Posted in: Judicial Watch, News, Patriots



➡ Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, discusses various legal issues related to President Trump. He questions the validity of the hush money trial, suggesting that it’s unclear what laws Trump violated. Fitton also discusses the concept of presidential immunity, arguing that the U.S. Constitution provides protection for presidents from legal scrutiny for their official acts. Lastly, he talks about Judicial Watch’s lawsuits aimed at cleaning up voting rolls in Illinois and Mississippi, arguing that accurate voter rolls are essential for fair elections.
➡ The text discusses the controversy surrounding the results of a recent election. Some people believe there was fraud and that the rules were changed in a way that allowed votes to be counted that shouldn’t have been. However, others argue that all allegations of fraud were thoroughly investigated and found to be without merit. The text also touches on the idea of presidential immunity and the potential implications if a president refuses to leave office after losing an election.
➡ The text discusses various political issues, including concerns about voting regulations, the impact of illegal immigration on political power, and the moral standards for U.S. presidents. It also touches on accusations against both former President Trump and President Biden, as well as lawsuits related to the January 6th Capitol attack. The text ends with a caller thanking the host for a lawsuit involving Ashley Babbitt, a woman who was killed during the Capitol attack.
➡ The article discusses a radio show where various topics were discussed, including a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Ashley Babbitt’s family, the bias of the courts towards January 6 defendants, and the credibility of Judicial Watch as a media source. The show also touched on climate change, the state of the Republican Party, and the handling of official documents by different presidents.


Welcome back to Washington Journal. We’re joined now by Tom Fitton. He is the president of Judicial Watch. Tom, welcome back to the program. Good to be with you again. Thank you. Let’s start with what is judicial watch and how you’re funded. Judicial Watch is a nonprofit educational foundation. We’re celebrating our 30th anniversary this year. And we’re public, we’re publicly funded. We’re funded from charitable donations. People just give us money.

All right, let’s start with the New York City trial, the hush money trial. You posted this on your website, Trump trial. Prosecutors face big problems. What are the problems in your opinion? Well, it’s not clear what laws Trump violated, even under their own theory of the case where you have misdemeanor counts initially related to him or someone in his office detailing what I would call a legal expense.

A legal expense. What they’re trying to do to make those charges more serious is to suggest that there was something else that he was up to in doing so and that was not reporting appropriately campaign related expenses. So there’s a big question about whether a they are campaign related expenses. What exactly do they mean under their is this a state law violation? Is this a federal law violation? So, frankly, there’s confusion as far as I can tell in the courtroom as to what’s going on because some of these issues were just being raised in the jury, just before the jury with opening argument.

And, you know, Mister Pecker’s testimony over the last few days, I’m not quite sure why it’s related to anything. So the president had a friend at the National Enquirer who was willing to manage stories for him like he was doing for other people. And it’s not clear that he was doing the catch and kill situation where he finds stories that are not beneficial to him and then make sure that they’re never aired.

Right. And now, according to Pecker, he’s done it for, it’s his practice to do it for all of his friends and people he wants to curry favor with. And so, you know, the new question is now, is it a campaign finance related issue for politicians to work with media on managing press? And if that’s the case, Katie, bar the door for other presidents who have been managing negative news stories or positive news stories.

It works both ways. Tom, let me read you this. This is from Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum, and then I’ll get your reaction. He says this, the question of whether this Trump Cohen Daniels financial arrangement violated federal election law hinges on whether the hush money is properly viewed as a campaign expense or a personal expense. That distinction, in turn, depends on whether Trump was motivated by a desire to promote his election or by a desire to avoid embarrassment and spare his wife’s feelings.

So is that what it hinges on, the reason that money was paid and categorized as a legal expense? I mean, maybe if you take, if you accept the premise that there’s a good faith basis to have a federal election law and issues related to a federal campaign be litigated by a prosecutor in New York City, and this is related to steps that were taking in 2016 and 2017, it’s now eight years later.

There’s strong arguments that even if there were issues that could have been pursued criminally, it’s all too late. And as far as I’m concerned, I just want to get to the heart of it here. This is an investigation or a prosecution about nothing. No serious. No serious prosecutor would have brought charges like this in any other circumstances. And we’ve got this situation where we have these radical, novel applications of the law, never happened before, all being applied to Trump simultaneously by democratic prosecutors throughout the nation.

