➡ Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, is taking a case to the Supreme Court to challenge an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. They argue this extension violates federal law and the rights of voters, potentially leading to fraud. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which is seen as a significant opportunity to uphold election integrity. The oral argument is scheduled for October 8th.
➡ The article discusses the controversy around counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, arguing that it undermines voter confidence and invites fraud. It also mentions two cases related to this issue, one of which is already before the Supreme Court. The article then shifts to discuss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Ashley Babbitt’s family, which has been settled for $4.975 million. The author argues that this settlement challenges the narrative around the events of January 6th and is a victory for Ashley’s family.
➡ The article discusses the controversial shooting of Ashley Babbitt by a U.S. Capitol Police officer during the January 6, 2021, incident. Despite the officer’s questionable record and the circumstances of the shooting, he was promoted to captain. Ashley’s family received a $4.975 million settlement, but the quest for justice continues. The article also raises concerns about the competency of the Secret Service, citing several security breakdowns.
➡ The Secret Service is prioritizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in its daily operations, aiming to create a workforce that values diversity and inclusion. However, this approach has sparked controversy, with critics arguing it promotes division and distracts from the agency’s primary duties. The agency also has a quota for hiring individuals with disabilities, which some argue should not take precedence over job requirements. These DEI initiatives have led to debates about discrimination, cultural differences, and the potential for resentment among employees.
➡ The text discusses issues within the Secret Service, suggesting that internal programs are causing division and strife. It mentions a complaint process and the alleged mistreatment of agents, including incidents involving President Biden’s dogs. The author encourages readers to review the extensive documents they’ve uncovered for a deeper understanding of the situation.

SA Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court case is accelerating. We filed a key brief the last few weeks, the opening brief and Judicial Watches lawsuit that’s before the Supreme Court where we’re representing a member of Congress, Congressman Boston, two presidential electors and trying to vindicate their right to challenge a dubious, or that’s a charitable way of putting it, unlawful election rule that allows the counting of ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election. And we did a quick video explaining the issue here. We will go to clip 15 to help you understand it. Judicial Watch is taking its election integrity fight to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal for a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors challenging an Illinois law extending election day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law. The lower courts had previously denied that Congressman Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received for up to two weeks after Election Day. In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch argues despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton had this to say about the upcoming Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights and ensure election integrity. Illinois’s 14 day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. Last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after election day. Visit Judicial Watch.org to learn more. So this is the brief. This is what it looks like. What is it about? It’s longer than I thought it is.

How many pages long? It’s like it’s almost 50 pages or 45 pages long. Yeah, 48 pages long. Explaining why the Supreme Court should rule in our clients favor that federal law gives candidates or candidates have standing under the Constitution to challenge the lawlessness that’s going on in Illinois. And as we highlight in the brief, it’s really a straightforward issue. And you know, I’m sure we can always lose, right? But I’d be hard pressed to figure out how that would happen. And this is why it’s such a strong case. Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as federal Election Day.

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources they also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legal valid votes cast. Does it get any more straightforward than that? Candidates pour enormous resources into running for elections and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. So, obviously, if a campaign is going to last until election day, plus two more weeks. Two.

Yeah, I thought I put up three. Two more weeks. Of course, candidates need to know what’s going on. And if those two weeks are unlawfully imposed on him, he has a right to object through a federal court action like we’re providing for him here. So they have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest in, quote, ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. Now, Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court.

It’s obvious that candidates have standing to challenge and lawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources. It’s straightforward. And the government’s response, or Illinois’s response, is due, I think, relatively soon. And it has to be all done, I think, by September, because we also received news that October 8th is the date of the oral argument before the Supreme Court. That’s when the court actually comes back into session for its new term, that week, the first Monday of October. So our argument is going to be that Wednesday, October 8th. Judicial Watch’s legal team is second to none.

I may have talked to you about it already, but we’ve brought in Paul Clement to argue the case for us. Paul has had 100 arguments before the Supreme Court, one of the country’s leading practitioners before the Supreme Court bar. It shows you that we’re playing to win here. We’re not coming into this case lightly. And on top of that, we’ve got a great election law team. Bob Popper, senior official, former senior official in the Justice Department, is running our election law operation here in Washington, D.C. we have Russ Nobeal, who’s been shepherding this case as well.

