➡ A woman was shot and killed by an ICE agent after she tried to run him over, sparking outrage in left-wing areas like Minnesota. The incident, captured on video, has led to accusations of insurrection against the federal government by leftists. Critics argue that the left’s response to the incident, including attacks on ICE and encouragement of violence, is contributing to anarchy and undermining law enforcement efforts. The situation has prompted calls for the invocation of the Insurrection Act to maintain public safety and uphold the rule of law.
➡ The article discusses the ongoing legal battles of Judicial Watch, an organization seeking transparency about the events of January 6th. They have been trying to obtain unedited body camera footage from the D.C. police officers present that day, but the D.C. government is demanding $1.5 million to blur faces and mute audio. Judicial Watch argues this would make the footage useless for public information. The case, which has been ongoing since June 2020, is still awaiting a ruling from the court.
➡ The article discusses the involvement of the CIA during an event at the Capitol on January 6th. Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, has filed a lawsuit to uncover the CIA’s activities on that day, including the deployment of bomb techs and dog teams. However, the CIA has responded that it could take up to four years to provide the requested records. The author expresses frustration at the lack of transparency and the slow response from the CIA and the Justice Department.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal organization, is challenging laws in several states that allow ballots to be counted after Election Day, arguing that this is against federal law and can lead to fraud. They have taken two cases to the Supreme Court and are awaiting decisions. Additionally, they have successfully removed 5 million ineligible names from voter rolls across the country, reducing opportunities for voter fraud. They continue to work on cleaning up voter rolls and ensuring election integrity.
➡ The speaker encourages viewers to follow and share their content on social media to spread awareness about important issues like election integrity and their legal actions against the CIA. They express pride in their persistent efforts, similar to a turtle winning a race, and ask for financial support to continue their work. They end by reminding viewers to subscribe and like their videos.

Hi everyone. Happy New Year and welcome to the Judicial Watch weekly update here on social media. Thank you as always for joining us this week. Let’s get right into it. We are facing what I believe to be a leftist insurrection in Minnesota and other left wing controlled areas against the federal government. There was a shooting death of a woman who by all accounts, yes, all credible accounts, attempted to run over an ICE agent and the ICE agent in response shot and killed her. Terrible situation. No officer wants to have to shoot someone in situations like that, but it looks like he had no choice.

The less response has been so extreme that even I am shocked. I know the left has embraced violence. They, you know, we’ve been so called celebrating the January 6 anniversary or highlighting it having happened five years ago. But they pretend to be opposed to violence, yet they embrace, condone and encourage it repeatedly. And we’re seeing it here as we’re being told to ignore our lying eyes. As we watch a car try to run down an ICE agent and pretend that it didn’t happen. They want us to pretend it didn’t happen. And there was like there was two or three videos that had come out.

One video, it was a little less clear as to what had happened because the angle was odd. There was a second video that came out that made it clear that the agent’s life was in jeopardy and others were in jeopardy as well. And then a video just was released from Alpha News out in Minnesota, detail or showing for sure that this woman tried to run over the agent. And let’s go to the videotape. So what I just want to tell you before I go to it, what you’re going to see is the woman’s wife attacking and belittling ICE agents outside.

And the woman is in the red vehicle. And just. And the woman who ultimately was shot is in the red vehicle. So just to give you a little context there, because when I initially looked at it, I didn’t realize the vehicle was red. And so I was confused. So it’s just to be clear, the person who was killed by the ICE agent is in the red vehicle you’re about to see on this video. And let me bring it up and start it at the beginning. Ready? Here we go. That’s fine. Dude, I’m not mad at. Boy, show your face.

I’m not mad at. That’s okay. We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. And it’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That’s fine. U.S. citizen, former Dr. You want to come at us. You want to come at us? I said, go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. The car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Go. So there you have it, Case closed. And the wife there, who tried to get in the vehicle before the driver tried to run over an agent you could see.

I want to go back to this. I want you to look at this part again. Look at. She looks at. And I’m sorry, you cannot do that and expect a police officer to do nothing, or in this case, an ICE agent. And the left has been obscene in its attacks on ice, encouraging this type of violence. Individuals like Tim Waltz and the mayor of Minneapolis, who is now attacking ice. You know, these leftist politicians are in part responsible for the death of this woman because they’ve encouraged these attacks on ice. The left media is amplified and pretended that it’s heroic to go around and harass agents and place them in jeopardy and obstruct their investigations.

