➡ Judicial Watch is fighting in court for the release of two documents related to social media censorship by the Biden administration. The documents, withheld by the Trump administration’s Justice Department and FBI, concern meetings between the Biden FBI and Twitter in 2021 and 2022. Despite promises of transparency, the current administration continues to resist releasing these documents. The case highlights the ongoing struggle for transparency and the fight against censorship of conservative voices online.
➡ The article discusses how government agencies and non-governmental entities allegedly monitored and censored social media posts related to the 2020 election. It also mentions that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, was involved in tracking narratives on major media platforms. The article further talks about Judicial Watch’s efforts to clean up voter rolls and their ongoing lawsuits in various states to ensure cleaner elections. Lastly, it criticizes the withholding of information about censorship from the Biden era and emphasizes the need for transparency.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, is working to ensure election integrity and transparency in states like California, Illinois, and Oregon. They are challenging the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day and are also fighting against racial discrimination in reparations programs. They believe in equal rights and oppose any form of racial favoritism. They are also celebrating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States Army.
➡ The president led soldiers in their reenlistment oath during a parade, which was a moving and educational moment. However, the event was met with protests and violence, with some accusing the president of acting like a dictator. The president responded by deploying National Guard troops and Marines to maintain law and order, a decision that was challenged but ultimately upheld by the courts. Despite this, the violence and protests continue, with some calling for the president to invoke the Insurrection Act to restore order.
➡ The article discusses allegations of a Chinese plot to influence the 2020 U.S. election in favor of Joe Biden, using fake driver’s licenses and mail-in ballots. The FBI reportedly gave Congress intelligence on this matter, but it was not fully investigated or made public. The article suggests that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate these claims, and criticizes the FBI for not being trustworthy. It also mentions a Supreme Court decision affirming the right of states to protect minors from certain transgender treatments.
➡ The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Tennessee law that restricts certain treatments for transgender children, stating that it’s not about discrimination but about protecting children from potentially harmful procedures. The court found the law rational and stated that states have the right to manage such issues. The decision was met with various opinions from the justices, some of which agreed with the majority and others who added their own thoughts. The author encourages readers to directly read these Supreme Court decisions to better understand the workings of the Constitution and government.

Martin here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you as always for joining us. A lot going on on both sides of the country from your Judicial Watch. First up, though, was a case that we had here in Washington, D.C. a lawsuit we’ve been pursuing under the Freedom of Information act for records about the social media censorship of the regime, the deep State, the Biden administration, and we’ve been fighting for some time for records about thosethat pressure campaign from the Deep State and the Biden administration to censor you and virtually everyone you know who’s a conservative online.

Obviously, the targeting were generally people that you follow, like President Trump, like me, like Judicial Watch, like so many others who dare to question the regime narratives on a host of issues ranging from elections to, as you may recall, the Hunter Biden cover up naked election interference by the deep state to suppress that information to help Joe Biden win in 2020 and so much else about COVID vaccines, you name it, there wasn’t a topic they weren’t willing to censor over. And what’s been exceedingly frustrating, to put it mildly, is that some of these documents, now at least two of them, are being withheld by the Trump administration, specifically Pam Bondi’s Justice Department and Kash Patel’s FBI.

And we filed this FOIA lawsuit. I know we filed a lawsuit back in April of 2023. We sued the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Director of National Intelligence after the FBI failed. So when you sued with the Justice Department, you’re suing. The FBI failed to respond to a December 2022 FOIA request for the records of any FBI official and key Twitter employees between June 2020 and December 2022. And we did get a bunch of documents, but they’ve been withholding two documents about meetings the Biden FBI, the Biden FBI had with Twitter, I think, in 2021 and 2022.

And it’s frustrating beyond belief to have to go and fight in federal court here. And I was there with our senior attorney, Michael Bekesha. There’s a picture of both of us a few years ago, but Michael was representing Judicial Watch in federal court. I was there as Judicial Watch president, as the client. And I’ll tell you, it is frustrating beyond most measure to be in federal court on this issue, something like this, and have two attorneys from the Pam Bondi Justice Department defending the FBI’s withholding of this information go into court and fight us. That’s what it was about.

And it’s two documents. So we’ve gotten many documents, many of which have been redacted. And they don’t want to give us these two stinking documents. And I’ll show you what the documents are about and show you why. It’s quite obvious why we want them. Let’s call them up here. I can’t see them here. So you’ll see this first document. Social network for midterm elections. Touchpoint meeting with Twitter dated for November 3, 2022. And you’ll see down below. Dear Twitter folks, so this is an email that they could send to Twitter, but they can’t publicize to us.

It’s really outrageous. For tomorrow’s meeting, here are the topics we’d like to discuss. And there you see the redactions. Of course, they don’t want to tell us who was involved in it as well. And let’s go to the next document or actually go up 1. So that was the 2022 meeting. And there was also a meeting almost immediately after the Biden gang came in. Again, Twitter, February 24, 2021. They’re having a meeting. It looks like tentatively accepted meeting status go down. You’ll see agenda B5, B7E. So B5 means it’s pre decisional B7E. They typically say it relates to some type of law enforcement techniques that they want to keep super secret.