Russ is a former attorney with the Justice Department, one of the nation’s preeminent experts on election law, and also my colleague, Eric Lee, who’s been with us. Of course, I should know how long Eric’s been with us, but he’s been doing so much work on election law, I tell you, I wouldn’t want to go up against Eric when it came to the facts in any matter. Of election law. So a tremendous team pushing this case forward, and we’re ready to go on October 8th. Right. And as I said in our release announcing the October 8th state, which was just state which was just set this week.

What did I say? Simply put, this is an historic election law challenge. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules, such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive after election day. American citizens concerned about election integrity will tune in closely to Judicial Watches. October 8 Supreme Court oral argument. And I think it’s going to be available online. Typically these arguments are now available via audio, if not as the arguments are happening shortly thereafter. But secondly, this isn’t the only case related to election post election day counting of ballots that arrive after election day.

We had a major victory in Mississippi where they count ballots for up to five days after election day. And that case, we were representing the Libertarian party in Mississippi down there, and it was our case. The Republicans came in as well. But you know, we’ve been pushing this issue and none of this would be the where it is today but for Judicial Watches, heavy lifting. And the case was appealed. I think we lost at the lower court and we appealed it to the fifth Circuit court of appeals, which upheld our theory of the case and found the counting of ballots received after election day to be unlawful.

Well, Mississippi, big hearing, a big victory because that’s the only appellate court to I think, have not only considered the issue, but then found it in our favor. There are 19 states that do it now in the Fifth Circuit, you’re not supposed to do it counting ballots that arrive after election day. So they’ve appealed it up to the Supreme Court. So not only are we fighting in this current case we have, but Mississippi is trying to get the supreme court to take another case which goes to the merits of the argument. So just to remember, the case that we have now before the court is about standing, meaning whether someone has the right to challenge the law at issue in court and should they get their day in court, the underlying merits of the case as to whether it’s lawful or not to extend election day by counting ballots that arrive after election day for what, five days, two weeks, who knows, Right.

That is being asked to go up to the court by Mississippi, Mississippi seeking cert. And so we urged the supreme Court in response on behalf of our clients. I think it was just this week or last to say Mississippi’s law is unlawful. There’s no reason to even take up this case. And so the law stands. Congress statutorily this is the case we make. This is the case. What? Excuse me. This is what the Fifth Circuit opinion, upholding our theory of the law stated. Congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors.

Text, precedent, and historical practice confirmed. This day for the election, quote, unquote, is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law, and then they reverse the court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. So Mississippi has challenged this. This decision. And so it could be that Judicial Watch has two Supreme Court cases this year if they take it up on election integrity. I mean, we’ve got this core issue about the rights of candidates to challenge illegal election procedures.

And then we have this other case about the underlying principle involved, which is whether it’s lawful to basically take ballots for who knows how long after election day and keep on counting them. I mean, under the logic of the supporters of this ability of states to count ballots that arrive after election day, what’s the limiting factor? Maybe you just keep the elections open until the next election. Right? There’s got to be an endpoint, and the endpoint is set in federal law. And I think it’s interesting because we’re having this fight about rigging elections, right? And this issue in Texas related to redistricting and all of that, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on that, but I find it more than a little bit interesting because we’ve litigated this in California, because we have a third case over California’s counting of ballots that arrive after election day, seven days after election day, they take ballots in and count them.

And we’re representing Congressman Darrell Issa to try to stop that. And that case is on hold while our Supreme Court litigation proceeds. But we found in the course of investigating and setting up that lawsuit that two Democrats won seats in the House of Representatives only as a result of the counting of ballots that arrived after election day. So there are two seats, I would argue, that should be flipped back to the Republican incumbents by the House enforce the rule of law on elections. And it’s disappointing they haven’t even raised that issue or looked into it. You could be sure Democrats would have if the shoe were on the other foot.

