➡ Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group, has two election law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases challenge the legality of counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. The group argues that this practice is not only against federal law but also encourages voter fraud and undermines public trust in election results. The Supreme Court’s decision could reaffirm the meaning of Election Day under federal law and impact how future elections are conducted.
➡ The article discusses the issue of counting ballots received after Election Day. The author argues that federal law clearly states that ballots should be received by Election Day and counted on the same day. They express concern that allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day invites fraud and undermines the integrity of the election process. The author hopes that the Supreme Court will uphold this interpretation of the law, leading to cleaner and fairer elections.
➡ The article discusses legal challenges and investigations related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election. It suggests that there were attempts to criminalize the actions of those who disputed the election results, including alternative electors and Trump’s associates. The article also mentions a group called States United, which allegedly coordinated with state prosecutors to target these individuals. Despite these efforts, many of the charges have been dismissed by judges, but some cases are still ongoing.
➡ The speaker believes that despite no apparent crimes, there may be hidden illegal activities that need investigation. They suggest that the president should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these potential crimes, as they believe the Justice Department and FBI may be involved. They also express frustration at the lack of action despite their efforts to uncover potential corruption, and call for more accountability. They encourage support for Judicial Watch, an organization they believe is working to protect elections and uphold the constitution.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you, as always, for joining us. A lot going on here in Washington, D.C. and before the Supreme Court of the United States. Judicial Watch is again before the Supreme Court of the United States. They announced this week, the court did, that it will take up a Judicial Watch case, an historic victory that Judicial Watch obtained against the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. So this is the second Supreme Court case that we’ll be presenting this term, and it’s extraordinary to get one case, but now we have two election law cases before the Supreme Court.

Now, last month, we were there arguing on behalf of our client, Congressman Boss, two electors for President Trump, that federal candidates should be able to vindicate the rule of law for elections in federal court, that they have the standing or the right to do so. And that case was about a challenge to Illinois’s counting of ballots that arrived for up to two weeks after Election Day, even without a postmark. In Mississippi, they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after Election Day. In that case, we were representing the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. And, and we won, at least at the appellate level.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found accounting of ballots that arrive after Election Day to be unlawful and not compliant with federal law. And Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took up our historic victory and hopefully will affirm it. So this is a massive issue, or frankly, two massive issues. One on the standing of candidates to try to stop an election from being stolen or otherwise hampered or illegally conducted and being able to do that by going to court. Secondly, the underlying issue of whether states can count ballots that arrive for days, if not weeks after election day.

Now, 19 states do it, including, or I think, plus the District of Columbia, Mississippi, as I said, is five days. Illinois is 14 days up Inover in California, where we have a third lawsuit for Congressman Darrell Issa that’s on hold as the Supreme Court considers these issues. The lawsuit is a challenge to California counting ballots that arrive for up to a full week after Election Day. And as I highlighted and previously not only in these videos, but everywhere I can speak about it, is that counting ballots after Election Day not only is unlawful, it invites voter fraud for obvious reasons and undermines confidence in the elections.

Because if you don’t know who won on Election Day or you don’t have the final numbers in a way that’s credible, people are right to and justified in questioning the election outcomes generally. And so it undermines voter confidence. And as I said in Our statement about the Supreme Court taking up this historic issue. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reaffirm that Election Day means what it says under federal law. Counting ballots received after election day not only violates federal law, but encourages voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. The Supreme Court should uphold the historic decision by the fifth Circuit to that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after Election day is unlawful.

Now, what happened is after Mississippi, they actually won at the lower court, found the court said, that they can count ballots, even those received after election day. So the appeals court agreed with Judicial Watch, and in doing so, the appeals court for the fifth Circuit found the following in part. Congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent and historical practice confirms this day. For the election is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election Day, it is preempted by federal law.

We reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. And what happened after that is they asked the full 5th Circuit, Mississippi did, to take a look at the case, and they declined to take it. That’s why they went to the Supreme Court. But there were some opinions issued by the full court or members of the full court in response to Mississippi’s request that they fully or take up the case again or take it up further. And it’s worth going over that opinion because there’s some interesting material in it. The first part I kind of like because it kind of tells you what it is we have to fight when we go into court on behalf of election integrity.