In very sensitive situations where people’s lives are on the line, they not only risk their lives, they risk the lives of ICE agents and they risk the lives of those who are the target of law enforcement actions by the ICE agents. But this is anarchy. This is what the left likes and they seek to undo our Republicans. And I’m sorry, but when you look at the material or the video or the statements, I should say, of Governor Walsh, who has announced he’s not running for office again after the American people were fully alerted to how he presided over the worst public, the worst welfare fraud in the history of the United states thus far, $9 billion worth.

When you see Waltz talk about maybe we’re going to war, maybe we’re at war with ice. And when you see Frey say to ice, get the F out of my city, or whatever language he used, how is that non insurrectionist? And if I’m the President of the United States, I’m looking at what’s going on in Minnesota. And I’m wondering, is the government of Minnesota the governor and is the mayor of the largest city, Minneapolis, are they in insurrection right now against the federal government? And I think. I think the answer is yes. And I’ve long encouraged President Trump to invoke the Insurrection act in circumstances like this.

Now he’s tried to nationalize National Guard and the Supreme Court wrongly, I think, suggested that he can’t, or ordered or found that he can’t do that. Completely wrong, in my view. But one of the things that made clear in that ruling just. It was about two weeks ago, I Guess at this point was, well, you know, you can’t invoke the National Guard provision of federal law where the President can nationalize and use National Guard unless regular forces can’t protect the rule of law. And essentially, Supreme Court interpreted regular forces. The majority of the court, it was a 6, 3 decision, meaning not just police officers, but military, regular military personnel.

So as Judge Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh, noted in a concurring opinion, well, that means that he might be able to invoke the Insurrection act and use army and regular military to protect the public safety, preserve the rule of law in these jurisdictions. So as far as the Supreme Court goes, he can’t nationalize the National Guard in Minnesota, but he can send the army in the Marines and et cetera, with an invocation of the Insurrection Act. And then there were two individuals who were shot in Portland by ICE agents, again, trying to run these poor guys down. And what’s the response to Portland officials and Oregon officials target ice? We’re going to investigate ice.

So the real insurrection has been slow, boiling and ongoing for, well, for a long period of time. It ebbs and flows from the left, but it’s obviously accelerating, accelerating at this point. So when you have a governor suggest that he’s at war with the federal government, what else do you need? What else do you need? Now the president has judgment calls to make. Does he want to kind of make things worse by sending in the military? Maybe not. But these are the circumstances we face. And in the meantime, these ICE agents are doing the Lord’s work.

You heard me say it. You heard me. And I don’t. I don’t use that term lightly. We’ve got immigration laws that have gone unenforced for decades in this country. Now President Trump and his team at ice, etcetera, are trying to enforce the rule of law on immigration. End human trafficking. Shut down these networks that benefit from the brutality of the cartels. Strengthen them, encourage sex trafficking, all sorts of human trafficking. Largest human trafficking operation in the history of humanity took place under the Biden administration. He’s trying to reverse that invasion. President Trump and Isar, to the benefit of the public and the public safety.

These people are here illegally. Each and every one of them who are here unlawfully need to be deported. And there are people who want that lawlessness to continue. The left evidently has decided. Not evidently, obviously has decided. They benefit from no border. They benefit from the lawlessness. They benefit from human trafficking. They benefit from sex trafficking. They want children to be trafficked across the border. They are literally trying to get people killed who are seeking to enforce the law. I said it once and I’ll say it again, if necessary. The left will kill you in order to get what they want politically and in terms of political power.

And I say the left. I don’t say liberals. I’m not talking about people who disagree with me on taxes. I’m talking about the left. They support terrorism. They support insurrection. They want to destroy our republic. Forgive me for going on a little bit here, but we can’t pretend that this is normal. When you have a governor and a mayor suggesting that it’s okay to commit violence and try to kill an ICE officer, and then the governor saying, well, he’s going to maybe have the National Guard. I mean, the implication of what he said is that he might use the National Guard against federal officers.

So how is that not fomenting civil war? It’s awful. You know, and this woman was a mother. She made wrong choices, obviously. But I know none of this would be, you know, if we had competent local law enforcement and a media that didn’t encourage this and politicians who maliciously didn’t encourage this, this woman would be alive today. This is why she died, because of people like Waltz. So obviously, Judicial Watch will do what it can to investigate the mess in Minnesota. Not only the immigration mess, the welfare mess we’ve been battling in Minnesota for years. Remember, we sued Minneapolis.