But they can send it to Twitter but not make it available to the American people. And so Judicial Watch is fighting tooth and nail in court for these two documents. And it’s one thing to be fighting against the Biden administration. It’s another thing to be fighting against Pam Bondi’s team at the Justice Department and Kash Patel’s team at the FBI. And I don’t understand why now we’re in month coming into month six of the Trump administration. There hasn’t been much change at all when it comes to transparency. And it’s like we’re just keep for practical purposes in most of our FOIA cases, the Trump administration coming in hasn’t made a difference.

There’s a case here and there where we’ve got material that we otherwise would not have gotten. It’s clear. Like the Biden audio tapes, I think it’s clear. But in this case, we’re fighting for basic information about the Biden gang’s efforts to censor American citizens. Who is running the show at the Justice Department and the FBI when it comes to transparency? And it’s not like, oh, this case no one knows about. I mean, people are upset that this is happening. If you Go, go to my Twitter. Go to my Twitter profile. I want to see something. Can you bring it up? Because I commented one more time.

Okay. Can you pop it up? So I think I posted something. Yeah. So on the first thing there, you’ll see. Go back up. So Attorney General Bondi and DOJ attorneys were in federal court yesterday arguing why the American people should not be able to see what the Biden FBI was planning with Twitter. So let’s go down. Let’s see how many people looked at that. Okay. 739 Comments. 455,000. 445,000 people looked at it. Let’s go look up my original tweet with Michael. Go up. Click on the June 18th tweet. Nice picture of me and Michael. 545,000 people looked at it.

Now, that audience is bigger than most audiences on CNN or msnbc. So you can be sure the Justice Department is very much aware of this issue, but they’re still fighting us, and there’s no good excuse for it. So the case was before Judge Sparkle Sukanan or Suknan, and she’s a recent Biden appointee. She was very professional, treated us with respect, seemed to know what she, you know, she was acting in a way that was reassuring in terms of asking questions and trying to figure out what was going on. But the long and short of it is after the hearing, we’re just going to have to keep on fighting.

We have to continue litigating this issue. So we’ve got to file competing briefs and fight this issue. And the court’s going to make a decision whether the withholdings are justified. So right now, it’s the position of Pam Bondi’s Justice Department and Cash Patel’s FBI that we shouldn’t be able to see the agenda that the FBI under Joe Biden had in their meetings with Twitter in terms of controlling content and I would say spying on Americans. As I said in our press release, it is frustrating beyond belief for Judicial Watch to have to go to federal court for basic information on Biden’s abuse of the FBI by using Twitter to censor and monitor Americans.

And earlier this year, Cash Patel committed to a new era of transparency at the FBI. Actually, we should go to this tweet, if we can. Go to the press release, guys, if you can. They love it when I start throwing these curveballs. Slide down to my quote further. You see that? Click. Committed the FBI earlier this year. Click on that. We’ll go to Cash’s tweet. Let’s see what Cash said In February of 2025, the FBI is entering a new era, one that will be defined by integrity, accountability and the unwavering pursuit of justice. There will be no cover ups, no missing documents, and no stone unturned.

And anyone from the prior or current bureau who undermines this will be swiftly pursued. If there are gaps, we will find them. If records have been hidden, we will uncover them and we will bring them everything. We will bring everything we find to the DOJ to be fully assessed and transparently disseminated to the American people as it should be. The oath we take is to the Constitution. And under my leadership, that promise will be upheld without compromise. So you should ask yourselves, is that consistent with them hiding records about what the Biden FBI was doing with Twitter in terms of targeting Americans around the midterm election? Now, of course, these records we got onto because Musk privately allowed others to come in and look at the Twitter files once he bought the company.

And we thought it would be useful to kind of sue on the other end to see what the FBI had in terms of, quote, their Twitter files. And of course, this is on top of so much other work that Judicial Watch has done as it relates to the censorship menace to the American people. So many people have been censored. Never before in American people, never before in the history of our country have so many people been censored by so few. I’m talking hundreds of millions of American citizens censored by the left, the deep state machine, to help protect their power, expand their power and hurt their enemies.

And you’ve been the target. We got documents last year in November from the Homeland Security Department revealing an extensive effort by the government to working with non governmental entities to monitor and censor social media posts on election fraud during the 2020 election. So it was a conspiracy, literally. In June of 2024, we found other Homeland Security records that showed state election officials in the days before and after the 2020 election flagging online content deemed misinformation and sending it to the center for Internet Security, a DHS funded. So this was literally happening under the Trump administration’s very nose.

They had internal deep staters targeting citizens for questioning how the election was handled. And this was run out of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which then was a division of the Department of Homeland Security. And you may recall there was a fight over whether that agency should be shut down. I don’t recall how it was because everyone was, you know, the usual suspects were opposed to it. I think it eventually was shut down or will be. But tell me below because I don’t have time to look it up right now and tell you where it stands.

In December of last, excuse me, just two years ago, December 2023, they showed again, not only a collaboration between that deep state DHS agency known as the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, it showed that they were going on, they were involved in a real time narrative tracking on all major media platforms in days leading up to the 2020 election. So what does that mean? You had a government agency spying on your content in the days running up to the election? We have more documents in that regard. And of course we’ve got this case we uncovered through our litigation in California, because California Secretary of State’s office we uncovered through records had caused YouTube to take down a video.

One of our weekly updates where I was talking about mail in balloting and the controversies around mail in balloting and our successful efforts to clean up voter rolls in California. And the California Secretary of State, of course, was a target of that litigation. And they shut, they had the video taken down from YouTube. So we’ve sued. And right now it’s before the Supreme Court, or I’m hoping it gets before the Supreme Court eventually. I guess the cert process is still underway. And California was working with the Biden campaign front to censor Judicial Watch and other American citizens.

