’s not, you know, it’s not a game. Um, and I tell you, under the new standards for Trump, this is much more of a significant issue than anything he was accused of. Yeah, it’s actually right. They’re not making up a misdemeanor from that expired. Um, I testified in front of the Senate judiciary committee about two weeks ago about Biden’s cognitive decline.

And then some of the other people testified in use of pardons. Um, we’ve seen this New York times story come out about whether or not he actually knew or just gave broad criteria to the staff. One of the things I learned in the Senate judiciary hearing is that at some point it’s going to take a prosecution. In other words, person X got a pardon, they get prosecuted, say I have a pardon and then the, they are challenged and say that pardon wasn’t legal. That’s the only way to technically, I guess, at least from my understanding from what was brought up in this hearing.

Walk us, I mean, do you guys, are you, are you going to be bystanders in this? Are you going to engage in this kind of thing? Do you care about this? Do you have a dog in the fight? Well, we just sued for Hunter Biden, pardon records in the justice department, but it’s a course I’ve been advocating for since the pardons have been issued. They should be presumed to be null and void. At least those pardons that don’t, um, uh, pardon anyone for a specific crime, meaning the Hunter Biden pardon in part, his family pardons, uh, the January six hoaxers pardons, meaning the members of Congress like Schiff and company, uh, and, uh, the pardons for Millie and Fauci.

Those are pardons for just any conduct done within the last, you know, since 2014, whatever the date is, that’s not a pardon under the law. And it can be, and that, and I agree with that analysis, the way to challenge that is to prosecute or not prosecute the person because they got a pardon, but just proceed normally. And if someone would be prosecuted and they’re covered by this fake pardon, don’t let it stop you. And I would go further. Even if the pardon does cover them, it can be argued that the pardon only clicks in once the prosecution happens.

They can’t go to jail. Oh, interesting. It doesn’t prevent the prosecution. It only prevents prevents the sentence from happening. Interesting. Um, you guys have also done some work on, uh, the investigation into Brennan and Comey for alleged perjury and conspiracy. What’s judicial watch seeking to get in that? I mean, we’ve probably got a half a dozen lawsuits on records about this garbage. Which was, you know, what they did, you know, Sean, they created this intelligence report that was supposed to be secret that they released immediately when Trump got into office or just as he was coming into office, suggesting that Putin interfered in the election to get him elected.

And they use that. And what was their fundamental basis behind that? The jointly funded steel dossier jointly funded by the FBI under Obama and Hillary, her campaign. And they use that to try to destroy president Trump. It was a brazen act of sedition and insurrection in my view, if you want to use those words. And, um, and I hope that I hope there’s a serious investigation. I, you know, this Epstein thing makes me think that the FBI and the justice department can’t even release records in a straightforward way. Do I think they’re going to be able to prosecute cases of this nature? I don’t, I don’t trust their capacities, their capabilities.

And they’ve got thousands of James Comey still at the agencies as it is. And I don’t even think they’ve got enough people they can trust to do it. And the president should just have his own prosecutorial unit that reports directly to him. Keep the DOJ and FBI out of it. Heck, they need to be the subject and targets of these investigations. Wow. Um, Tom, the last thing I want to ask you about earlier this week, it was the one year anniversary of Butler, Pennsylvania’s assassination attempt. Judicial watches filed a lawsuit against the department of justice for all records involving, uh, Thomas Crooks, who was the attempted assassin in the last minute that I have with you.

What, what is it that you hope to get out of that? Because we don’t know much about this guy at all a year later. Well, you answered your own question. I mean, you don’t know much about the guy and the FBI supposedly has a perpetual ongoing investigation. That means that one document under FOIA has been released about this shooting since a, for a year now. Come on. I’m just tired of these excuses. It’s now, it’s, you know, it used to be, oh, we’ve only been in office three months. Now they’ve been in office six months.

Focus on efforts to destroy the Republic and kill the president in terms of transparency, I might suggest. I mean, this is not rocket science. I’m not asking them to say, you know, give us information about parking tickets in Tim buck to, this is important material focus on transparency and an organized way about this and don’t wait for judicial watch the Sue. I mean, we’re going to imagine Sean being in court hearing after court hearing with Pam bodies, justice department, where they’re defending stonewalling and delays and withholding information. I mean, I’m sitting there thinking, what, what’s going on? Of course that happened during the first Trump administration too.

Now some things have gotten a little bit better, but I don’t, I don’t think we should have to sue for this stuff. And once we do, I would hope they would just start turning the material over. It’s been slow going and educating them in that regard though. That’s for sure. Yeah. Especially when it comes to an attempt on president Trump’s own life. Tom Fenton, I appreciate you and the work that you guys are doing at judicial watch. Thanks for sharing your time with us today. You’re welcome. Appreciate it. Wow. You got to love what Tom’s doing.

Like I said, he’s an equal opportunity offender. That’s, I mean, they get the job done. And I think this is a really interesting and unique solution to what’s going on with Epstein. [tr:trw].

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