So, you know, for all the redistricting battles, there are two Democrat seats that arguably should be Republican seats could be switched at any minute or, you know, there’s no time limit to dealing with this. So these are sensitive issues. They go to how votes are counted, what counts as a lawful ballot, whether the rules matter, whether voter confidence matters. Because, you know, if they don’t know who won on Election Day, most people presume something’s up. They’re just waiting for the number of votes to come in to ensure the candidate of their choice, the election officials candidate that they are interested in winning, actually wins.

I would go a step further. I would suggest that the law requires the certification of the winner on Election Day, that they have to know who won on election day. In 2020, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency on Election Day. That result changed as a result of post Election Day counting. That is unprecedented in various swing states. And I tell you, if they had stuck to just counting the ballots that had gotten there on time and counting them in a timely way, he would have already been through his second term. But in the least, ballots that arrive after Election Day, they can’t be counted.

I mean, there could be some exceptions to that, but the exceptions prove the rule. Election Day means Election Day. And to count ballots that arrive after Election Day invites voter fraud, is contrary to federal law, and undermines voter confidence. So we got two major cases, one that’s hot, meaning the court is already taking it up before the Supreme Court. We’re going to argue on October 8th. And then there’s another case that the court may take up, deciding whether or not Judicial Watch’s victory will stand on behalf of the rule of law in terms of outlawing or finding unlawful the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day.

And I tell you, if there’s anyone else doing more for this, tell me about them, because I want to work with them through Judicial Watch. But there no one is doing as much work as we are on these election integrity issues. I’ll tell you more about it later in the program. But this is historic work. A lot of this was one of the reasons 2020 turned out the way it did in terms of it being compromised and disputed because the courts didn’t want to provide standing to people challenging these rule changes as unlawful. And I’m hoping the Supreme Court clarifies it and allows this to go forward.

More great news. Today we can announce that the wrongful death lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed for Ashley Babbitt’s family has been settled with the federal government, the United states government, for $4.975 million. $4,975,000. And it’s a great victory for Ashley and her family. It is necessary. It’s a fair settlement. And we had filed this lawsuit for her family back in, I think it was 2022. And we’ve been battling in court for years, investigating, litigating, exposing what went on with her. What I would. Well, it’s not what I would call her literal homicide. And thanks, frankly, to the Trump administration being in power, they settled this case with us.

And what a day for justice as a result. As our press release sets out, this fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashley Babbitt’s family. Ashley should never have been killed. And this settlement destroys the evil partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer. Judicial Watch’s team spent years investigating, litigating, exposing the truth about Ashley’s homicide. And credit goes to the hundreds of thousands of Judicial Watch supporters who fought for this cause. President Trump was an absolute rock in supporting Ashley’s family and advocating for justice. So what a wonderful team effort by Judicial Watch’s team, with the support of Americans, and, of course, Ashley’s widower husband, Aaron Babbitt, who we filed the lawsuit for.

And, of course, we’ve been helping and praying and supporting. Also Ashley’s mother, Mickey, and I can tell you they’re thrilled about this settlement. And you can be sure the left, because there’s been stories previous to this, because I couldn’t talk about the amount or the settlement. I mean, it just happened literally today. The government signed the settlement papers today. Here, I’ve got the settlement here. This is what it looks like. And the lawyer for the Justice Department signed it doesn’t look like they used an auto pen today on June 6th. And what had been previously reported, someone had leaked it, that the settlement was out there.

And of course, we had a court battle earlier on that required us to disclose that we had settled in principle. And the left went crazy. They started smearing and defaming Ashley and her memory, attacking her family, attacking Trump, attacking January 6th. This is all about this. And this settlement blows out of the water. The lies about January 6th, you know, their whole narrative depended on only police officers being hurt that day. And there were police officers who were hurt that day. But what got in the way of that narrative about how terrible January Sixers were? Poor Ashley was killed for no good reason by Lieutenant Byrd.

Let’s play the video of Ashley being killed again. He’s got a gun. I can’t believe he shot her. To this day, I can’t believe he shot her. Like That I think she was crawling through that window, I think looking at the videos for safety. And we published online the last 19 minutes of Ashley’s life. And it looked to me watching what went on, they could have saved her life if they had moved more quickly to save her life and provide her medical support. So we filed the lawsuit in 2024, not 2022, as I misremembered. And we filed today.