And as far as I’m concerned, what we’re witnessing up there is election interference. It’s a crime in progress in that regard. To the degree we have prosecutor in New York abusing his power to deprive President Trump of his civil rights under law, and he’s a hostage. He’s not literally a hostage, but he’s being kept away from the campaign trail while President Biden is able to campaign freely. And it’s all because you have two Democrat politicians, both the prosecutor and the judge, manipulating and abusing a system to harass him.

Let’s talk about the immunity case since that was just heard yesterday in front of the Supreme Court. Your views on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution after they leave office, and in general, not just in Mister Trump’s case. Yeah. And, you know, a lot of folks say, well, the president’s not above the law. That’s not the issue here. The question is, is the law, which is the US Constitution, does it provide presidents the protection, as President Trump is suggesting? And it’s clear a majority of the Supreme Court say yes.

And so, at best, Jack Smith is left with, if the ruling goes as widely expected, the difficult task of delineating and pretending that, well, this step he took as president was political and personal, but it wasn’t official. And I don’t see how you kind of take the two away from, you know, separate the two issues, personal and presidential, for a president in office. So you would say blanket immunity for presidents? Yeah, I think the law requires it.

And by the law, meaning the US Constitution, and the US Constitution is set up where the president has these prerogatives as the chief executive. And that means he’s not subject to scrutiny by the courts or Congress for official acts in office. So Justice Kagan actually brought that up and said the founders never put in an immunity clause in the constitution. They could have, but they meant not to because, I mean, we had just gotten rid of a king.

Right. And I guess the response to that would be that the immunity flows from the structure of the constitution, that he’s got prerogatives as president of the United States. The executive power resides in him. And so if it resides in him, who can check him beyond the power, beyond the processes envisioned in the constitution, which specifically is impeachment. And we are taking your calls for Tom Fitton. He’s president of Judicial Watch.

You can call us on our lines by Republicans, 202-74-8001 Democrats 202 748,000 and independents 202-748-8002 Tom, talking about the 2024 election, this is on your website. There are several lawsuits that Judicial watch is involved in for 2024. You can see it here on judicialwatch. org dot. Judicial Watch sues Illinois to force cleanup of voting rolls. Judicial watch sues Mississippi for counting absentee ballots after election day. And it goes on.

Tell us about why you’re doing those lawsuits. What do you hope to gain from that? Well, the first lawsuit is about Illinois, and that’s, we’ve had many lawsuits like that over the years to clean up election rolls. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up election laws, election rolls. And that isn’t taking place in Illinois. They’re not cleaning up the rolls. And we kind of what we do is we look at the data and they report the data about their cleanups, and we say, well, it’s, practically speaking, zero for many counties in Illinois and many counties, it looks like they haven’t removed dead people for years, for instance.

So it’s that basic work. And what’s very interesting about the litigation that we previously pursued is that in jurisdictions like New York, New York City, we were in a battle with them and they settled. They removed almost half a million names. LA county, they settled with us. They removed 1. 2, I think it was 1. 2 million names that was announced the beginning of last year. So there’s a lot of election roll cleanup, and it’s really essential because, a, the law requires it, and b, when you’re mailing ballots in a more widespread fashion than has been typical.

I think it’s really important that the rolls be accurate and ineligible voters not remain on the rolls. Let’s talk. Just before we take calls, I want to show you this clip from Washington Journal. Last month, we had data specialist and author Ken block on the program to talk about his hiring by the Trump campaign to investigate 2020 election voter fraud claims. So here it is, and then I’ll get your reaction.

Well, so I didn’t say there was no voter fraud. I told them there was, there wasn’t enough voter fraud to matter. And that’s an important distinction. We did find some dead voters. We did find some duplicate voters. But the numbers were far less than the thousands, many thousands that were necessary inside the swing states. And I was very transparent as we discussed the challenges with having access to some data and not having access to other data.

I can pretty confidently say that the Trump attorneys that I reported to, specifically Alex Cannon, who was my main contact, had a lot of confidence in the work that I was doing, in the fact that I was being as thorough as I was. And I was probably numbing his brain with how much information I was educating him about, about voter data and the processes that I was going through.