CDC was involved in the COVID cover up as well in terms of trying to censor Americans. We have documents in that regard. You know, the question is who wasn’t targeting Americans and of course targeting Americans for censorship. And of course Judicial Watch has been on all the lists that the left were generating to target for censorship. And I’ve been on the list as well. I’m at the top of some of these lists. And of course, the left cites these lists as Tom Fitton is a purveyor of misinformation, which is a smear. But, you know, my response is these communists, they love lists.

They love making lists of their enemies for destruction. So we’re on the list. And if I’m on the list and Judicial Watch is on the list and Trump is on the list, it means that in effect, you’re on the list as well, because they don’t want you finding out what they’re up to. And the way to stop that from happening is by censoring us. Now, presumably the Trump administration isn’t doing that anymore. I don’t know, maybe some deep state people are still playing this game, I don’t know. But I do know that Pam Bondi’s Justice Department and Cash Patel’s FBI is covering up some of the censorship materials from the Biden era.

And I can’t think of a good reason to justify it. And I know people say, well, maybe they’re developing a case or there’s a criminal investigation. No, that’s not what’s happening. I’m just telling you that’s not the issue. And don’t reassure yourself, oh, they may have a good reason because they’re developing a case or a lawsuit. That’s literally not the issue. If it were, they would have other reasons for objecting and they have to inform the court about it. There are no secret investigations justifying the withholding of information. I guarantee you that’s not happening. And so what I love about Judicial Watch, we’ve got our lawyers on one coast here in Washington, D.C.

and almost simultaneously we have our lawyers in Eugene, Oregon across the country. So we had our lawyers here in Washington, D.C. arguing for transparency on the censorship operation against Americans over really election integrity issues in many ways. And in Oregon, we were in federal court arguing for our case over cleaning up the election rolls, which of course, again, is essential to election integrity. The case has been going on for a bit now and we were in court trying to convince the court to reject the defendant’s efforts to and others efforts to get our case dismissed in large measure due to the fact supposedly no one has standing to ever question whether election rolls are clean as federal law requires.

And I explained the Oregon case in this previous update snippet that I’m going to have played for you. Now it is number 21. Hey, everyone. Huge news. Judicial Watch lawsuits led to the cleanup of 4 million dirty names from the voting rolls in just the last two years or so. But there’s more heavy lifting to be done for cleaner elections. That’s why Judicial Watch just sued the state of Oregon to force it to finally clean up its voting rolls, which are a mess. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls, and Oregon hasn’t been doing that.

In fact, our new lawsuit just filed for and with the Constitution Party of Oregon and and Oregon voters details how 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%. Frankly, Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. You know, dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon, as I said, has some of the worst voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up as soon as possible. In the meantime, Judicial Watch has lawsuits to clean up voting rolls in California and in Illinois.

Simply put, millions of ineligible names need to be removed from the voter roll under federal law. And Judicial Watch has been, is, and will be in federal court making it happen. And so for the first time in a long time, we also had support in this case, at least in part from the Justice Department, Harmeet Dhillon’s Civil Rights division, which for years, even during Republican administrations, has been a hotbed for radical left wing activism. And they filed a brief statement of interest advocating at least for access to the information that we’re seeking related to voting rolls.

And so I’m not quite sure how the case is going to go, but I am of the belief that our ability to clean up the rolls in the end has to be maintained by the courts. The idea that the states don’t take the steps that the federal law requires under the National Voter Registration act, reasonable steps to clean up the rolls and no one will be able to do anything about it, that just can’t be the case ultimately. And this is all they have to do. It’s not like a difficult issue. And you may not know what the process is, but we do because our work basically codified the process through Supreme Court and other judicial decisions and settlements.

As I’ve mentioned, we’ve cleaned up 5 million names from the rolls thanks to our litigation and legal action thus far. And so what happens is, and I talked about this with you just recently, if you go to vote, let’s say I go to vote or I don’t vote in the next federal election. So let’s. When’s the next federal election? Next year, 2026. The state or locality I live in the district, they would send me a card saying, hey, Fitton, why didn’t you vote? Are you still there? That’s not literally what they say, but that’s the effect of what they’re asking.

Because if you’re not there, we’re going to take your name off the rolls. And if I don’t respond to the card or if I don’t vote over the next two federal election cycles. So that’s four plus years, including the time associated with getting the card out. So it could be five plus years before my name is ultimately removed, assuming I’ve moved away. Right. Or I don’t respond or vote now, the left doesn’t want any of those names cleaned up, practically speaking. And they’re fighting us tooth and nail in all these jurisdictions, when we go to court, some of these liberal jurisdictions, when we come in, believe it or not, they say, hey, Judicial Watch, you’re right.

Let’s clean up the rolls. That happened in New York City. We said, you haven’t cleaned up the rolls in 10 years there. And they said, you’re right, in the last year or so, plus, they’ve cleaned a million names from the rolls just in New York. So just don’t think just because it’s, quote, a blue state or states run by liberals that there’s no justice to be had. We sued in California to clean up the rolls there. They settled. 1.2 million names cleaned up in LA county alone. Now the rest of the state’s a mess. We have a new lawsuit trying to vindicate the rule of law there.