I don’t think we filed this actual document with the court, but the document it reads, it’s called a stipulation for compromise, settlement and release. Now, of course, the lawsuit initially was filed for $30 million, but the settlement now is for 4.975 million. And it’s a settlement, right? It’s a compromise. And this is how it describes. This is how the settlement is described legally in the document. To settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, including claims for wrongful death arising directly or indirectly from the acts of, or, excuse me, from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in the stipulation.

The stipulation is not and should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants, or employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to plaintiffs. The settlement is entered into all by parties. Excuse me. The settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims act. And that was the law under which we sued for Ashley’s family and avoiding the expenses and risk of further litigation. So in consideration for the plaintiff’s agreement to accept the terms and conditions of the settlement, the United States agrees to pay plaintiffs the amount of $4,975,000.

There you have it. That’s how settlements are reached. It’s relatively standard language. So the government is admitting liability, but my view is you can draw your own conclusion from the number $4.975 million that they gave to settle the case. It’s a compromised number. They admit nothing, but they were prepared to go to trial on this case before the Trump people came in. We’re going to be in trial in 2026. The lawsuit included claims against the government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence claims. And the lawsuit was very useful and still is useful potentially for anyone who wants to actually pursue further law enforcement action against Ashley Babbitt’s killer, who should never, in my view, been anywhere near that scene.

Let Alone, even having a gun. He left his gun in the bathroom in the middle of the Capitol Visitor center, which is where all the tourists walk through to visit the Capitol. He was involved with an improper shooting near his home. He couldn’t even get a shotgun from civilian authorities because of his record and it had to be lent to him by the U.S. capitol Police. We also exposed how during the shooting he put out a radio call. Shots fired, shots fired. He was the only person who fired a shot and they covered his name up for months.

They hid him from the American people. Judicial Watch exposed how he was given special accommodations. He was allowed to stay rent free at Joint Base Andrews, a United States base, A military base. The Defense Department was involved in the COVID up of who he was. For months this shooting was treated like no other police involved shooting in recent memory. And I don’t think there was ever a serious criminal investigation of that shooting. Death of Ashley Babbitt, the only official homicide victim that day put up another Picture of Ashley, 14 year veteran of the United States Air Force.

And she came to D.C. by herself because she loved Trump, supported Trump and she ended up in this situation where she got shot by this out of control police officer. So yeah, the government was right to settle the case for $4.975 million with Ashley’s family over what happened. Does it mean this issue is over? Of course not. We’ve got litigation for records about Ashley and I know, you know, people who were there. The shooting occurred at. Let me tell you what the people said who were there. The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s lobby after demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby.

This is from our lawsuit. Two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors. In the right door sidelight. Lt. Byrd, who is United States Capitol police officer, police commander and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, 2021, shot Ashley on sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands while were assessing her intentions or even identifying her as a female. Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Byrd and other officers in the lobby.

The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. He’s still up there. You know what they did? They made him a captain despite his record, despite this unlawful, awful shooting. They made him a captain. Basically an endorsement of the killing of an innocent woman by the leadership of Congress and the police administration, the U.S. capitol Police. It was an ambush as far as I’m concerned. So the major lawsuit over Ashley’s Death is over $4.975 million settlement for her family.

The litigation for records about Ashley continues by Judicial Watch. And the question is, is there going to be law enforcement action? Is there going to be a reopening of the investigation, a criminal investigation into the death of Ashley Babbitt? And again, I want to thank our team for doing this. The lawyer who is running this case, Robert Patrick Sticht, spent thousands of hours investigating this Aaron Babbitt, great, great guy, Mickey, who’s been not only advocating for justice for Ashley, but her mom, Ashley’s mom, Mickey has been. No matter what’s happening in D.C. you can be sure Mickey will be there advocating for Ashley.

And she’s been a trooper in terms of advocating for the rights of the January 6th defendants who then, thankfully, have been pardoned by President Trump. So just a great. And of course, you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, we’re only able to do this because of the support of our members. So if you’re giving donations to Judicial Watch, this is the type of work that it supports justice for Ashley Babbitt. And, you know, one of my fondest memories, at least as it relates to this case, is talking about this issue before a crowd at cpac. I think it was last year, and I simply was kind of.