I know he trusted my results, and he communicated very thoroughly to mark Meadows at the end of the day, that the campaign looked extraordinarily hard at not only looking for fraud, but evaluating everyone else’s claims of fraud. And we found nothing that rose to the level of changing an election result that would survive legal scrutiny in court. What do you think of that, Tom? Well, I don’t understand what he’s saying in the sense that there were ongoing, there was litigation that was going on in Georgia, for instance, by the Trump campaign, that if it was pursued and the allegations were borne out, would have changed the results of the election in Georgia.

So I don’t think that’s the full picture of what was going on within the Trump campaign. There were ongoing cases by the Trump campaign itself that were never fully litigated because the time ran out. And secondly, it’s not just voter fraud per se. It’s changing the rules in a way where votes that shouldn’t have been counted are counted or they were counted in a way that was contrary to federal law in the sense of counting well after election day or without the security in place that would have reassured people that the election was done correctly.

And you think that there are enough of those fraudulent votes to have changed the outcome of the election. I think that there were enough questions about the way the elections were run and in the key swing states that it was a jump ball as to whether that outcome, the outcome that was certified, was actually correct. And if I were running things, I would have done do overs in those key states.

That’s the solution that judges have had when there are issues related to election fraud and rule breaking. And that would have been within the purview of the courts and frankly, to state legislatures if they wanted to be aggressive enough to reassure people that the election was fair and honest. I mean, we’ve had just cases in the last year. I think it was in Connecticut. Was it Bridgeport? But your listeners can google it up and get it right, rather than relying on my memory where a court said, we’re going to have a new election.

So there are all sorts of ways to solve this. You know, there’s a good reason why 80% of Republicans, it looks like, don’t believe the election results were accurate. So part of the way that, I mean, the way that we solve it in this country is to litigate it in the courts. And there were 60 court cases. Well, I mean, you know, you could have went against former President Trump.

Do you not believe the results of those cases? I mean, you know, that’s a number that’s used by Democrats on the left to disguise the substantive concerns that were being pursued by the Trump campaign and others. And, you know, you could have someone on the street corner file a lawsuit and be part of that 60 cases. There were a half a dozen cases pursued by the Trump campaign that were cut short.

There was a refusal by the Supreme Court to take up the substantive challenge, for instance, by Texas challenging the processes in the other states under the Constitution. So there were a lot of substantial issues that weren’t thrown out on the merits. But in some cases, they were told it was too soon prior to the election. And then it was told, in many cases, they were told it was too late after the election.

So this was a political fight about a political outcome that occurred in the courts. Let’s talk to callers. Steve Mentor, Ohio line for Democrats. Good morning. Good morning. My statement is that if the Supreme Court rules for the immunity case for Trump, I would suggest that President Biden, win or lose in the 24 election, should not give up power and just claim presidential immunity. Just simply claim, hey, I’m the president, I can do anything I want.

I deem this election to be fraudulent, and I’m not going to leave the White House, period. All right. What do you think Tom, I think that’s just like a silly response to the substantive issues being raised here. A president obviously is subject to removal under the Constitution through impeachment in the election process. And that’s a different question. As opposed to, if he did something like that, could he be prosecuted? Right.

And it doesn’t mean he’s not subject to the other constitutional provisions that restrict his activities. I think what Steve’s saying is, you know, if the supreme Court does rule for immunity, that that would open the door for future presidents to claim fraud in any case and refuse to leave office. And then if the, if the Senate doesn’t impeach him, then he’s good. And as someone else pointed out on one of the, one of the justices pointed out, it also incentivizes presidents.

On the other hand, if immunity isn’t allowed to try to stay in office, so they are not prosecuted for anything they do while in office. And I’m not quite sure if this immunity fails, why the president, while he’s in office, would not be subject to prosecution. So I think this is a criminal prosecution. Yeah, criminal prosecution. I’m not quite sure. Now, there will be all sorts of reasons, but again, it’s immunity, as we’re highlighting, flows from the structure of government.

And once one pillar of that structure is torn off, I don’t know how the rest of it remains. All right. Karen is in Alabaster. Alabama Republican. Hi, Karen. Hey, good morning, Mister Fenton. I just want to say I really appreciate everything that you have done. I try to reach judicial watch as much as I can out. Thank you. Sure. So I have four quick points, Mimi, please. So the first one is the New York trial, the hush money.