Over their racist woke racist teachers union contract that protected people by race from being fired. So if you were black, you got protected in layoffs, but if you were white, you were targeted. And the leftist Supreme Court of Minnesota didn’t want that case to go forward. So, thankfully, the Justice Department responded to our request for an investigation with their own litigation. Minnesota is out of control in terms of governance, and I would argue they’re not being governed at all. I mean, is Tim Waltz like Maduro? No, but he’s a little bit like him. The I’m above the law attitude, the contempt for the rule of law, the willingness to allow fraud to take place because he politically benefits from it, and pretending that because he’s left us, all the seemingly improper acts and unethical acts he commits are okay.

That’s what the left is about. So we got the new year off to a start here in Washington, D.C. with a court hearing for January 6th videos. And coincidentally, the court had ordered a hearing for this week. As I said, it was the fifth anniversary of January 5th, which we noticed by highlighting how Judicial Watch was able to get a $5 million wrongful death sentence settlement for Ashley Babbitt’s family from the Trump administration. President Trump essentially made it happen. Remember, she was the only official homicide victim that day. And to take a step back, you want to know what a wrongful shooting looks like, what a wrongful police shooting looks like, what an unlawful police shooting looks like.

Take a look at this video of Ashley getting killed by that cop. There’s a gun. There’s a gun. There’s a gun. He’s got a gun. I mean, he shot into a crowd. He ambushed her and killed her with that shot. That’s what a wrongful police shooting looks like. Compare and contrast it with the woman trying to run that cop, the ICE officer, over. Didn’t tell her to stop, didn’t warn her, just shot her. He didn’t even see her. By his own admission. He couldn’t see who she was or what she was doing other than her being in that window area.

That’s what January 6th is about. And, of course, Judicial Watch has been second to few, I would say second to none, really, in exposing the full truth or trying to get much to the full truth about January 6th. We’ve sued for the videos from Congress. Congress released them thanks to our lawsuit and our pressure. And we also sued for videos of the body cam cameras of D.C. police who were present that day at the U.S. capitol in the area around it. And in response to our lawsuit, the D.C. government has said, you can’t have the videos unless you give us $1.5 million, essentially, to blur out virtually everyone in the videos and actually knock out the audio so we wouldn’t be able to see and hear any videos.

So this is, like, typical, worst. It’s almost like a joke in terms of government secrecy and contempt for your right to know. You give us $1.5 million, and we’ll give you material that’s completely, essentially useless in terms of public information. So we’ve been battling back and forth for this. When did we file this? Oh, we filed it in June of 2020. It takes, you know, the courts takes sometimes move too slowly in the District here. The Metropolitan Police Department continues to withhold the January 6th footage because it claims that the faces and voices of every individual who’s not law enforcement personnel in the videos for personal privacy reasons.

Everyone. We were in court today against the D.C. government that’s holding thousands of videos secret on January 6th. They’re saying all the videos should be blurred out, and they want to charge us a million dollars, plus, at $1.5 million actually, to give us videos that we can’t see or literally hear. So the court’s considering that. We hope the court comes down on the side of transparency and against this absurd secrecy. Still on January 6, five years after the fact. Yeah, I mean, real simply, we at Judicial Watch asked for the body camera footage from the D.C.

police officers that arrived at the cap on and around the Capitol on January 6th so that we could see what was going on, how D.C. police responded, what they were responding to, how they interacted. You know, everything that Congress and the public has been calling for full transparency of that day. And D.C. doesn’t want to turn over those tapes without editing them. And that would really just prevent the public from seeing, you know, what happened that day and how D.C. police responded. So the D.C. police, the D.C. government is pretending that everyone who was there on the grounds of the Capitol, we can’t see their faces.

It’s absurd. Think of all the videos that have been released thus far. Somehow the D.C. police says you have a. You go to a public rally and you can’t have your face recorded. I mean, it was the biggest historic event according to the left. Right. The biggest thing that ever happened in American history. And so the court, because if we don’t get, you know, we’re not going to give them. Do you think we should give the D.C. government a million and a half dollars? We should give your donations, a million and a half dollars of your donations to the D.C.

government so that they could give us videos that don’t have anything on them. So obviously we’re fighting in court about it. And we were in court earlier this week. I attended with our lawyer, senior attorney Michael Bekesha, and we had this report about it afterwards. So you can see the Alice in Wonderland arguments we were having to endure or from the D.C. government. And the judge in the case, Judge Sanchez, she’s in a superior court. It’s not in federal court. So, you know, it’s in Superior Court. D.C. superior Court, which is, I guess, a federal court technically, but still it just deals with the city government and local DC Crimes and such.