It’s hard to tell from the video, but I was kind of overwhelmed by the powerful response. Let’s play that speech excerpt. I got very upset again recently about January 6th. I was rewatching the video of the needless killing of Ashley Babbitt, the Air Force veteran shot for no good reason by Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the US Capitol Police. Now, I’ve watched those videos. I can’t believe he just shot her dead like that. I just can’t believe it. And few in this corrupt city give a rat’s tale about that awful shooting. But millions of Americans care, and her family cares.

I think her mom, Mickey is still here at cpac. Is Mickey here? Well, give her a round of applause anyway. God bless her. It. And that’s why I’m so pleased. Judicial Watch just filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the US government on behalf of the family of Ashleigh Babbitt. As our lawsuit states, the facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Judicial Watch is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. I tell you what, if it takes 30 more years to get justice for Ashley, that will be time well spent.

So we did get justice for Ashley. And is it sufficient? It’s never going to be sufficient. She’s still bad. She’s the victim of a homicide. But this settlement certainly is a wonderful way of vindicating her, a veteran wife, daughter. And there are a few more important things that Judicial Watch has done over the decades I’ve been here at least than to try to get justice for her. So this settlement, again, thank you, Aaron. Thank you, Mickey. Thank you, Robert. Thank you, Judicial Watch supporters. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you to Trump Justice Department, and thank you everyone else who is a citizen who’s been praying for justice for Ashley, because we got a good piece of justice for her just today.

So God bless Ashley and God bless America. We still have the emergency of the failing Secret Service putting President Trump at risk, I think, in a continued fashion. It’s been highlighted time and time again how incompetent political they’ve been. And the proof is the pudding of the president nearly being killed in Butler. And now we’re having stories about really additional stories. And Judicial Watch has been highlighting some of these in the past as well, of really the collapse of any, of any sense of competency or organizational professionalism in the Secret Service. And some of this Americans and other critics of the agency have rightly tied to dei.

And I mean, there’s something amiss in the Secret Service that some of the situations we’re talking about here are seemingly happening on a regular basis. And I remind you of what we discussed last week here. Incredible. Nearly a month to the day after they nearly got him killed, there’s been another Secret Service security breakdown surrounding President Trump. Susan Crabtree of Real Clear Investigations reported a female agent left her post at a Trump event just before he got there, didn’t tell anyone to go, breastfeed her child, and she brought her family back behind the security perimeter with her without pushing them through and having the Secret Service and other security vet them.

Incredible breakdown of security again by the Biden Harris Secret Service. They’re going to get Trump killed unless this issue is treated like the emergency it is now. In the meantime, Judicial Watch is seeking and demanding answers from the Secret Service and the FBI. Of course, we’re getting the stonewalls on records about the assassination attempt, but Judicial Watch is prepared to go to court to get the full truth about this crisis. Yeah, and I expect there’ll be news about that pretty soon. But in the meantime, we already have been in court trying to get records about the crisis.

And you may recall we talked about how there was a Secret Service agent who, according to reports, went crazy, who was on Kamala Harris detail and had to be wrestled to the ground and handcuffed after she got into an altercation with one of her colleagues. I think it was at Andrews Air Force Base. Susan Crabtree, I think, exposed it first. The agents involved in restraining the woman were especially concerned because she still had her gun in her holster. They arrested her to the ground, took the gun from her, cuffed her, and then removed her from the terminal.

The report states Secret Service agents and officers are privately questioning the hiring process and whether the agency had adequately screened the woman’s background. And so we asked for records about that incident, and we got their DEI materials in response. And they are astonishing. I mean, you think DEI is bad? I mean, it is the guiding organizing principle of the Secret Service. According to these documents, from the headline, Secret Service Records reveal, DEI is prioritized for all agency employees in every action every day. Do I need to say anything else? The records include an undated document titled Secret Service Inclusion and Engagement Council Charter Changing the Game of diversity and Inclusion.