Judicial Watch doesn’t just fight states or political parties and such. The whole leftist orbit comes in and tries to intervene in our lawsuits. Those of you who are lawyers, I’m not a lawyer, but those of you who are lawyers know intervention just mucks up the case further. Or they file Friends of Court briefs, you know, opposing our stance. But either way, we’re not only battling government, but we’re also battling their allies on the left. Unions, Soros, supporter groups, you name it. Mark Elias, that type of crowd that’s always trying to undermine election integrity, in my view.

And Judge Ho, who is a pretty conservative judge on the 5th Circuit, he had something to say about how all these high powered lawyers come in and go after Judicial Watch and the more conservative views on the rule of law on elections. And he highlights how one of his colleagues, I guess in the dissent said that this case may be unusual and thus remarkable because, quote, top flight lawyers unaffiliated with the parties, quote, have seen fit to offer their views on this case pro bono. The implication is that the panel decision may be so off the mark that leading members of the profession have felt compelled to speak out.

And he writes, but there’s another explanation. The pro bono activity in this case may just reflect the institutional bias at many of the nation’s largest law firms. Their libs. Legal scholars have documented how major law firms consistently favor one side in highly charged disputes like this one. The evidence has led to the belief that major firms are falling short of the great tradition of this profession, which is the concern that they have abandoned neutral principles of representation and instead engage in ideological or political discrimination in the cases that they’re willing to take on. And I want to highlight something for you in light of what Judge Ho says about the left getting these big name lawyers to come in and go after us.

Judicial Watch has been litigating Freedom of Information act, election integrity cases, civil rights cases, antigovernment corruption cases, all sorts of cases for 30 plus years, hundreds if not thousands of pieces of litigation. We not once have received pro bono support from any of the big law firms. Not an offer, not even a question. No big law firm has ever supported Judicial Watch. And this is why. Now I, some of you might say, well, why would you take their help? Well, some of them have good lawyers, conservative lawyers at least, who would be willing to do the work.

But it’s clear even the conservative lawyers can’t get the pro bono committees or operations to provide free legal support, charitable support to our public interest litigation. But as Judge Hope highlights, you can always count on these big firms to be on the side of the left in every major legal battle of note that’s controversial in the courts. Now, President Trump has encouraged the lawyers to be more honest in that regard, but that’s not, I don’t think, going to hold. I’m sure right now they’re going to do it. But as soon as he leaves office, the big law firms will revert to the norm, which is to be part of the arm of the left, to frankly destroy our republic, because that’s what the goal of the left is.

So I thought that was interesting, that part of the Anbank decision upholding or refusing to take on and leaving and leaving in place our historic victory. And to explain further, Judge Andrew Oldman highlighted the following in terms of the details. According to the dissenting opinion, he writes, states should Be free to accept ballots for as long as they’d like after election day. That, of course, is a question for Congress. But even if it were a question for federal judges, do our dissenting colleagues really think that federal law imposes no time limits at all on ballot acceptance? True, statutory deadlines prescribe dates by which the certification of presidential electors must occur.

At best, those provide a last ditch backstop several weeks after election day. At worst, they permit states to engage in gamesmanship, experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought to eliminate fraud, uncertainty, and delay. So when they set an election day back in the 1800s, I think it was in the 1800s, it was because the states had various election days. And it was that lack of uniformity which was undermining our election system. And that’s why federal law and Congress set it as under federal law, as the Constitution allows, set the the time of election day and nothing whatsoever prevents the states from innovating.

And he doesn’t use that word in a good way. With ever later ballot receipt deadlines two months or even two years after election day in congressional elections, the dissenting opinion’s only response is to say states are unlikely to do that. But such pragmatic assurances only underscore the dissenting opinion lacks any legal limit. So the big question is, what are the court, what the court’s going to do? I don’t know what the Supreme Court’s going to do. I would hope they agree with us that federal election law is pretty clear. It sets an election day, and ballots received after election day are a day late and a dollar short.