And so the Attorney General’s office for the District of Columbia had their lawyers there, or a lawyer. Well, yeah, their lawyers there. And the judge heard argument and she’s going to rule. She’s going to rule by May. So this kind of, this again shows you that you’ve got to be insistent and persistent in your oversight of government. So this case has been going on for nearly. It will probably go on for at least two plus years, probably three Years at this point. Point, especially if it’s appealed, it could go on five years. It’s five years after January 6, 2021, and the D.C.

police hasn’t released one body cam video to the public. Now, have there been videos from the D.C. police released otherwise? Yes, through law enforcement proceedings. But they’re very selective, very selectively released, because they’re only released in the context of the crazed prosecutions of January sixers by the Biden gang. So, you know, Judicial Watch isn’t just out there commenting on news of the day and saying, oh, we got to do this, we got to do that. In terms of politics and policy. That’s not what we do. I mean, we do a little bit of it. I talk as much as, to be fair, I talk as much as the next person about what I think needs to be done.

But our core work is going into court to try to get the truth about what the government’s up to. And we want to know what the D.C. police Department has about January 6th. What did they see, what did police officers see and what did they do? And that we are fighting a liberal jurisdiction that’s trying to hide police conduct is just, you know, ironic icing on the cake, isn’t it? So I’ll let you know what happens when we get, you know, if we get the videos and we win in court. I’ll be shouting from the rafters.

So stay tuned. So another January. Well, this is January 6th week at Judicial Watch, I guess we have a separate lawsuit following up on what I think was a pretty astonishing disclosure we forced out of the government through another lawsuit about the CIA being around on January 6th. You heard me. The CIA had people there on January 6th. Let me show you what the material shows. Judicial Watch records show CIA deployed Bomb Tech’s dog teams to D.C. on January 6th. So we filed this lawsuit against the ATF for records about January 6th. We got the material on when did we file that lawsuit.

So we asked for the ATF records back in April 2023, and they actually gave us some records relatively quickly in terms of government time. It was within a year or so, thanks to the lawsuit. It wasn’t like it was voluntary disclosure. But the Biden administration fessed up that there were CIA people around on January 6th. And as we disclosed in the initial release, There was this January 7th intel chain looked like an ATF chain in which two separate references to participation by the CIA are made. One states that two CIA bomb techs were assisting with a pipe bomb seen in New Jersey and d Street southeast.

So you had the CIA deploy in a law enforcement capacity here in the United States. And then secondly, there were several CIA dog teams on standby. South drone reported a southwest region of the capital. In response, seven NGA dog teams, two tf, and several CIA dog teams on standby. So we want to know more about what the CIA was doing. I mean, it could have been completely normal and innocent. And this is what the sort of support they’re authorized to give. Of course, no one’s asking any questions other than Judicial Watch about the CIA being present at the Capitol on January 6th and being ready to take action.

I mean, is the CIA training to take law enforcement action against US Citizens? I didn’t think that was something they were supposed to be doing. Maybe there’s a legal process that allows them to do that. That’s why we asked more questions. We wanted questions about what the CIA was doing on January 6th. Tell us about these bomb techs. Tell us about these dog teams. Tell us about anything else you were doing on January 6th. So we filed one lawsuit, found records about the CIA involvement in January 6th, involvement that would never have been disclosed or was only disclosed thanks to Judicial Watch litigation.

No one followed up on it, as best I can tell, other than Judicial Watch. So we asked for records from the CIA. They gave us the proverbial hand to the face, no, you can’t get anything. And they basically ignored us. So we sued. We sued almost. We sued a few months after we uncovered that the CIA was at Congress, or, excuse me, at the Capitol on January 6th. And that was in August of 2024. So last month, they tell us essentially that they still are looking for records, and they don’t know when the searches are going to be complete.