But the point being, we can get it done everywhere. And that’s why we’re in Illinois right now, in California right now, and as I said, just in Oregon. And I encourage you to go and take a look at all of Judicial Watch’s significant work on election integrity. And of course, one of the most significant cases in recent American history on election integrity is going to be in front of the Supreme Court because of your Judicial Watch. We’re challenging the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. Mail in ballots in Illinois, they count ballots that arrive for after.

After election day for 14 days. And rather than let our client, Congressman Mike Boss, challenge it, because federal law sets an election day, not an election week or month, the courts below found that he didn’t have standing, which in my view is absurd. If a candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law, as alleged in our lawsuit, who can? And the Supreme Court evidently wants to figure out whether we’re right. And they agreed to take up the case. And I think the case is going to be heard in October or November or as soon as October or November could be later.

So the issue about whether a candidate essentially can go to court to challenge and try to stop an election from being stolen, that’s a pretty big deal, wouldn’t you agree? And that’s going to be before the Supreme Court next term. So great work Judicial Watch is doing. As I said this week, on one day, on Tuesday, I think it was Tuesday. Maybe it was Wednesday. No, it was Wednesday. We had our lawyers arguing to uncover the worst censorship in American history, documents related to it in federal court here in Washington, D.C. and on the other end of the country, we had another team of lawyers arguing to ensure that Judicial Watch and the local party out there, the Constitution Party and others, had the right to go in and ensure that Oregon, who has some of the dirtiest roles in the country, cleaning up their roles is fair.

Federal law requires and I dare you to find anyone else on the conservative side of the aisle that is doing that type of work and is capable of doing that type of work. It’s just great. And we’re only able to do it with your support. And before I move on, I want to ask for your support again because we can’t do it without you. Go to judicialwatch.org if you want the rolls clean, if you want elections honest, if you want the Supreme Court to rule that candidates have a right to make sure that elections aren’t stol and in federal court and should be able to pursue claims under law, if you want all sorts of other issues related to transparency and accountability over censorship and covering the corruption of the deep state FBI, and be willing to take on an administration or a Justice Department no matter who’s running it, then you’ll love Judicial Watch and support our work.

I mean, another big deal, we’re celebrating Juneteenth, right? We have this new federal holiday. We’ve got a lot of federal holidays. I think it’s a politicized holiday, but it’s a holiday nevertheless. And you know, to the degree we should be celebrating it, certainly the freedom associated with ending slavery should be celebrated, whether it’s on Juneteenth or some other method we can argue about. But it is a federal holiday. And I think one way to vindicate the end of slavery, the end of race based decision making, at least through slavery, enslaving others, targeting people or denying people rights based on race should be something that we always endeavor to end.

And the left right now, that’s their bread and butter, which is targeting people based on race and punishing them based on race. And that’s part of the reparations battle, ironically, that they’ve been pushing, targeting people based on race, sowing racial division and basically ignoring the 14th Amendment and other laws prohibiting racial discrimination. And there’s a lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed a federal civil rights class action lawsuit to shut down the leading reparations program in the country, frankly, the only one of note. And frankly, the whole left is waiting to see how this case goes. And I talked about it in this video.

Hey everyone, Judicial Watch just filed a major federal civil rights lawsuit up in Illinois to shut down a reparations program. That’s right, a reparations program up in the City of Evanston, Illinois. They’re giving away $25,000 in taxpayer cash to blacks only. If you identify as white, you can’t apply. If you identify as Asian, you can’t apply. If you identify as a Hispanic, you can’t apply. This is a brazen violation of the fourteenth Amendment federal civil rights law. And Judicial Watch once again is happy to do the heavy lifting with this major civil rights lawsuit. It’s a class action to shut down America’s first reparations program.

The Constitution is supposed to be colorblind, but the left in Evanston and those who want to play the racial division card, they don’t believe that. And Judicial Watch is hoping and praying a federal court will remind them of the rule of law. So the court as the case. Right. It’s been fully briefed. The other side wants to shut it down. Obviously, we think it should continue. We had a hearing a few weeks ago and now we’re just waiting for the court to decide. And so we can get going in proving the case under the way, under law, and hopefully getting a result that shuts this down.

And again, we only do it with your support. But I raised this on Juneteenth to highlight that Judicial Watch is the nation’s leading civil rights organization in many respects. Protecting the right to vote, ensuring that votes are not stolen by illicit counting, where votes aren’t undermined by dirty voting rolls. By seeking to protect the right to vote, by ensuring there’s voter id, by opposing dei, which undermines everyone’s rights based on race. It would destroy the country if they got away with it. Thankfully, President Trump is trying to dismantle it, but this reparations, it’s a local left wing jurisdiction that’s pushing this in Evanston, Illinois.

And Judicial Watch is standing for basic civil rights laws. You have to understand, folks, the left has abandoned civil rights. They’ve pretended to support civil rights in order to fool Americans into supporting them generally. And you can see they never really believed in it because they’ve abandoned it completely. They don’t believe that the rights of Americans should not be targeted based on race. They don’t believe that they want to target people based on race. They don’t believe in the 14th Amendment. And by the 14th Amendment, I mean the section that says equal protection of the law.