It’s too late. You have to get your ballot in by election day, even if you use the mail, unless there’s a specific exemption or exception allowed under federal law. And there are minor exceptions. And people always say, well, what about this? What about that? Well, you know, sometimes there are exceptions, but those are only exceptions pursuant to federal law, not exceptions. Because the states have decided that election day set by federal law doesn’t matter. So this is an historic matter because, As I said, 19 states count ballots that arrive after election day. Arguablyand this is not something we’re making.

We’re taking a position in court to push. I personally believe, and I’ve highlighted it and the left goes crazy when I highlight it, that they should count ballots by election day too. If you don’t know who won on election day, there’s something seriously amiss. And I would read federal law even more strictly than we’re presenting here before the Supreme Court, you got to get your ballots in on Election Day, and they need to be counted on Election Day. The determination of who won needs to be made on Election Day. And if it’s made after election day, it’s 2020.

And I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. In 2020, for example, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency on Election Day, and that result changed as a result of unprecedented counting in swing states that took place after Election Day. To me, that’s enough to, you know, as far as I’m concerned, that’ sthe election should have been over on Election Day. But that’s not the battle now. The battle now is not even getting them counted on Election Day, just making sure that ballots that are there on Election Day are the only ones that are counted, because, for instance, you know what the outcome is, more or less on Election Day.

And if you have this extra time afterwards, it invites fraudsters to try to change the outcome one way or the other. It’s obvious an invitation, obviously an invitation for fraud. And in California, there are two states, excuse me, two seats in the House that Democrats now occupy, and they won those seats as a result of ballots that were counted that had arrived late under at least federal law. We would allege, and I’ve encouraged publicly House leadership to raise questions about their ability to sit because the House doesn’t have to abide by a lawless election, as is alleged in California.

So this is what’s going to happen before the Supreme Court. So there’ll be time for the briefs to be made to be filed. Everyone gets to write the briefs. Mississippi Judicial Watch, the Republican National Committee, which, frankly, has been following our lead on this. I mean, these issues about suing to stop states from counting ballots after Election Day, the only reason it’s before the Supreme Court is because the Judicial Watch, to be clear, the RNC is in it, too. That’s good. They have the right to sue, and I’m glad they’re following our lead. But it was Judicial Watch who in Illinois, Mississippi, California pushed this issue forward into the courts.

And we would not be before the Supreme Court on this core issue. But for our excellent litigation team, Rob Popper, Russ Snobile, Eric Lee, others, it’s years in the making to be before the Supreme Court. So they’ll have to file the briefs. The lawyers will be working to file the briefs, and I expect the argument will be, or I’m told the argument will be probably in February, more or less. So that’s going to be a Big day. And it’s a credit to Judicial Watch supporters that were able to have that day in court, you know, because I know you’re all concerned about free and fair elections.

You don’t like the elections. Election rules and laws that make it easy to rig elections undermine the integrity of the process. And this is one that pretty much any sensible person sees as something that ought not to happen, which is counting ballots forever. And a day after Election Day, we have Election Day. Not an Election week, not an election month. Yes, I know there are other reforms that need to be made to uphold the value and the certainty of Election Day. I think early voting is a mess. I don’t like mail in balloting. Generally, the best way to vote is to show up in person and vote on Election Day.

I mean, that should be the standard. And whether those other variations on the way elections or the counting or casting of ballots prior to Election Day has changed and how that happens, okay, that’s another debate. But I don’t think there can be any debate fairly that’s persuasive that the Election Day deadline doesn’t matter. You’ve got to get your votes in by Election Day. So, in fact, if the Supreme Court rules the way I hope it does, we could have cleaner and fairer elections in 19 states in November of 2026. Just like that? Just like that. No, California, you can’t count ballots that get there seven days late.

No, Illinois, you can’t count ballots that get there 14 days late. No, Mississippi, you can’t count ballots that get there five. So this is pretty historic. And on top of that, as I said earlier, we have the separate case that’s already before the court. Our team made the argument to the court, so it’s fully briefed, fully argued. And typically, what happens is the court goes into conference after the argument and they decide what to do. And so right now, presumably, they’re writing the argument, they’re writing the opinions, and I think we’re going to get a good opinion that reaffirms the right of candidates to challenge dirty elections, or the lawyers might say, uphold the rule of law on elections.