In fact, it could take as long as four years to search for records about what the CIA was doing at the Capitol on January 6th. I’ll say it one more time. The CIA told a federal court they may need up to 48 months to complete the search of records about what the CIA knew about January 6th and what it was doing in the US Capitol or at the US Capitol, why CIA personnel were there, are about to be deployed there. And here’s the proof. Now, some people I know, God love you, I come on and say certain things, and you’re like, well, I don’t believe it because I don’t see any records.

Well, first of all, I’m talking, so I’m not showing you records, but here are the records for those of you who don’t have faith. So this is what is called a joint status report. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll describe what happens in courts from time to time, especially when there’s like an ongoing case, like a FOIA case that takes, you know, as I see it, forever in a day. From my perspective, the court wants to be apprised what’s going on here. And so the parties file what is known as a joint status report. So the plaintiff, which is Judicial Watch corporately, and the defendant in this case is the Central Intelligence Agency, files a.

This is where things stand. And the plaintiffs say, this is where things stand from our perspective. And the defendant says where things stand from their perspective. So this is what they say. Since September 5, 2025. Let me blast it up a little bit so you can see it better. Defendant has continued to conduct searches to include review for responsiveness. A significant volume of potentially responsive materials has been returned, causing the responsive review to take significantly longer than anticipated. Based on the review, this is the key defendant as conducted thus far. And the documents defendant has reviewed to date, Defendant estimates it will take an additional 48 months to complete the responsiveness search.

So when they say it takes 48 months to complete the search, that means. That means they’re done searching. It doesn’t explain when we’re going to get the documents, doesn’t explain it at all. And then they say, as a way to accelerate the search process, Defendant is amenable to. Amenable to working with plaintiff to reduce the number of potentially responsive records by excluding categories of records that, while potentially responsive, may not be the types of records plaintiff seeks. Well, that’s, you know, come on, we do that all the time with agencies. Everyone thinks Judicial Watch goes in and, you know, we don’t try to cut to the chase and get the records that we think are going to be most important.

And don’t let the government pretend that the search is so overwhelming they can’t do anything. We don’t give them an excuse. We try to figure out ways to cut to the chase, as I said, and get the documents. So, for example, we don’t necessarily want to say, well, there are newspaper stories. Do you want stories that are press office gathered, things like that? We may say, don’t worry about that for now. So this is what our response is. And I think it’s important you see our response to understand the disingenuous nature of these government deep state lawyers in responding to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits.

And by the way, these are lawyers. So it’s a twofer Right. So you’ve got the senior leadership of the CIA ultimately responsible for this, and then the senior leadership of the Justice Department ultimately responsible for this because the CIA is represented by Justice Department attorneys in FOIA lawsuits. So it’s Judicial Watch versus the CIA and Justice Department in federal court right now. Defendant has failed to provide defendant being the CIA, the fulsome description of its efforts ordered by the court. Defendant has not explained order why its search is not complete or when it expects the search to be complete.

It is offered no specifics as to the number of records located, the number of records reviewed, the rate at which defendant CIA is reviewing records, or when records might actually be produced. In short, no information has been offered to suggest that any progress whatsoever has been made in responding to our request. So we will propose filing a joint status report in March to figure out where we are in March. And what did the court do in response to this joint status report? Really nothing much. The court ordered the parties to inform the court to the in the next scheduled joint status report about the status of the production and any efforts to reduce the number of potentially responsive records in order to focus on the types of records.

Yeah, it is Gigi. Yeah. So Judge Cobb essentially doesn’t want to have a status conference. She just wants another report. I wish the courts would be more persistent with getting these agencies to respond, but this is the frustration I have as president of Judicial Watch. You know, the Trump administration, you would think, would want to get this information out. What happens is we file these FOIA requests. The leadership of the agencies don’t put a priority on responding to these requests for transparency on scandals that they tell us they’re concerned about, and we end up fighting them in federal court.

Why on earth is Judicial Watch having. It’s one thing to go into court just to kind of get attention made. That I understand is going to happen no matter who’s in office. But once we’re in court, why is it we continue getting the runaround from this Justice Department and the agencies it defends? We’re getting the runaround from the FBI on key documents. We’re getting the run around from the Justice Department on key documents, from the CIA on key documents, from HHS on key documents, on issues that you care about, issues that I know President Trump cares about, and in my experiences, Trump wants to be transparent on this stuff.