If President Trump paid or had his lawyer pay with his personal funds, doesn’t that null and void any kind of election campaign violations at all? That’s number one. Number two, the immunity clause. I was just going to say, if the, if the justices said no immunity, should we go after Obama for all the drone strikes he did, he actually killed Americans. Should we hold him liable for that? Number three.

Oh, the court cases, those 60 court cases you keep referring to, Mimi, most of them were dismissed on standing. They never even saw the evidence. So they keep the, they keep talking about the fake electors. Isn’t it true that President Trump had every right to say, we disagree with the election results, let’s review it. And if the Congress had agreed to do that, they need electors in place in order to move forward with it.

Isn’t that true? Isn’t that constitutional? And lastly, do you think it’s okay for the Biden administration to be registering these illegal aliens to vote in our election? Thank you so much. Which one of those do you want me to pick up on? Well, so she mentioned the fake electors that the president, she said that the president has the right to have a fake elector slate. Well, the left calls them fake electors.

Prior to Trump being targeted for engaging in a dispute of an election, they were called alternative electors, most famously during the 1960 election where you had a similar issue arise in Hawaii, where you had alternative slates of electors. Indeed. And I told, and I had a debate with the special counsel prosecutors about this before the grand jury when they harassed me about these very issues. And I said the left was planning, because I read about it in the New York Times, to dispute the election in 2020.

They thought if Trump won, they would be able to push through their slates of electors and get them recognized. And their wargaming was such that if they didn’t get recognized, they would have the states like Washington state or Oregon threaten to secede from the union. How do you know this? It was in the New York times. John Podesta was doing a war game with this, with this democracy integrity project.

I forget the exact name of it and I remember reading about it. And so what the heck is going on? This was in the summer of 2020 that they were wargaming this scenario out. So by these standards that have now been applied to Trump, all those folks should be under criminal investigation. But, of course, they won’t be, and nor do I think they should be. But, you know, it’s the new rules.

If you dispute an election, you’re going to face jail. And that’s a dangerous tack to take because it’s not just about 2020. What they’re sending signal is in 2024. Whatever the results, whatever questions you have, if you raise them in good faith and pursue these claims under the constitution and federal law, we’re going to try to jail you anyway. She said that President Biden was registering illegals to vote.

Well, I don’t know if he’s directly registering illegals to vote. We have a situation in our country that if you’re an illegal alien, it’s easy to register to vote because they don’t check to see that you’re a citizen. Typically, when you file, actually, it’s not typical. There’s a us citizenship requirement. When you fill out the federal registration form. Now, you check yes or no. But if you check no or yes, and it’s contrary to reality that they don’t check.

So when we have nonprofit groups or there’s studies out there, there’s news out there that there’s this push to register, getting people to vote as they cross the border, you have to wonder what’s going on. But on top of that, there’s a massive political power shift coming as a result of these 10 million illegal aliens coming into the country because their mere presence, if they’re here in 2030, is going to result in changes in the apportionment of Congress and the number of electors the state gets.

And I just want to bring up, so people know, here’s the bipartisan policy center. So it’s at bipartisanpolicy. org dot. They have an article, four things to know about noncitizen voting, and it points out what the rules are, what the laws are, and how they are enforced. Let’s talk to Ann in Albertville, Minnesota Democrat. Hello. Hi. Am I on? Yes, hi. You know, I don’t even want to comment on all the legal issues or judicial issues.

I literally want to just comment as a christian woman, how he is a man, five children with three different lives, now has affairs with porn stars. It’s like, you know, he can do what he wants with his life, but as a president, I would like someone with morals, integrity, class, blah, blah, blah. I just, the whole thing is icky to me that he can be this kind of a person.

And our president, like I said, just want a president who’s got some morals. What do you think? I know. The question is, is she concerned about Biden’s reputation in that regard? He’s been accused repeatedly of sexual advances and assault. And obviously, Bill, how come none of that has ever come to trial or there’s never been a court case about it? Because, of course, Joe Biden’s protected by the media and his Justice Department.