This is great. And then, of course, we’re right in the middle of these gerrymandering fights. And as you know, if you follow our work closely, we’ve cleaned up 5 million dirty names from the rolls, the voter rolls, thanks to our work challenging states to follow federal law that require them to take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls. And there are probably 24 million names more that need to be cleaned up. And that’s one of the reasons we’ve sued in three states, Oregon, California, Illinois, to clean up millions of names more. So if there’s anyone doing more on election integrity, I’d like to meet them.

Two Supreme Court cases. And we’re not here because, as I said, of the help of big law firms. We’re not here because we know someone in the Justice Department. We’re not here because we’ve been blessed by the left or the establishment, the deep state, et cetera. We’re here because of you. That’s the only reason we’re before the Supreme Court, because of Judicial Watch supporters that year after year, in some cases month after month or more, support our fine work. We don’t have to worry if no big law firm will take our case because we’ve got our own lawyers that we’re able to hire, get staff lawyers we’re able to hire because of our supporters generous support.

So I encourage you to continue to support Judicial Watch. It’s going to heat up. We’ve got more work to do to secure our elections. I’m convinced the left doesn’t not only opposes free and fair elections, they just oppose elections generally. That’s what it’s really about. So if you want to have elections in any sane fashion in these United States of America, supporting Judicial Watch should be high on your agenda. And obviously, in the meantime, Republicans pray for wisdom and discernment for the justices of the Supreme Court as they consider these historic election cases brought to them by Judicial Watch.

So you may have seen, and I talked about it previously briefly, these new Arctic Frost documents leaked by or leaked and released by the Justice Department and FBI Antarctic Frost was the name of the sham investigation set up by the Biden gang to try to jail Trump and turn this country into a one party state by targeting hundreds of Republican Party operatives, activists, innocent American citizens, lawyers, you name it, for daring to dispute the 2020 election. And when you look at that Arctic Frost information, it’s pretty clear to me and many others that they were not only interested in going after Trump, but also as I talked about, the electors at the various states that were put in there as alternatives in the case that challenge to the outcome of the election was successful in these various states where there were legal challenges and other reasons to think that the result was not lawful and should go to Trump.

And that happens all the time. Alternative electors are presented to Congress in presidential during presidential election contest, the Biden gang decided to criminalize that activity that is protected by the First Amendment. The President has a right to pursue these issues and investigate these issues as president himself, certainly also separately, as a candidate exercising his First Amendment rights, et cetera. But they tried to target and jail people for doing something Democrats have been doing virtually every election cycle for the last, you know, for as long as we’ve been keeping records almost. And they’ve been unsuccessful, although some of these cases are still being pursued at the state level.

But when you look at the focus on it at the national level through these Arctic Frost documents, it confirms or presents strong circumstantial evidence that the state prosecutions you’ve heard about by Fannie Willis in Georgia or in Arizona or Michigan or Wisconsin, where they were targeting electors who were presented as alternatives, as the law allows, and they targeted them with criminal prosecutions. Our colleague here, Christina Bobb, who’s a senior attorney here, she’s been targeted for prosecution in Arizona. I don’t think she had anything to do with Arizona, but she was on the national Democrat hit list as far as I’m concerned.

And you had these nonprofit groups, nominally nonprofit, I shouldn’t say nominally, literally nonprofit groups who, who are helping organize this. And one group that’s targeting this lawfare, targeting Trump and people around him. And one of these groups was called States United. And Judicial Watch has been investigating States United and specifically also the various Democratic prosecutors at the state and local level, like Fannie Willis. We’ve been famously exposing her lies and misconduct. And we’ve been getting documents about the conspiracy against the civil rights of Americans who dared to dispute the Biden administration’s narrative as to the 2020 election.

And specifically, we received, just the other day, 5,700. Not just the other day. I guess it was a little bit ago, 5789 pages of records from the Michigan Department of Attorney General in a Freedom of Information act request that shows the state’s coordination with this nonprofit, as I describe, States United Democracy Center. So here’s the headline on our release. Judicial Watch documents detail Michigan Attorney General relationship with Leftist nonprofit to target Trump and Republicans over 2020 election disputes. Now, Michigan, they charged some of these electors. And the attorney general of Michigan is Dana Nestle. And the charges were thrown out by a judge earlier this year.