But there’s always an excuse from the deep state, always an excuse from some of the appointees as to why they can’t be transparent as the law requires. We’re not asking to do anything special. We’re saying follow FOIA law. So it’s frustrating. But I want you to know that the CIA was at the Capitol on January 6th in some form or fashion, was prepared to deploy additional assets to the Capitol on January 6th. And rather than tell us what the heck was going on, given that extraordinary development and information, they’re telling us that they need four years to tell us what went on and then some.

So we have a joint status report in March. Hopefully, we’ll get some more information there. But, you know, I can complain about the court not doing what I think the court should do, but in the end, with foia, it’s usually the agencies that are the problem. I mean, we shouldn’t even have to be in court. We shouldn’t even have to be in court. I mean, it’s one thing to go into court against the Biden administration. You understand why the Biden administration might not want this out, but then have this defended by the Trump administration, by President Trump’s appointees.

If I were President Trump, I’d get on the horn and say, what the heck is going on with you people? Get these documents out to the Judicial Watch and the American people. They have a right to know. And I want them to know. Because as President Trump highlighted, we’ve been fed a lot of big lies about January 6th. So as we begin the new year, this may be the most significant year ever for Judicial Watch in terms of advancing the ball on election integrity. We have had two cases before the Supreme Court or have two cases before the United States Supreme Court.

One case is related to a lawsuit we filed in Illinois over that state’s counting of ballots that arrived after Election Day for up to two weeks, meaning a ballot can be two weeks late and still get counted if it’s mailed in, even if it doesn’t have a postmark. And the courts ruled that a candidate, our client, Congressman Boss, didn’t have the right to sue over that lawlessness because federal law sets Election Day, not on Election Week. You’ve got to get the ballots in by Election Day. There’s no provision in federal law extending that, except potentially in very narrow circumstances, which don’t occur here.

So we made that argument against the Supreme Court late last year, I guess, in the fall of last year. And we expect we could get a decision anytime at that point, at this point. But separately, on the underlying issue, we are now before the Supreme Court. They’re going to set an argument date on the underlying merits, meaning whether states can count ballots that arrive after election day, which we argue is contrary to federal law. So we’ve got that lawsuit in Illinois. We have a similar lawsuit in California, where they count ballots seven days after election day.

And then in Mississippi, they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after election day. And long story short, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has Mississippi in its jurisdiction, found the counting of ballots that arrive after election day is unlawful. So I suspect, of course, the Supreme Court could do all sorts of odd things in response to this lawsuit and decide not to rule on the underlying issue. But based on the way the argument went, I suspect we’re going to win in terms of the candidate standing to challenge elections from being stolen contrary to law or being rigged contrary to law.

And secondly, we’re going to get a decision one way or another about whether states can count ballots that arrive after election day, which we argue is not only contrary to federal law before the Supreme Court, but the reasons for upholding that law are significant because it invites fraud. It undermines confidence in the elections. I mean, if someone is winning on election day and all of a sudden ballots come in afterwards and get counted and change the result, an election is ruined over that. In California, for example, there are two members of Congress who are Democrats who are now in office who were only there because of ballots that arrived after election day.

Their Republican incumbent opponents were winning on election night. And the results change because what we argue are unlawfully counted ballots. The ballots are invalid. You get it’s too late. You show up a week after election day, you’re not going to be able to go into the voting booth. Why should your ballot get counted? So there are laws that allow the counting of ballots received after election day in at least, I think it’s 19 states, last I checked. Could be fewer. And whether those laws are valid are now before the Supreme Court of the United States, thanks to your Judicial Watch.

And it was Judicial Watch that took the lead in generating the legal challenges on this important issue. The RNC came in after us and they’ve got the lawsuit as well against Mississippi, but they were following our lead. It’s clear. There’s no one better than Judicial Watch when it comes to enforcing the rule of law on elections. There really isn’t Judicial Watch. Litigation and legal actions over the last few years has resulted in, or have resulted in 5 million dirty names being cleaned from the rolls. 5 million names. These are names of people who have died, moved away, or otherwise became ineligible because they didn’t show up and vote, more or less.

And what happens is the states allow these people to remain on the rolls, and it’s a pool from which fraudsters can. Draw from to vote illegally and fraudulently. That’s the danger of having dirty voting rules. I mean, I’m sure most of you know or have experienced stories of your name either being on the voting list after you moved or, or you being aware of someone in your family having that issue or still getting ballot material and voting material in your home after your son, daughter, or someone has moved away for years and years later. And Judicial Watch was the first private entity to go to court to enforce the federal law that requires reasonable steps to clean up the roll.