The collective duty. Collective I love it. Is to help the Secret Service build, foster and create and inspire a workforce where diversity and inclusion is not just talked about, but demonstrated by all employees through every action every day. And they emphasized that in the original, the Council will not rely solely on the legal requirements underscoring the principles of eeo, which essentially are non discrimination. Right. You can’t discriminate. No one’s in favor of discrimination. But here we’re talking about discrimination in favor of certain groups under the guise of being against discrimination. Orwellian, isn’t it? The Council will seek innovative solutions outside the agency’s mandated requirements to create a culture where differences are valued and appreciated.

And employee engagement is encouraged to be an employer of choice and gold standard for leveraging inclusive diversity by modeling the qualities of mutual respect, admiration and appreciation for cultural differences and varying perspectives. What cultural differences are they talking about? What they’re trying to do is highlight and promote racial and cultural and ethnic division in. In the agency. That’s what the left is trying to do here. This is what it’s about. They talk about a quota for individuals with physical and mental disabilities. A quota, 12% hiring. This is a protective agency. It’s a law enforcement agency. There’s no discussion.

As best I can tell here that the actual job people should be picked on merit and whether they can do the job. Here they’re clearly placing the requirements of the job secondary to the characteristics of the personnel who are being hired. Now if the job doesn’t require someone to be fully abled, sure, but that’s when they’re talking about the entire workforce. That means something has to give disability set asides. They don’t have unlimited budgets, they don’t have unlimited numbers of employees they can then hire. The policy of the Secret Service is to provide equal employment opportunity throughout the service for all employees, et cetera, who are otherwise eligible and qualified.

So there, there’s that normalcy there without regard for such non merit factors as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, physical or mental, parental status, protected generic genetic information, sexual orientation, age or reprisal for objecting to discrimination or prior or current participation in the EEO complaint process. So it’s a much broader standard than the standard anti discrimination requirements. And the policy applies to virtually the entire agency. Appointments, details, career development, training, reassignments, promotions and assignments of work and to other actions or situations affecting employment status. And then they talk about special emphasis programs that further are designed to distract the agency from performing its duties as the American taxpayer and their protectees expect them focus on race and other issues.

They’re designed to assist the organization in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities. Special emphasis programs are affirmative action programs established to increase the representation, retention and advancement of their constituent groups in underrepresented occupations and grades. Special emphasis programs are also charged with promoting cultural awareness. What does that mean? What culture? Isn’t there an American culture? Can’t we focus on that? Identifying policies, procedures and practices affecting their groups and advising management on actions which may increase in participation of minorities, women and persons with disabilities in all Secret Service programs and activities. And they’ve got special emphasis programs for federal women, Hispanic employment, African American, Asian Pacific Islander, persons with disabilities, disabled veterans, an American Indian, Alaskan Native, and it goes on and on.

The diversity management program has been established in the Secret Service as a means of achieving an organization culture that values diversity and utilizes employees to their fullest potential. So what they mean is that we are more concerned about someone’s racial, ethnic and other characteristics than anything else. That’s what that means. Think of the culture, the employment culture, where that’s a priority. The resentment among every employee over that type of system must be terrible and awful. Minorities, whoever, both the beneficiaries and you know, seemingly those who don’t benefit from these types of programs. The resentment just, it just causes all sorts of dissension and it’s a distraction.

Government agencies, they should have non discrimination policies and that should be the end of it. Quotas. 12% of the population workforce has to be disabled. Why? How does that help them accomplish the mission? Discriminating against someone because they’re disabled in an unlawful way. That doesn’t mean you hire someone simply because they are disabled. It’s outrageous, it’s unlawful or at least it ought to be unlawful if the law is fairly and properly interpreted and applied. These documents show that the Secret Service for years has seemed to place woke politics on over their protective and law enforcement mission in as their DEI policy states every action every day.

And I want to show you the documents here. So this is DEI World for Secret Service one agency. And this isn’t the full raft of documents we’re supposed to be getting. But I want to draw attention to this training module of some type that was produced to us in the documents. And I want to show you just the sort of fear and resentment and divisiveness and targeting of dissent based on race and politics and ideology that this DEI initiatives, these DEI initiatives foster here. They’ve got, you know, these are they, this is the training programs, right? And they go through examples.