Right? They don’t believe in that. And they don’t believe in the civil rights laws of the 60s that help enforce that aspect of the law at the federal and state level. They just don’t believe it. And that’s why they support reparations. That’s why they support race quotas, that’s why they support racial favoritism. And the Supreme Court has chopped it back significantly, but there’s still a lot more chopping to do. And as I said, Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting in Evanston, Illinois, against reparations and for civil rights. And also this week was really an extraordinary day.

And it was the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States Army. 250 years. And what’s wonderful about the 250th anniversary of America’s independence is there’s all sorts of other 250th anniversaries associated with it, especially as we run up into July 4th and even after July 4th. I mean, we had the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Army. I think two days later, it was President Washington, or General Washington at the time he took control of the Army. He became the commanding general of the Army. 250th anniversary. The 250th anniversary of the ride of Paul Revere.

I think we had Patrick Payne’s speech was we had that anniversary recently, his famous give me liberty or give me death speech. Just a great opportunity after opportunity to consider our founders, their fight for freedom and how whether or not our society and today’s generation of Americans now and since then have been vindicating what they’ve been they tried to do and the legacy they left for us. And President Trump, his birthday is Flag Day or Army Day. Founding of the army. And he wanted to celebrate it with a big military parade. And of course, the left hated it.

And in many ways, the parade was a lot less than it could have been because everyone was so nervous about it. But it was still fantastic. I didn’t go to it. I didn’t get down to see it, but I watched a good part of it on tv. It was great. Fireworks were great. And one of the most moving moments of the parade or the event that day was the president leading the whole group of soldiers in their reenlistment oath. Let’s go to that at number three. Mr. President. First R. Norton reporting for duty, sir. Ready to commence the ceremony as directed.

I, state your name. Do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of. Of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Allegiance to the same. And that I will obey the orders out. Obey your. Of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military justice, so help me God. Congratulations. Congratulations. Welcome to the United States army and have a great life. Thank you very much. Have a great life.

Thank you. I mean, how could you not love that? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. I mean, we all generally know about the oaths our military takes, but it’s educational, informational, and moving. As I note, to see the President of the United States give those young men and women the opportunity to swear and either join or reenlist in front of the entire nation. In that regard, it was just wonderful. So what was the left’s approach to celebrating the 250th anniversary of the founding of our army? As I noted in this tweet, this is what their response was.

Riots, insurrection, sedition, and terrorism. That was the play over the weekend. They pretended to have these marches against Trump, which were usually pretexts or the opening acts to the degree they were peaceful, of further violence by the anarcho left that have been plaguing and terrorizing American cities for years in many respects. And we’ve seen video after video of the worst of the worst. And of course, they’ve been aided, abetted, encouraged. The violence has been condoned through the worst, most dangerous rhetoric from their political allies in Congress. And here’s an awful example of that by Ilhan Omar, who I believe to be a communist, making vicious allegations against not only Donald Trump, but our troops.

Let’s go to HC to be coming out of our country. I mean, I grew up in a dictatorship, and I don’t even remember ever witnessing anything like that. To have a democracy, a beacon of hope for the world to now be turned into one of the, you know, one of the worst countries where, where. Where the military are in our streets without any regard for people’s constitutional rights, while our president spending millions of dollars prompting himself up like a failed dictator with a military parade. It is really shocking and it should be a wake up call for all Americans to say, yeah, I mean, that’s what you hear.

There is the anti Americanism, anti military, anti patriotism. You can be against Trump. You know, people are going to criticize Trump. That’s politics. But they really hate America and they hate the military, especially if they can’t control it, because they wanted to use, transform the military into, through social engineering, into a political operation that they could use to enforce their will against the American people. But a military that’s used in the traditional sense A in patriotic ways where we’re celebrating our military or in ways that are necessary in defending the rule of law and fellow American citizens under attack in places like Los Angeles at the federal level.

They hate it. They hate it. And Gavin Newsom, for example, he sued again President Trump because he dared to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to defend the rule of law and federal law enforcement and buildings and property and citizens generally in Los Angeles. And he basically President Trump used the law that goes back in 200 plus years, which he followed to the letter, by the way. But Governor Newsom got a radical left wing judge to try to take over the role of commander in chief and second guess the president and tell him he can’t deploy the National Guard, which is to kind of even describe that decision as to condemn it, isn’t it? And a stunning decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel by two judges who were Trump appointees and one judge who was a Biden appointee.

They stopped that judicial coup and ratified the President’s decision to deploy troops. And it’s worth reviewing just how far out it was because I talk about this judicial coup attack on Trump and don’t believe me. Believe those two Trump and Biden judge and the third Biden judge. Let’s go to that tweet that describes the decision. Judicial coup and Gavin Newsom fail Appellate panel of Trump and Biden judges shut down lower court stay of Trump’s deployment of National Guard of Marines to Los Angeles. And in the tweet I quote the decision and and in small part under a highly deferential standard of review.

Defendants the Trump team have prevented presented facts to allow us to conclude that the President had a colorable basis for revoking section 124063. And that is the law that I referenced, allowing the President by Congress essentially to call up the militia when necessary. They presented evidence detailed above of protesters interference with the ability of federal officers to execute the laws leading up to the President’s federalization of the National Guard on June 7. There is evidence that the day before protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation. Pinned down several FPS officers defending federal property by throwing concrete chunks, bottles of liquid and other objects and used large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram in an attempt to breach the the parking garage of a federal building.