And it’s worth kind of taking a look at what she did. Let’s open the story there. Because it’s a sham prosecution. They tried to jail Trump, but the case ended because he became president again. But they kept on pursuing others in the several states a Michigan judge has dismissed. This is from npr. It Must have been painful for NPR to write this story. Has dismissed criminal charges against 15 people who signed false certificates. They weren’t false certificates. Saying that Donald Trump won the state electoral votes in 2020. It’s the latest loss to prosecutors efforts to hold accountable people associated with Trump’s attempt to overturn his election law, his election loss.

Now, I don’t, I’m not aware of anyone who sought to overturn an election, are you? I’m aware of people who sought to have what they believe to be the lawful result upheld and affirmed under law, whether it be in the courts or in Congress, as the law allows them to do. That’s not overturning an election. It’s disputing an election result that you think is corrupted or incorrect. In Arizona, a judge threw out some of these cases and sent it back to a grand jury. So they’re not winning, but they’re still pursuing these cases as well in these other states.

And just this week it was announced, or just today it was announced, a a civil servant who is running a commission that’s supposed to be guarding against the abuse of power by Fanny Willis. Fannie Willis was thrown off the case because of her corruption. He couldn’t get any other normal prosecutor to take it, so he appointed himself as prosecutor. So he’s going to have to figure out what to do with the charges against Trump down there. I mean, Trump is not out of the woods on these charges. Not only in Georgia, but here federally. They can potentially resurrect charges against him that the Jack Smith gang was improperly pursuing.

Nestle announced the charges more than two years ago. Sixteen people originally indicted, but charges were dropped against one in exchange for supposed cooperation. And this is what the judge said. What did the judge said? What did the judge say? This is a fraud case, and we have to prove intent. And I don’t believe there’s sufficient evidence to prove intent. Meaning no one was trying to engage in fraud. They were just doing a regular election dispute. So where did this garbage prosecution arise? It looked like it was helped along by this States United group, and we have the documents that prove it.

The records show that States United has a multistate operation aimed at prosecuting and disbarring Trump attorneys and associates in several states. States United was started by Norm Eisen, who is a former Obama gang member. He worked in the Obama White House. As his ethics are. That’s all you need to know. Who ishis ethics are. As I said in special counsel. Also to the judicial coup. Excuse me, the judiciary impeachment couple against Trump. And we found the documents that show repeated communications between this group and the Michigan Attorney General’s office that pursued this sham investigation and prosecution and harassment and lawfare, trying to jail activists in Michigan for daring to dispute the Biden administration’s narrative on the election.

You’re allowed to dispute an election in this country. It’s not illegal. And the left has lied to you, the American people, for years by not only pretending it’s illegal, but actually based on that fantasy, trying to jail innocent people. And here we have a United States United left wing organization communicating with a senior official at the Michigan Attorney General’s office. And here it is, following up on our earlier conversation regarding the usps, in collaboration with our clients in Nevada. Nevada. They had a case against electors just resurrected this week. It’s all heating up again this week.

By the way, we put together a draft common interest agreement for your consideration. Once we’ve got everyone on board, we can schedule a multi state call to discuss further. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Conspiracy confirmed, everyone. That’s the smoking gun. If you, as I also believe that this was. These investigations and prosecutions are not made in good faith. They are based on a fraudulent interpretation of the law and they’re designed to suppress the civil rights of not only Trump and people around Trump. It’s a campaign that was trying to vindicate the rule of law in the elections.

Here we’ve got evidence of a conspiracy to violate your civil rights or the civil rights of those targeted. Here this is, and it’s explicit, here’s a document, an action plan. Election deniers scored multiple wins in the Arizona and Michigan primaries and will now head to the general election in November. As States United has documented, candidates who continue to spread lies to a better elections are running for positions that oversee and influence election administration across the country, posing a threat to our democracy. In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nestle is seeking a special prosecutor to consider charges against people in the alleged plot to gain improper access to vote tabulating machines.