I mean, one of the most last. No, no, but before, I mean, before you became president, you said that he’s been accused repeatedly of sexual assault. Yeah. Well, it’s like the hash metoo movement highlights how there were charges that were actions by powerful men that weren’t pursued for decades because it was a very different cultural and legal atmosphere at a time. And so Tara Reid comes forward. She’s got, she’s accused him of assault, and no one’s interested in pursuing them.

Now, a creative, maybe a creative republican prosecutor is going to start pursuing Biden after he leaves office. I don’t know. But the fact is that there have been no charges, criminal charges against Trump either. So, you know, I’m not quite sure what the issue is here. The question is, what is the standard for morality to be a president of the United States? And the question that callers of both parties should say, am I applying it evenly across the board? And we may have moral disagreements with the behavior of a president.

Now, the president denies the affair with Stormy Daniels, to be clear, but is it good for the goose and good for the gander at the same time? To stretch the metaphor. And, you know, too often it’s not. And, you know, I would submit a president who supports the killing of unborn babies throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy with tax dollars. That to me is a moral failing that is demonstrably destructive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the United States.

Let’s go to the independent line in Tremont, Pennsylvania. Bob, good morning. How you doing? How’s it going? In October, 13 members of Afghanistan, the people that died there, the soldiers, filed lawsuits against Joe Biden for $100 million. And I seen the affidavit. It was on Fox. It’s for murder. Murder lasts forever. So, Joe, you’re going to be better. Hope the Supreme Court helped you and Tom keep up the good work.

You know why? Because the person next to you called you a racist. Yeah. They’re slime by. Sure. And I don’t, and I thank you. I don’t know about that lawsuit, so I can’t comment on it. Alex is a Democrat in Brooklyn, New York. Good morning. Good morning. I’ve just been listening to your guests and I love the equation of Trump to, and these sexual accusations. I just find it hilarious that, yes, none of this came out until now because, you know, the media is now pushing up on things that could have been disclosed about Joe Biden.

But I just want to go back to this idea of the fake electors and Trump’s orbit. I mean, so Peter Navarro, Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos, stone Gates, all of these people went to prison for Trump. Eastman lost his practice. You know, he can’t be a lawyer in California. Cheese, bro, is now, you know, talking about the Georgia case. This woman, Powell as well, you know, she’s also found to be guilty.

So all of these people in Trump’s orbit, all of them are guilty of different crimes except Trump. So Trump is not found guilty. Cohen goes to prison for covering up, literally taking money out of his own house to pay for a hush money trial. And yet Trump is not culpable in any of this. When, you know, this guy testifies and says that, yeah, this subversion of all of these stories was part of an image campaign so that Trump could look good.

And beyond that, they then put out negative stories about Ted Cruz and like, all of these people running against him. So I don’t know how you just sit there and say that somehow this is partisan. Trump has been, in so many areas, found guilty through his proxies that how is it that he is not? And I guess that’s my question to you. Okay, Alex, let’s get a response.

Well, his proxies or his allies or people around him have been subject to unprecedented, novel applications of the law. Some have pled guilty because I think, wrongly, in my view, they judge the cost to fighting the case is too much to bear. So what’s happened to John Eastman is an abomination. And so highlighting other abuses of people around Trump to suggest that Trump is guilty of a crime isn’t persuasive to me.

You’ve advised Mister Trump in the past. Are you still in contact with him? I won’t say one way or the other who I talk to and about, about things here in Washington, DC. So I don’t want to comment one way or the other. So don’t take it as a yes and don’t take it as a no, other than I don’t talk about who I talk to. But I had been questioned previously about my communications with Trump and before the grand jury, and I can say that they were, the prosecutors were arguing with me about my tweets and what I had for lunch with the president.

And why didn’t the president say one thing? Did the president respond to me? And I’m like, I don’t think he did. And they started arguing with me about why didn’t he respond to me. I was like, wow, you know, he didn’t respond. This was about your email exchange about claiming victory regardless of the outcome. Well, they brought me in allegedly because they wanted to know information about this document dispute, because judicial watch had been highlighting their 180, where they had treated Clinton quite differently in the Sakura case than they did Trump.

And in retaliation, they sent FBI agents to my home and subpoenaed me in judicial watch documents. And I had to go in and testify about that. And then just before the grand jury took place, they said, oh, by the way, we want to spend a little time talking about January 6. And so they spent an hour asking about the documents, 3 hours talking to me about this January sex issue.