Plaintiffs the Newsom Gang, as I called it, owns submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails and vandalized property. According to the declaration submitted by defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the law. And Newsom was trying to pretend and he got a court friendly left wing judge to agree with him. What happened there was no big deal. And those judges said, oh no, it’s a big deal. So it was a major piece of news for Trump, major vindication for Trump and a major defeat for Newsom. But you don’t hear a lot of news about it, do you? And in the meantime, this is what Newsom was trying to enable people getting, not only trying to kill law enforcement, then getting themselves hurt in the meantime.

Let’s go to this tweet, this video, I think I posted it, it got 2 plus million views on Facebook. 8A do not touch the horses. I mean, he’s lucky. He’s right. He’s lucky. He’s right. That’s what the police are dealing with. That’s what local, the federal law enforcement’s dealing with, those violent leftists. And of course there’s no antifa, there’s no left wing protest that happens without burning an American flag, which is outrageous. Let’s go to number 13 to show what is happening there. And this is not just a good gesture. This is something we need to make real.

We need to bring down this empire once and for all. There are men and women who died for that flag. And you’ve got these communists burning it. And they know what they’re doing. That flag is an effigy for our system, for our country. That’s how they want to treat America generally. They want to burn us down. And right now we’re in the middle of an insurrection. I think the President should invoke specifically the Insurrection Act. The law I talked about his invoking in Los Angeles is not the Insurrection act, literally or that part of it that he invoked, but he should invoke the Insurrection act, which would give broader powers to the National Guard and other folks he deploys to help with law enforcement locally in these places where things are out of control.

They’re out of control all up and down the west coast. And it’s just going to continue throughout the summer. And he’s right constitutionally and he’s right morally. He’s right legally. And I guarantee you the American people would be behind a restoration of the rule of law in the cities that are being torn apart or the areas that are being torn apart as a result of the left’s insurrection. Violence, murderous activities aided, encouraged and abetted by radical left politicians in positions of leadership. In fact, they’re engaging the violence themselves. We Saw with the senator from California. We saw with those what happened in Newark, that ICE facility.

We saw Ilhan Omar using inciting language. And of course, Judicial Watch Will Invest is already investigating everything we’re talking about here. We’ve got the FOIA flying to uncover who and is doing what and with whom in terms of getting these insurrections going. So stay tuned for more. So we had a significant news development this week as a result of the partial disclosure of information by the FBI under Kash Patel. Now, you’ve heard me criticize the FBI under his direction, not being transparent enough, but it doesn’t mean he’s never transparent. And he uncovered some new documents hidden by the FBI about an alleged Chinese plot to rig the election on behalf of Joe Biden in 2020.

Now remember, you know, the Justice Department under Bob Barr or Bill Barr, you know, he didn’t want to even talk about any of this. And you know, anyone who raised these types of issues were censored, were pushed out. So our friends at Justice News, you may know John Solomon, I’ve been on his show many times, reports FBI gave Congress intel on alleged Chinese plot to create fake mail in ballots in 2020. Patel turned over to Congress an intelligence report raising concerns that China had mass produced fake driver’s licenses to carry out a scheme to hijack the 2020 election with fake mail in ballots for Democrat Joe Biden.

The intelligence reports were from 2020 and were corroborated or fully investigated. Weren’t corroborated or fully investigated. So they got the information and they didn’t bother to follow up in a substantial way and instead were recalled from intelligence agencies at that time. By then, FBI Director Chris Wray, who by the way then had testified there were no known plots of foreign interference ahead of the 2020 election in which Biden defeated President Trump. And the documents were turned over by cash to Chuck Grassley, who runs the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. The allegations include plans from the CCP to manufacture fake driver’s licenses and ship them into the United States for the purposes of facilitating fraudulent mail in ballots.

Allegations which, while substantiated, were abruptly recalled and never disclosed to the public. And that’s a quote from Kash Patel. And you know how they were substantiated or corroborated? U.S. customs and Border Protection intercepted nearly 20,000 fake licenses around the time the intelligence was coming in. So they had the intel that the Chinese were trying to steal the election for their boy Joe. They had informationliterally they had caught the Chinese sending in Fake driver’s licenses. And what did they do? They buried it. Not only did they bury it, they said to their colleagues in the intelligence community that had seen the initial intelligence report, take it out of your system and delete it.

So not only did they bury it, they destroyed it. You can be sure this was responsive to numerous Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits or requests. And I’m glad Cash has turned it over to Chuck Grassley. But none of us have seen the documents yet. And in response to Cash’s tweet promoting this, I asked him. It’s great. It’s an important development. Now, when are the American people going to see this information? It’s declassified. Where are the documents? And of course, President Trump is feeling vindicated and outraged at the same time by further confirmation justifying questioning the results of the 2020 election.

Now, do I know what happened as a result of this plot? I don’t. But no one investigated it. So why can’t we or shouldn’t we presume the worst and be very worried about it? And President Trump tweeted the following or issued the following post on truth social zero border crossings for the month for Trump versus 60,000 for sleepy crooked Joe Biden, a man who lost the 2020 presidential election by a landslide. Biden was grossly incompetent and the 2020 election was a total fraud. The evidence is massive and overwhelming. A special prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United states of America, etc.