And this is the anti harassment example. Essentially it sketches out a scenario where two people, Janet and excuse me, Jana and Trent are DHS employees, Department of Homeland Security, which runs the Secret Service or is the overseeing organization of it of the same component. So they work together. They’ve been working together for 10 years. And Janice stopped by to talk with Trent at his desk about a project they are working on. Rita, another co worker who’s been in the component for about a year was also at his desk. Trent, you all got that email, right? We have to complete the racial awareness training by Friday.

I better write that down so I don’t forget. Jana. Yeah, I think it says it will take about two hours. I started it this morning. Rita, Rita commits to sin here. Yeah, I saw that email. It seems unnecessary to me. I guess it’s mandatory so I have to do it. Uh oh. Jana feels uncomfortable with Rita’s statement. It sounded like she was brushing off the racial awareness training. She doesn’t know Rita well. In fact she hasn’t even talked to her before. She doesn’t feel comfortable saying something to her about her comment. Decides to go back to her desk.

Let’s go to the next page then. Rita says. Rita, lowering her voice. We shouldn’t be required to take that training. It’s just because of canceled culture and the need to be so sensitive and politically correct these days. I. I mean, I don’t even see color. I see people. Another sin. This is what the government says this is wrong to say and this person in the end should be punished for it. Spoiler alert. Narrator Later, Jana is scrolling through social media and sees a post from Rita. So Rita is exercising her First Amendment rights. Bad news with a fact about crime in the city says, what about black on black crime? No one seems to care about that.

Instead, they make us take racial awareness training. Let’s focus on the problems with solutions. That’s a thought crime indeed. Janet to herself. This is a government script. They’re telling their employees how to think about people who think like poor Rita. Does she really feel that way? She has made other competence comments I thought were just insensitive. So now I’m not so sure. Uh oh. So they want her to escalate it. Jana isn’t sure she should do anything about her comments. And then they give questions which three of the following are the signs of racial discrimination. So Rita is being accused of racial discrimination and they say for the following three insensitive comments.

Rita’s complaints about taking the training of racial awareness and her social media post. The government wants to investigate this federal employee for that. Rita’s posts on social media were derogatory and included stereotypes that link race and crime. Rita’s comments complaining about racial awareness training and her other insensitive comments are possible signs of discrimination. No, they’re not. This is the Secret Service and also the department. And it’s even worse than the Secret Service. Guys. It’s the Department of Homeland Security. Don’t presume this is just limited to the Secret Service. The whole agency, Homeland Security. This is the clap trap.

They’re forcing the employees to sit through. And it goes on. Poor Rita. But they describe all of Jana’s options. Jana goes to the supervisor. Should she go to AHU or eeo, the internal watchdogs for issues like this. And then Rita dares to complain to Jana about it, saying, you’re a baby. Let’s go down. Let’s go down again. Rita, I will not make. I’ll make sure not to talk about anything when you’re around, since you’re not going to. You’re going to run straight to my boss or Ronald and I’ll also block you on social media so you don’t see my posts on him anymore.

So they target this woman she complains, reacts, another sin. But, okay, they got their chart. They’ve got the chart showing what the punishments that readers should be gone. Should be forced to go through for complaining about work and making free speech protected comments. And then they go through the complaint process that Jana ends up filing in this worksheet. So let’s come back. Secret Service is trying, through this DEI program, trying to destroy the agency. And you wonder why they can’t get their act together to protect President Trump. You wonder why agents feel like they can leave their posts.

You wonder why they are hiring agents that end up going, according to the reports, virtually insane, attacking their own colleagues. So, yeah, it’s an emergency, folks. And Judicial Watch has uncovered the truth about it through our FOIA litigation. I mean, we’ve exposed how Biden let his dogs attack the Secret Service 25 times. Nothing was done. Agency abandoned them, the agents, other than telling them to shut up about it. So they get abused. No one backs them up. And they’re further victimized through these DEI programs that encourage racial division, strife, hatred, division, discord, complaints over nothing. So look at the documents.

Because it’s 300 pages. I can’t go through everything that’s outrageous in here. Trust me, it’s worth going through. 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.