One of the nine is Matthew DiPerno, the election denier chosen by Michigan Republicans to run against Nestle this fall. So when they say election denier, they know what they’re saying. It’s kind of an echo of climate denier. And when they use the phrase denier, what are they reflecting back on? Do I hear an answer out there? Holocaust denial. So prior to the use of climate denier or election denier, it was your Holocaust denier. That’s who they’re trying to group you in with any time you object to the leftist narratives they want you to believe. So they’ve got this joint operation that’s going on targeting innocents who did nothing wrong other than exercise their civil rights under the Constitution and federal election law and state law in these circumstances, to challenge and dispute the 2020 election.

And this is what, not only about the 2020 election, but as you could see with the prosecutions that resulted in the swing states. It was designed, unsuccessfully in the end, to stop these folks from participating in the 2022 elections and then obviously designed to stop Trump from winning in 2024. And one way you stop a president from winning or a candidate from winning is by defanging or decimating his supporters. And so when you go after state party officials and other activists who are key in these swing states, you make it harder for them to win. Now, did it result in Trump losing? No.

Just because the conspiracy failed, just because the criminality failed, just because the bank wasn’t robbed, just because the election wasn’t stolen, doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed. And this is what I would do if I were the president. I would look at documents like this. I’d look at the Arctic Frost documents and obviously everything else and go to town investigating them with a special prosecutor that he directs that reports to him outside the Justice Department because Justice Department’s implicated in this, outside the FBI, because the FBI is implicated in this, because they’ve got to investigate not only these states that are targeting American citizens, but also what the Justice Department and the FBI did.

I mean, it just came out this week. Speaker McCarthy had his phones targeted by the FBI under Biden. I think that had generally been known. And then also another member of Congress, he’s no longer there. Our great friend at Judicial Watch, Louie Gohmert, had his phones targeted. So they were running spy operations against the speaker of the House over these sham legal analyses being pushed by these left wing fronts. Essentially an operative of the Obama administration who went into the private sector and just kept on pushing. There’s no one else doing this investigation like Judicial Watch.

It’s not just in Michigan, but in Arizona. And Christina Bobb had a whistleblower complaint in her case highlighting the connections between States United and Arizona, raised other circumstantial questions about corruption. So these lawfare battles have not ended, the left would have you believe. Oh, it’s only about President Trump engaged in retribution. No, no, no. The retribution was against Trump and his supporters. And Lord forbid someone like Comey is hauled into court for lying to Congress or Letitia James for fraud and such. That’s penny ante compared to the real things that they were involved in a plot against the Republic.

So not only, you know, what’s frustrating is it’s like, how much stuff do we have to uncover before something happens in terms of prosecutions? And I know there’s been evidence or news that some people have received subpoenas on certain aspects of what went on, and there may be some investigations going on I don’t know about. But in my experience, if you don’t know about an investigation that would be as important as the one I’m describing, it’s probably not happening or not proceeding appropriately. It’s getting too late in the game to do anything. And in order for it to get done, I think the president’s got to intervene.

Personally, at this point. I just don’t see it happening otherwise. Pam Bondi probably, if it had her druthers, she’d probably do everything I’m asking to do. But she’s got this Justice Department that would destroy her if she did anything like that. And even when she does take the steps, even when the FBI does take the steps, they’re thwarted internally. So Judicial Watch will continue to pursue this information through our FOIAs, through lawsuits, but we can’t prosecute. They know what’s going on. They have no excuse not to proceed. The Justice Department, and if I’m President Trump, you got to get it done, sir.

You got to get it done. Because relying on the Justice Department to get it done, it’s just not going to happen. Now, it doesn’t mean nothing will get done. It just means not sufficient accountability will take place. And as soon as Trump leaves office, even if a Republican replaces him, I think he’s going to be prosecuted again and everyone else around him will get prosecuted again. I really do. And unless there are consequences for the lawlessness that nearly destroyed our republic, it will happen again. They’re promising to do it again, and I believe them because they did it once already.

So if you support again, Judicial Watch’s work to protect our elections and protect our constitutional Republicans, I encourage you to give your most generous donation today. Go to judicialwatch.org, judicialwatch.org, make a donation now. Pray for our team here. Pray for wisdom and discernment on our public officials to pursue the issues we’re talking about, pray for justice in our judiciary and pray for America generally. And of course, as I said, support your Judicial Watch. I’ll be here next time with you 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.