So what should happen with a special prosecutor? I believe a special prosecutor should be appointed as well, for not only 2020, but a variety of reasons. And if I were President Trump, I would do the following. I’d appoint the prosecutor myself. He’s the President. The founders understood the President was the prosecutor in chief, and I don’t think he can or should rely on the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate this. It’s again, this is further evidence. This China cover up is further evidence. The FBI can’t be trusted. The FBI has to be investigated and the FBI can’t investigate the FBI.

I’m sorry. It’ syou know, Cash and Dan Bongino could be the best people in the world, and I trust their ethics and such, but they can’t investigate their own agency like that. They just can’t. It’s. They’re not going to be able to find the people in the agency they can trust to get it done. It’s just a practical issue. Plus, the public has a right to an uncompromised or unconflicted investigation. I got some good language here I want to share with you before my phone dies. As chief executive magistrate, the president can not only make the special prosecution appointment that I suggest, but authorize the creation of a special investigative unit comprised of appropriate personnel.

So what he can do, and this is President Washington ran prosecutions. President Jefferson ran prosecutions, President Madison. They all ran prosecutions in the beginning of the country. Because if you’re the chief executive officer, you’re necessarily the chief magistrate and chief prosecutor. So what he should do is pick someone he wants to be special prosecutor or an entity, some would suggest a judicial watch, be appointed special prosecutor. He could do worse. I’m not saying we would do it or could do it, but I’m making the point. And judicial watcher, whoever he appoints, could run the special unit reporting directly to President Trump.

And they could be supported with staff from outside the DOJ and FBI. Plenty of law enforcement agencies or officials or officers capable of providing support who aren’t FBI agents or Justice Department agents, like the Postal Inspection Service. They’ve got a bunch of good guys over there. You got Homeland Security, they have an investigative unit. The same goes for a lot of these other big agencies. U.S. marshals, I guess that’s DOJ, but maybe they’re distinct enough that they can. You can have individual U.S. marshals provide support. And of course, they can just hire outsiders to do it.

They can hire retired law enforcement, local law enforcement, to investigate anything the president wants investigated under law. Now, of course, the law still protects those who are targets of any investigation. So if there’s any serious criminal investigation, any target or witness, they still have all their rights under law. So this is not a lawless investigation. This is a constitutional investigation. And the president can make decisions about what to prosecute, what to investigate, who to ask, who to charge, whether to charge. And of course, he can seek advice and counsel from his attorney general as to the propriety of such investigations or prosecutions in the end.

But it’s only advice. Let’s put it this way. If President Trump wanted to prosecute the case himself in a court, he could. And I don’t say that to mean that President Trump should prosecute a case himself in court, however interesting that might be. But I’m highlighting the scope and expansive reach of his power as president to run federal prosecutions. The founders did it, and that’s good enough for me in terms of providing a basis for him to do it. And it flows naturally from the Constitution. So don’t wait for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel, just do it yourself.

Because a special counsel, again, is a creature of the Justice Department and all the conflicts that Justice Department has. And again, in investigating itself, because they don’t bring in people from the outside. Most of the special counsel staff are typically DOJ detailees. So that’s how I would handle the 2020 issues. The Lawfare against Trump, the censorship, the border invasion, the Biden corruption, the pardons. I’d have a special prosecutorial public integrity unit, Government Integrity Unit, accountability unit. Let’s come up with great names for it, right? Let’s figure out what. And I’m sure Trump will have the best name in the end, given his marketing genius in that regard.

And get it done, because time’s running out. Time’s running out. So that’s my advice of the day. Supreme Court sees in Washington, D.C. it’s the end of the Supreme Court term. Many decisions are being issued, some of which are good, some of which aren’t so good. Others are fantastic, including the most recent decision of note, the what is the caption? United States vs. Scrometti, who was the attorney general for Tennessee. And Tennessee had passed a law essentially prohibiting transgender extremist treatments for minors. You can’t mutilate them. You can’t give them drugs to help them supposedly transition from male to female.

And Tennessee wanted to protect the health and safety of minors from this transgender experimental mutilating treatments. And of course, when they did that, the left sued and the Biden administration sued, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the court just issued a ruling, 6, 3 affirming the right of Tennessee and other states to protect their children from transgender extremist experimental treatments. And I encourage you, like I encourage you all the time, every time I talk about Supreme Court cases, to read the decision. You can go and read the decisions. They’re written.

I think, you know, sometimes the cases are so technical in terms of the legal issue, they’re not necessarily written for the public. But in a case like this, it’s written. So it comports with the law and, you know, the formal nature of Supreme Court decisions as to how opinions are supposed to be written and argued. But it’s also written in a way that you can understand it where most sensible people can understand it, even if you might disagree with some of it. And you read enough of them, you can figure out what you like and what you don’t like about some of the decision making.

I’m not a lawyer, but you read enough of these Supreme Court decisions. You realize when the Supreme Court is spending a lot of time talking about, you know, essentially standards of the Constitution that they’ve made up out of whole cloth versus actual things in the Constitution that they’re actually supposed to be applying, that’s kind of where I always get upset in reading some of this stuff. So the decision is a big one. This is the decision. It’s, I don’t know, it’s probably well over 130 pages. So there was a majority opinion, and then there were two, excuse me, three concurring opinions and a concurring opinion.

I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure what the technical definition of a concurring opinion is. It’s an opinion that agrees with essentially the result of the majority opinion in whole or in part. And if it’s in part, they explain why it is only in part, or if it’s in whole, they explain. I agree with everything they said, but I want to say this on top of what they said, and I want to say it on my behalf. And sometimes other justices do that individually. So Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and he essentially found that, look, this is not about targeting transgender people.