And maybe it was like being on an MSNBC panel. It wasn’t real questioning. It was a debate about the issues that we’re talking about here, electors. Were the Democrats planning this? Yes, I said they were planning it. What about what happened in Hawaii? Why is Trump being held to a different standard? And this was all before the grand jury. So it was like a political debate before a grand jury.

And I remember thinking to myself, why is all this First Amendment related activity the subject of a criminal inquiry to this day? Well, I guess I’m not astonished, given the depravity of the Justice Department in recent years. But what an abuse. Let’s talk to Nancy, a Republican in Rotunda west Florida. Good morning, Nancy. Good morning. I’m just calling in to thank Mister Finn about his lawsuit involving Ashley Babbitt.

And I was wondering, because if you not watching certain channels, you don’t get this information. If that radio call between that bird maid trying to cover himself about the shots being fired when he was the only one shooting. And another thing, about January 6, a week ago Wednesday, I tried desperately to listen to the National Guard whistleblowers backing up Trump’s calling in of the National Guard for the fourth and the 5 January where Pelosi and the mayor of DC refused to implement them.

And I couldn’t find it on, I couldn’t find the hearing during the day at all on C SPAN. So I just wanted to thank you, Nancy. You can find that on our website, cspan. org dot. Why wasn’t it played during the day where there’s more viewers looking at it? It was played, but if you missed it, it was played in the evening. It wasn’t played during the day.

It was played in the late hours of the evening. Okay. And it’s on our app as well. Go ahead, Tom. So judicial watch is pursuing our attorneys are a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit for Ashley Babbitt’s family, her estate, her widow or husband, Aaron Babbitt. And that was filed in federal court out in California. And the evidence she’s referencing is the evidence we disclosed in the litigation and the lawsuit that there was a radio call placed by her shooter, Lieutenant Byrd, after he shot her, saying essentially the shots are being fired at us, you know, shots fired, shots fired, when in fact the only shot fired, which certainly within his hearing was the shot he used to kill Ashley Babbitt.

So that case is proceeding. The Biden administration’s first response was to try to move the case from southern California here in Washington, DC. And our lawyers have opposed that because we believe the Justice Department is just trying to do that to get a more friendly venue here in the District of Columbia, the courts are notoriously suspicious of the January 6 defendants and people associated with it. And at least one court has attacked Ashley.

And so we think there’s bias here and we don’t want her case here. And Greg in Burton, Michigan independent. Yeah, good morning, Mimi. How are you? Good, Tom. Listen, what I normally do is when I’m checking out a media source, is I verify them on some media bias websites. The one that I currently have up is mediabiasfactcheck. com. They list you as a questionable source. They say overall they rate judicial watch questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact check record.

Now, they go on to say that it was founded in 94 by Larry Klayman, who has promoted the conspiracy theory that the Clintons are killing people. They list you as an american conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information act lawsuits primarily against Democrats such as the Clintons, Obama, and climate scientists, as you guys label climate science fraud science. Yeah, it is. It is so, so. I mean, I’m happy.

Hold on. Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead, Greg. Go ahead and get to your question. Sure. Now, what they do is they say that judicial watch reports news on their website using strong emotional language, usually pro right or anti left, typical topics covered or anti immigration. They created a website to, quote, unquote, expose President Obama’s alleged IR’s scandal. They promote. So do you want a response to something in particular, Greg? How about this one? They routinely promote conspiracy theories claimed by former President Trump that are usually debunked.

What do you think, Tom? I don’t know. To have a leftist call in promoting a leftist critique of Judicial watch, you know, that people can make their own judgment. But I’m happy he went through some of the good work we’ve done. The left doesn’t like it. They try to characterize it a particular way. But, you know, we stand by our work and it’s good work. We are going to respond to the climate science.

Yeah, it is. It is one of the worst scams in the history of the world in terms of the amount of money spent and the damage to economies and the well being of citizens throughout the world. Is the climate, is the climate scandal scam, scam, scandal, wherever you want to call it. It’s all a fraud because you don’t believe the science itself. You say the science is a fraud or the money spent in response to that science.