And we’ve been successful. Five million names clean. Just think about that. Five million Fewer opportunities for voter fraud. And we have this election integrity map on our website at JudicialWatch.org, which highlights where we’ve been doing some of this work in New York. Look at this. New York City, we cleaned up almost a million names. Let’s go down to North Carolina. North Carolina, 430,000 inactive names removed from voter rolls in North Carolina. Kentucky, 735,000 inactive names removed from voting rolls nationwide. We’ve got a lawsuit in Illinois to clean up millions named. Well, I don’t know how many names, literally, but when you look at the lawsuits in Illinois, Oregon, California, we’ve got three new lawsuits under the nvra, the National Voter Registration act, to clean up millions of names in those jurisdictions, even though we’ve already cleaned up 1.2 million names in Los Angeles county, thanks to a prior lawsuit.

I mean, it just, you know, people say, well, how do you know? Well, we go back and check. We clean up rolls in Los Angeles county, but the rest of the state was a mess. Oregon, they’ve got many of the places in Oregon, essentially, you’ve got more people on the rolls than are eligible to vote. Colorado, 306,000 inactive names removed from the voting rolls in Colorado. So I could go on and on. Let me go back. There’s. There’s another state we were very active in. Pennsylvania, 180,000 names removed. Indiana and Ohio, we filed lawsuits and got the law essentially settled about how it is you deal with cleaning up the voting roll.

So we’ve got Supreme Court cases trying to stop ballots from being illegally counted that arrive late in the mails. We’ve got dozens of cases in legal actions that resulted in 5 million names being cleaned up from the rolls, and millions more potentially will be cleaned up. Assuming our new federal lawsuits are successful, we have more Lawsuits in the offing in the sense that there are other jurisdictions that haven’t cleaned up the rolls. So we’ll be pursuing those jurisdictions this year as well, because there are 24 million names that still need to be cleaned up on our voting rolls right now.

24 million. So that’s all to say that in 2026, it’s going to be a big deal for election integrity. You know, Congress hasn’t done much when it comes to election integrity. They passed a SAVE act to try to ensure illegal aliens aren’t voting. Justice Department has begun to do some important work on cleaning up the rolls. They’ve been asking states and having to sue states because the left doesn’t want to turn over voting roll information to them. But they haven’t sued states directly yet. Like Judicial Watch has to clean up the rolls almost immediately. Maybe they’ll do that soon.

Maybe they’ll join Judicial Watch lawsuits. We would welcome them. I guess maybe I should ask our lawyers whether we’d welcome one or not, but I think we would. So it’s just great work at Judicial Watch desk. So go to the Judicial Watch Election Integrity map to learn a little bit more about what we’re doing. But there’s no one doing more heavy lifting in the United States right now on election integrity than just additional action. We’ve got a case that could overturn laws that induce fraud, in my view, in 20 states, including the District of Columbia. And we’ve cleaned up millions of names.

I mean, think of all the work we do. I mean, you know, we get this information on January 6th. We do the information on Lawfare, Hillary’s emails, the targeting of Trump, all the work Judicial Watch does. And on top of that, we’re saving our elections. We’re trying to. So I encourage you, if you haven’t already, you’ve heard my narrative today. You like what you hear? You want more of it? Then support our cause. Join our movement. Support Judicial Watch. At JudicialWatch.org, judicialWatchOneword.org Click on the donate button. And another thing you can do, if you’re watching this video, I don’t know which platform you’re watching it on.

Follow us. Subscribe. Whatever it is that you’re supposed to do to get the word out on social media, get the word out. Because the media isn’t going to push this out. And too often on social media, it’s kind of what’s happening now, right? Things kind of come and go and people get excited about a particular issue, and I get excited about particular issues as things come kind of hit, and then all of a sudden, they’re not there anymore in terms of topics. But we kind of are just kind of like the turtle that wins the race.

We just keep on plodding on, on these important issues like election integrity, like suing the CIA for years to try to get basic information about what they were doing on January 6th. It’s just great, great work. And I’m proud to be president of Judicial Watch. And this is why I am unapologetic. And I should be actually asking you more times for money, many more times. Because as PBS used to say, if Judicial Watch didn’t do it, who would? With that. 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.