This is not about discrimination on the basis of sex. This is about restricting a dangerous treatment. And it’s a treatment used for both girls and boys. So there’s no sex discrimination. It’s a treatment for a condition, gender dysphoria or attendant types of diagnoses. It includes cross sex hormones, puberty blockers, and mutilation. And the people of Tennessee have said, we ain’t going to do that to our kids for a variety of rational reasons. And the Supreme Court, without getting too technical, found that Tennessee’s rules here are quite rational. There’s no reason to give special protection to transgender children.

As such, the law doesn’t require it because in this case, they’re not being targeted because they are transgender. There is a specific treatment that’s being prohibited for the use of children, and that’s something that states have an inherent right to try to manage. And I encourage you also to read Justice Thomas concurring opinion and Justice Alito’s concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a concurring opinion, but frankly, I don’t remember what’s in it. So you’re just going to have to read it yourself because I can’t remember her point. But Justice Thomas opinion I thought was interesting for a variety of reasons.

But I especially enjoyed the section where he slammed the expert class. You know, the left is challenging it. The Biden administration challenged this rule. And what happened was the Biden people left. So obviously the Trump people came in and said, by the way, we don’t believe anything Biden said about this. But the case was far enough along and there were plaintiffs other than the US Government that allowed the Supreme Court to continue to hear the case despite the change in position by the Trump administration. So it’s a big, it’s a big loss against the Biden administration who used the power of the United States government to try to stop Tennessee from protecting its kids from what I believe to be demonic transgender extremism.

That’s right, I said demonic. The transgender extremists, their whole movement depends on the notion of children being able to engage in transgender extremist treatments. It’s all about getting kids mutilated, experimented on with these drugs so they can present themselves as a sex that has nothing to do with their biological reality. And that’s why I say it’s demonic. I mean, the targeting of children, we’ve never had anything like it. I just can’t think of if there’s anything like it. I can’t think of it. I mean, we kill our unborn children. I guess that’s comparable. That’s pretty demonic in my view.

But children who don’t know better, oh, sure, take this drug that could ensure you never have a child. Take this, you know, engage in this mutilation of your body, that I can’t even talk it out as to how awful that is. And this was Justice Thomas concurrence in part, page 5. The court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to afford outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise. The United States asserted that the, quote, medical community and this nation’s leading hospitals, who I would add, automatically make money from this, agree with the government’s position that the treatments outlawed by SB1, which is the Tennessee law, can be medically necessary.

The implication of these arguments is that courts should defer to so called expert consensus. There are several problems with deferring and appealing to the authority of the expert class. First, so called experts have no license to countermand the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices. Oh, wait, don’t tell anyone, but that’s called democracy because experts don’t like what a legislature does. It doesn’t give them the right to, quote, overturn democracy. Second, contrary to representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria. In children. And that’s.

There’s no doubt about that. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts view that young children can provide the informed consent to irreversible sex transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that states must decide for themselves. Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in the area have relied on questionable evidence and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance. Taken together, this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts and that courts may not, quote, sit as a super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.

By correctly concluding that SB1 warrants the paradigm of judicial restraint, the court reserves to the people of Tennessee the right to. To govern. Excuse me, the right to decide for themselves. I could go on, but you get the point. Great little decision. Concurring opinion by President. By President Clarence Thomas. Can you imagine that? We’re doing okay with President Trump, though. Great decision by Justice Thomas. Great decision by Chief Justice Roberts. And I criticize Roberts when he makes the wrong decision. I criticize Amy Coney Barrett when she makes the wrong decision or joins with the wrong side.

But when they make the right decision, we’ve got to praise and hold them up. I mean, that’s what citizens have every right to do, right? When the experts on the constitutional side, right through the Supreme Court, we have a right to judge their decisions each time. And when they’re wrong, we can call them out on it. When they’re right, we should praise it. That’s the wonderful thing about our republic. We still have our First Amendment rights to even criticize and examine the court decisions at the highest court in the land. And I have to say, there’s not one member of the Supreme Court to be fair, even to the liberals who would dispute that.

So we have some more decisions coming out next week from the Supreme Court. I haven’t tracked it closely enough to tell you what to look for next week, but you can look online and you don’t need me to tell you that. But just keep on keeping on when it comes to monitoring Supreme Court decisions, I encourage you to not if the issue interests you. Don’t rely on news reports describing the opinion to help you understand what’s in the opinion. Obviously, it gives you a feel for it because you can’t get. It’s a wonderful way to understand the functioning of our Constitution and our government or sometimes the dysfunction of it, of the courts, by reading these Supreme Court opinions.

I can’t overstate enough or I guess I could. It would be difficult to overstate how valuable reading these Supreme Court opinions are directly. And we’ll provide a link to this most recent court the case I just read this court opinion I just read below. So I wish you the best over the next week. A lot going on here at Judicial Watch, more lawsuits coming, more disclosures coming. We’re prepping for the Supreme Court. It’s day by day, week by week on our big election case. And in the meantime, our lawyers will be going into court time and time again to process or push along our current lawsuits while filing new ones.

And we do it all with your support. And I thank, I thank you and God bless you for it and God bless America. I’ll see you here next time on the Judicial Watch weekly update. 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.