What is it that you disagree with? Many scientists dispute the extent and even the possibility at this point that the earth is warmed or that humans have a significant role in any climate change one way or the other. And accordingly, for state actors to use climate change as an excuse to expand and increase and restrict, expand and increase government power should be opposed. Upper Marlboro, Maryland line for Democrats Jack, good morning.

Hey, good morning, guys. Unfortunately, Mister Fenton is just a glaring example of the complete subversion of what used to be the Republican Party. Facts don’t matter anymore. Democracy, unfortunately, is, doesn’t matter anymore. And they will do and say anything to defend Donald Trump, facts be damned. And it’s unfortunate because we need two viable political parties in this country. And so far, right now, the Republican Party has been completely gutted of anything that resembles actual conservatism.

And Mister Fenton has put out several, I guess, conspiracies, even during his interview today with, apparently the Democrats had their own slate of fake electors, but yet he doesn’t provide any actual proof. I didn’t say I did. I mean, you misstate what I said. I said they planned to have alternative electors if Trump won on election day. Okay, so, and that’s what. And so you can argue with the New York Times rather than me.

The left doesn’t like to hear facts and information they’re not used to hearing from sources such as me. So they attack the source rather than deal with the principled issues. And, you know, there is a big partisan divide here. I don’t think Republicans, I would argue that Republicans aren’t as conservative as they should be. And Democrats have kind of lost the thread in terms of their commitment to democracy.

We had Benny Thompson, lead Democrat in the House, move a bill, propose legislation that would deny Secret Service protection to Donald Trump. It’s clearly directed at Trump. They’re pretending it’s broad, but it’s directed at Trump if he’s found guilty and put away, I think, for a felony for a year or more, whether it be a state or federal penitentiary. And so what they’re saying is that if Trump gets sent to Rikers by this political judge up in New York, he’s going to be deprived of Secret Service protection.

And my conclusion from that is that Benny Thompson wants to see President Trump get killed. You take away Secret Service protection, that’s a death sentence in these circumstances. Peter Valley Cottage New York Republican Good morning. Good morning. Hey, Tom, it’s good to see you. Hi, Tom. You’re talking too much sense for this audience. The thing I wanted to talk about is, and you touched on it, is prosecutorial, discretionary.

As you can see, we’ll take, for instance, the documents case. They’re prosecuting President Trump for holding on to documents. But yet Mister Hur, who was looking into the Biden document case, they said that he was too old and too feeble to stand trial. Now, what President Biden did is he stole documents out of a skiff over the last 40 years, which he was not entitled to have, but yet they gave him a pass in addition with the Hillary Clinton thing where she had an illegal server and she destroyed evidence that was under subpoena.

So it’s not really this immunity thing is more of an insurance policy for the president because, you know, show me the man and I’ll show you the crime. And that seems to be what’s going on over here. It’s that the Justice Department and some of these Democrats say, well, we’re going to prosecute this guy, but we’re not going to prosecute that. We’re going to give you a pass.

So they have automatic immunity. So discuss that a bit. Tom, thank you. Well, you raised a series of points that I’ve raised repeatedly in others about the disparate treatment of Trump versus prior presidents on document handling. And what I think is interesting about this immunity case is if they find that the president does have official immunity, the question is going to arise in that documents case that when he made the decision to take those documents with him, was that a presidential decision for which he, for which he has immunity.

So this case, you know, not only is there, you know, a question about the impact of the case here in Washington, DC, over Trump’s dispute in the election for which Biden’s trying to jail him, but it raises questions about whether that case down in Miami could survive as well, it would seem to me. And I don’t know how it’s going to play out, but it’s, the Biden Justice Department is going to face significant hurdles if this, this case goes or this decision goes the way it’s expected to.

All right. That’s Tom Fitton. He’s president of Judicial Watch there online@judicialwatch. org. Dot thank you, Tom, for coming in. Tom, thank you for having me. .

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



Sign Up Below To Get Daily Patriot Updates & Connect With Patriots From Around The Globe

Let Us Unite As A  Patriots Network!



accusations against Trump and Biden concept of presidential immunity election fraud allegations investigation election results controversy impact of illegal immigration on political power importance of accurate voter rolls Judicial Watch lawsuits Illinois Mississippi moral standards for US presidents presidential immunity implications refusal to leave office after election loss Tom Fitton Judicial Watch President Trump hush money trial legality voting regulations concerns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *