➡ Judicial Watch, a legal group, is challenging the counting of late ballots in elections. They argue that it’s against federal law to count votes that arrive after Election Day, and that this practice can lead to fraud and undermine trust in the election process. The case is now before the Supreme Court, which will decide whether federal law, which sets Election Day, bars the counting of ballots that arrive too late. This case is significant as it could affect how elections are conducted in the future.
➡ The article discusses a legal case arguing against the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day. It suggests that this practice violates federal law, encourages voter fraud, and undermines public trust in elections. The article also highlights the history of mail-in voting in the U.S., stating that it only became significant recently. The legal team behind the case is praised for their hard work and expertise, and readers are encouraged to support their efforts.
➡ The text discusses concerns about universal mail voting and inaccurate voter registration lists, which can lead to election fraud. It highlights the work of Judicial Watch, an organization that has removed millions of ineligible registrations and is suing states for not maintaining their voter lists. The text also criticizes the practice of counting ballots received after Election Day, arguing it creates confusion. Lastly, it mentions a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch to obtain information about an assassination attempt on President Trump in 2024.
➡ The article discusses a situation where the Secret Service failed to adequately protect President Trump, despite warnings of a potential threat. The author criticizes the lack of transparency from the FBI and the Justice Department, stating that it took a lawsuit to release important information about the incident. The article also raises concerns about the Secret Service’s ability to protect the President. The author concludes by stating that Judicial Watch will continue to investigate these issues.
➡ The article discusses concerns about the safety of American roads due to lax regulations and oversight, particularly regarding commercial truck drivers who may not meet necessary requirements, including language proficiency. It highlights the issue of noncitizens being granted commercial driver’s licenses, potentially leading to accidents. The author praises efforts by the Trump administration to address this issue, but criticizes the Biden administration for perceived negligence. The article ends with a promise of further investigation and potential litigation to address this issue.

Hey, everyone. Judish, you watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you as always for joining us. So much happening just this week alone. To brief you on. First up, the Supreme Court of the United States. There is an argument set in a key Judicial Watch case, indeed an historic Judicial Watch case, concerning elections and whether late ballots can be counted. The hearing has been set for March 23rd. Judicial Watch is taking the lead in challenging states that count ballots that arrive after election Day. Federal Watch sets Election Day. It’s pretty simple.

And if your ballot gets late, it’s too late to be counted. But some states count late ballots or ballots that arrive late as long as two weeks after election Day. In Illinois, where we’ve challenged that law, in California, it’s seven days, and in Mississippi, it’s five days after election Day. And there in Mississippi, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court dismissal of our challenge and the RNC is also challenging it. We’re representing, our lawyers are the Libertarian Party, that the court throwing out the case was wrong, that it is unlawful to count ballots.

It contradicts federal law that sets an election day. So it’s unlawful to count ballots that arrive after election day. It’s pretty straightforward application of the law. Otherwise, it’s meaningless. You know, if it’s not, if you can count for two weeks after election Day, why not four weeks after election day? Why not a year after election day? Why not up until the next election, for all we know? So certainly elections have to be meaningful, need to have deadlines. And that’s the case before the Supreme Court. Now, upwards of 30 states allow the late counting of ballots. The ballots that come in late are counted.

So this is a substantial issue before the court. And so substantial issue is about whether we’re going to have elections that A, comply with federal law, but B, have rules that don’t invite fraud. Because obviously, if you kind of allow the ballots to come in after the fact, that’s one way and an easy way to try to game the outcome. And we want rules that inspire confidence in the election administration because if people think the system’s rigged and yeah, when you count ballots late or late ballots, as if the election day doesn’t matter, it makes it seem like the whole thing is a joke.

So this is a tremendous case we’re prepping. And part of the prepping obviously, is a lawsuit. And, you know, that was filed a few years ago and now it’s before the Supreme Court of the United States. And just last month we had a lawsuit first in Illinois, but they found the the lower court said that our client, Congressman Boss and two electors didn’t have standing the challenge counting illegally of ballots. And the Supreme Court affirmed in a 7 to 2 decision, thanks to your heavy lifting Judicial Watch just in January, that essentially candidates have almost an inherent right to be able to challenge unlawful counting of ballots or as allegedly.

So that was a major victory and frankly vindication for President Trump, who was barred at the court door by ridiculous variations of standing, where all of a sudden a candidate somehow didn’t have an interest in making sure an election was run legally and they didn’t have the right to be in court. So that was a tremendous victory. So now this case now is the underlying issue about whether federal law which sets election Day, bars the counting of ballots that arrive too late after Election day, obviously mail in ballots. So we filed this big brief. It’s a big brief.

I encourage you to read it. It’s available below. How many pages is it? I jokingly complained to the lawyers it was too long to read, but it really wasn’t too long to read. It’s 48 pages. And I encourage you to read it all. And I’m not going to read you all 48 pages. I’m going to read you a few paragraphs here. And certainly from the beginning that give you a feel for what the issue is, because I think it’s an interesting issue. You know, you may not agree with me on the issue, but certainly the debate is well worth having.

It is about the election administration under law for since the beginning of our country. It’s about who has the right to run elections and under what rubric they do. They do. So meaning what are the states powers to run elections and how do they intersect with the federal Constitution in terms of federal elections and whether the feds can come in and make sure that the rules are followed in a uniform way. So it’s an interesting historic case that gets to the heart of how we elect our politicians into the presidency and into Congress. So if you go and look at our there are a few things I wanted to draw your attention to.

Let me get to the. Well, let me give, let me give you some of the key parts that I think is interesting from the beginning that gives you a feel for what the case is about and helps you understand just how deep the history is as it relates to the law that we’re trying to uphold. This case, and this comes from the introduction of our brief. This case is about whether federal elections end on the statutorily designated election day or whether the receipt of ballots can continue for days or weeks later. When Congress enacted the election day statutes, and there are three of them, there was the election day statute with respect to the President, Congress, the House specifically, and then once they had direct popular elections for senators, they added the senators to the election day statutes.

It did so to. So when Congress set those statutes, it did so to set a uniform day of national elections and to prevent real or perceived fraud of occasioned by states setting election day at disparate times. The fifth Circuit, which of course that’s the circuit that made that key ruling that we’re trying to uphold, drawing on ordinary meaning historical practice and this court’s decision in Foster versus Love correctly held that the day for the election of federal officeholders is in two USC sections 1 and 7 and 3 USC section 1, you can go look them up encompasses both the submission and receipt of ballots such that both must conclude on election day.

Because Mississippi, and as I say, many other states, extends ballot receipt beyond the federally fixed election day, its law conflicts with and is thus preempted by the federal election day statutes, the fifth Circuit’s common sense judgment should be affirmed. The conclusion that an election includes both ballot submission and receipt, and not just the former, meaning dropping your ballot in the mail, that’s the election. Obviously it’s not Find support from all the usual sources of ordinary meaning. Dictionaries and treatises from around the time of enactment defined an election to include ballot receipt. State courts did too. Contemporaneous state election codes viewed an election as encompassing both the elector’s offer to vote through presentment of a marked ballot and the official’s acceptance of that vote through receiving the marked ballot into official custody.

The nation’s first foray into absentee voting during the Civil War confirms as much as virtually every state required ballots to be received by the election officials on or before election day. There is thus overwhelming evidence that the ordinary public meaning of election at the time the election day statutes were in enacted encompassed ballot receipt. That view likewise corresponds with the dominant theme and purpose of the statutes, namely that there be a single uniform day by which all the ballots are in and the counting can begin. Arguing to the contrary, Petitioner, which is the State of Mississippi, and Respondents Vet Voice foundation and Mississippi alliance for Retired Persons, two left wing groups advance an entirely implausible understanding of an election.

They define an election to include marking and submitting a ballot, but to exclude official receipt of that ballot. That counterintuitive distinction would have struck the 19th century public as bizarre. At the same time, virtually all ballots were marked, submitted, received, and deposited at polling stations in a matter of moments. Nobody from the relevant era would have thought that an election was over before the ballots were received by election officials. After all, receipt into official custody was the very act that transformed an elector’s ballot from an ordinary piece of paper into a legally operative vote. To them, the election would have not been over until the ballot box was closed and no further ballots could be received.

We go on to say the whole point of the federal Election day statutes is to set a single uniform day for the election. Allowing ballots to trickle in for days or weeks after election day is antithetical to that basic goal. Indeed, a patchwork of state ballot receipt deadlines replicates the problems Congress was trying to remedy with a single national election day back in the 19th century. It is entirely implausible to conclude that Congress, when they thrice exercising its preemptive power under the elections and electors clauses, left the door open for states to vitiate those statutes by postponing electoral outcomes with post election ballot receipt deadlines.

Congress certainly did not leave the states to power to to undo the important federal time regulation by simply declaring all mailboxes to be ballot boxes. Isn’t that a great insight by our legal team, Mail in balloting? They at least argued here. The petitioners are arguing, those defending late counting of ballots. They’re pretending that putting your ballot in the mailbox is the equivalent of putting it in a ballot box. Well, that’s not only absurd thinking, it’s wrong to tell voters that, in my view. Wrong to tell voters that because your ballot, as we note, isn’t really anything of note until it’s captured and counted.

Allowing ballots to be received by election officials well after the polls closed on election day would have struck the Congresses that passed those statutes, and the public at first read them as unthinkable. In short, text, history and common sense all converge on a single result. The election ends on election Day, not days or weeks later when the last ballots are received. So it’s a pretty powerful case, don’t you agree? And I encourage you to read Judicial Watch’s brief in this case because it explains and goes back through the history of election laws, not only here in the United States, but in the various states and the various states.

And there’s a particular section I wanted you to take a look at, great material on how mail in balloting began and quickly ended, because it began during the Civil War in large measure, and then almost quickly as soon as the war ended, largely ended. And mail in balloting in any meaningful measure didn’t really start until relatively recently in American history. And certainly the counting of late ballots didn’t start in any meaningful way until just 15 years ago, not even that long ago. So this is a significant issue of history that we’re trying to put before the court to affirm the longstanding federal law that Election Day is the first Tuesday.

What is it? The first Tuesday after the first Monday of the month of November. And if you go to page, let me get the brief up for you to show you, because I, you know, if you’re a lawyer, you might appreciate this. I’m not a lawyer, but I do appreciate it because I know what the lawyers have to do for a brief like this. This is the section. Let’s take a look at the section. The text of the election day statutes confirms the ballot receipt is part of the election. And we go on to describe it.

That much is clear. Later on we write that much is clear from the historical backdrop against which Congress enacted the election day statutes. State election codes at the time uniformly treated an election as an event to be held or conducted. And so we have the footnote there. You see the little footnote too. There you go. And then look at the site. If you want to know what your state did, you can look at footnote two. Look at that. Illinois, Virginia’s code. Alaska. Is that Alabama? I’m assuming that’s Alabama’s code. Alabama’s code. California, Minnesota, Michigan. There, you know, goes on and on.

Nebraska, Tennessee. So what’s great about these footnotes? And I encourage you to read the brief for the full. Here’s another footnote with citation after citation of code. And we just don’t, you know, at least I hope we don’t. I’m sure we don’t use ChatGPT to put these codes in there. This is the result of legal expertise and research bar that has no parallel, frankly, in how careful one has to be in terms of making sure every site is correct. But you can go back and look at all, you can go through and look at all of these statutes and you can find out what your state used to do back in the day before federal law required states to have one day only or in terms of a deadline for ballot receipt.

So it’s just great work by our legal team, which is legion in this regard. So it’s just great work. And I encourage you to go and and read the full brief. And as I note in our press release, this is the most important Supreme Court election integrity case in a generation. The pandemic spread of states counting late ballots received after Election Day is a flagrant violation of longstanding federal law that not only encourages voter fraud, but also severely undermines public confidence in our elections. The the Supreme Court now has a critical opportunity to restore a fundamental guardrail to the election process.

And as I said, a lot of hard work goes into this type of litigation, which is now before the highest court in the land, the most important court in the world, it can be argued. And I encourage you to support our good work in that regard and give credit where credit is due to the legal team that helped put this together. So our election law team is led by Bob Popper, a senior attorney here. He previously was a senior official in the Justice Department tasked with running voting rights investigations across the country. Also, one of the lead lawyers in this case who’s been shepherding this in other cases, not only in Illinois, but Mississippi, but in California, is Russ Nobile, who also served in the public over at the Justice Department trying to enforce the rule of law on voting issues.

And one of our other lead lawyers on these cases is Eric Lee, who is focusing and key to so many of our election law cases, not only this case, but our cases, the cleanup, voting rolls and such. And he’s an essential central member of the team. And on the outside, we have Paul Clement, who’s been helping us in this case and might argue the case before the Supreme Court in March, and James Z. Xi and Philip Hammersley of his firm, Clement and Murphy. So thank you guys for your fine work on this brief. So we’ve got a lot of great legal talent behind this.

And as you know, litigation ain’t free. We’re representing the Libertarian Party here, and we’re really appreciative that they chose Judicial Watch to push this case for them. And, you know, on these very issues. We’re also representing Darrell Issa, Congressman from California, and Congressman Bost in the famous Bost case that we just won on standing in Illinois. But this doesn’t come cheap. The work is significant. It is historic in nature. And in addition to thanking our legal team, I want to thank you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, if you’re supporting this work, you’ve helped us get to the Supreme Court not once but twice on a key election law issue.

We’ve won one of the cases already. Next one comes up next month, and then the court will decide, presumably by the end of the term and probably by the end of June or so. And we are only able to do this great work with the support of Judicial Watch members such as those. And you know who you are if you’re supporting us, and I encourage you if you’re not. This is the sort of work we’re doing and we can’t do it without the generous financial support, voluntary. We don’t get tax dollars to do the work, Lord knows of patriotic Americans.

And so go to judicialwatch.org and also read this brief. Get the brief out there. Have other people read it. It’s just great history. And go back and look at the VAS decision that we won. You’re going to be thrilled about that as well. And I talked about Russ Nobile. Congress called him the other day to talk about the election integrity measures that they are considering in the House. They passed the Saved act out of the House of Representatives this past week. There’s another bill they’re calling, I think the Mega Bill, which even further strengthens election integrity measures.

And I think Russ was asked specifically to talk about that in terms of making sure the rolls are clean and things that Judicial Watch is really quite expert and adept at. So Russ was testifying on behalf of Judicial Watch. And you, if you’re a Judicial Watch supporter or other patriotic American who wants the rule of law upheld and strengthened when it comes to election integrity, he just testified this week and his presentation was excellent. I encourage you to go and watch it in its entirety. Watch the entire hearing, the good and the bad as far as I’m concerned, from the left especially.

But here is Russ opening statement to the House Administration Committee earlier this week. The core point of my testimony is simple Public confidence and integrity of elections is declining. The decline is not driven by lack of ballot access, but rather inadequate and lax enforcement of basic election integrity safeguards. The data tell us a clear story. Voter registration and turnout continue to go higher and minority ballot access is at or near record levels. Historical racial disparities supporting the need to promote ballot access have largely been eliminated. At the same time, the public strongly supports common sense election integrity measures.

Large majorities support voter ID and uniform election deadlines. They support proof of citizenship requirements and clean registration lists. Yet despite this consensus, many states have moved to undermine election integrity. One of the most troubling shifts has been the expansion of universal mail voting, which sends unsolicited ballots automatically to all voters, regardless of eligibility. My written testimony describes how progressive politicians proposed this very system 100 years ago. It was a bad idea then. It remains a bad idea. No mature democracy would adopt such an insecure voting system. Among other ills, it weakens chain of custody protections. It increases the risk of coercion and brings that risk of coercion to people’s houses, a real risk for vulnerable voters.

It risks third party interference and administrative error. It erodes public trust in elections. Universal mail voting is bad policy in any context, but it’s particularly bad when combined with inaccurate voter registration lists. Not long ago, the Supreme Court found that 24 million registrations, about 1 in 8 in the United States, are invalid or inaccurate, and 2.75 million people were registered in multiple states. Dirty lists have long been the gateway for other election mischief. Take California, who Judicial Watch is suing right now on behalf of the Libertarian Party. It has both universal mail voting and dirty registration list.

Our own internal analysis found that 21 counties with approximately 6 million voters removed a combined 11 voters over two years for change of address. That’s 11 voters removed from a group of 6 million 11 over two years. The NVRA imposes modest list maintenance duties on states, and it guarantees organizations like Judicial Watch access the list maintenance records so we can verify compliance with federal law. Many states fail under both federal obligations. Many do not conduct meaningful list maintenance. And when we simply ask them for the records to verify, as we’re allowed to under federal law, they refuse, delay, or claim the records do not exist.

Now they’re not even giving the records to the Department of Justice, where I formally worked and would ordinarily ask for these records from 2004 to 2010. Those refusals are not just technical oversights. They defeat transparency. They prevent public oversight and undermine public confidence in the election administration. Last year, Judicial Watch reported that our enforcement efforts over the years have resulted in more than 5 million ineligible registrations being removed nationwide. 5 million. Despite our success, we’ve barely moved the needle. Just last month, Oregon’s new Secretary of State announced that they needed to remove 800,000 inactive voters in response to our lawsuit.

The evidence shows that Oregon hasn’t removed voters since 2017. While Oregon’s announcement is progress, it illustrates just how pervasive state non compliance has become. We have other suits pending. Finally, I address the recent trends where states are allowing ballots to arrive days and weeks after Election Day. For the last five years, my colleagues and I have sued several states challenging this practice. And last month the Supreme Court ruled in our favor in the first case in which we represent Congressman Vice Michael Boss in his suit against Illinois. It took four years to get a federal court to say that we could sue.

And finally, the Supreme Court agreed. The regressive practice of allowing ballots to roll in for days and weeks after Election Day is chiefly responsible for creating the Banana Republic style confusion that follow American elections today. Judicial Watch’s client, Libertarian Party of Mississippi, along with the RNC, successfully sued Mississippi in 2024 over this same practice. We won. And then yesterday we filed our brief with the Supreme Court to defend our win. The Supreme Court will hear that case on March 23rd. Our brief is attached in the record 76% of the public support it. History explains why election integrity safeguards exist.

They’re not adopted by accident and they’re not racist. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. That was a great presentation by Russ, wasn’t it? I encourage you to share it with your markets, as I like to say, your friends, your family, coworkers, members of your church, et cetera. And then there’s a series of questions that take place after the presentation by Russ and the other witnesses. And here’s a sample of, I think, Congressman Mary Miller questioning Russ and highlighting Judicial Watch’s important work. Mr. Noble, first I want to acknowledge and thank you and my Illinois colleague, Congressman Mike Bost for fighting to secure the right of candidates to challenge state election laws in federal court.

As you know, Illinois insists on the controversial practice of counting ballots received after election Day. And I’m glad that Congressman Boss challenge to that policy is moving forward on its merits. In regards to a related case, how does Watson vs. RNC currently before the Supreme Court affect congressional efforts to ensure that ballots are received no later than Election Day? If you know there’s been some, I guess the Supreme Court will settle the issue under current law if we prevail. Congress can obviously make new law and be more explicit in what it requires if it acts now.

But this question which arose in Boston first and now is in Watson, is what is the original public meaning of the 1840 statutes? What is Election Day? Well, we’re going to look forward to that. When it comes to voter roll maintenance, how do we ensure that states comply with the requirements set by MEGA act when many are already non compliant with the current NVRA statute? Well, I think forced disclosures, which we try to do at Judicial Watch and then frankly just follow up with suits. I mean we are, there’s fertile ground and opportunities for us to sue over.

Frankly, we shouldn’t have to come to that. But obviously lawsuits help and you know, when we find their laws, when we find a jurisdiction in violation, it’s usually not a close case. I mean, they’re not sending out confirmation notices. They’re not removing people. It’s pretty slam dunk. But, you know, the partisanship nature of the question makes it very difficult to get anyone to just settle and resolve the questions. Well, you can see that Judicial Watch has some excellent legal representation, as evidenced by Russ remarks there. If you want to watch all of the hearing, I think we probably can link it below.

I know it’s on Judicial Watch’s various channels, so feel free to follow up. But we’re not backing down on elections. I mean, what happens is we get a lot of noise about election security around the time of elections. Judicial Watch doesn’t wait for an election to start talking about election security. We’re working on it all year, every year between elections, whether or not they’re happening or not. And that’s why we’re effective, because we just don’t stop. There’s no intermission when it comes to enforcing the rule of law. And we’ve had this big fight about the SAVE act question is whether it’s going to pass the Senate.

I don’t know. It probably won’t. But, you know, we just can’t wait for election years to start talking about election integrity. I want the SAVE act to pass personally. I want national voter id, I want citizenship verification, but it should be front and center much earlier than now. And it’s never too late. But on the other hand, you know, politically, sometimes it can be too late in terms of getting things done. So this is the challenge. And the Judicial Watch rises to the challenge by doing the heavy lifting of election integrity enforcement all the time, as you can see from Russ comprehensive report and testimony.

Great work to Russ Nobile and all the team at Judicial Watch. Well, Judicial Watch, those of you who watch this program regularly know, is the leader when it comes to extracting government information. We do it by asking under federal law, typically the Freedom of Information act or the state variations of it at the state level, for documents from federal government agencies in the executive branch. In this case, it’s the FBI and Justice Department. We had asked almost immediately after the assassination attempt on President Trump in 2024 for records about that assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. And we’ve been ignored.

We had the sue back last year. And finally, we have received the first FBI documents to be released under FOIA thus far about an event that took place nearly two years ago. And again, it’s Judicial Watch that’s getting this information out, not Congress, not the media. It’s not being voluntarily disclosed. It’s being disclosed under court process in our FOIA lawsuit. That is the reason you are gaining access to this information, which is disturbing to read again, because if youi mean you remember, I’m sure, where you were when you heard that President Trump was almost murdered and two others injured.

A poor man was murdered on that day. It was a terrible day. It was a terrible day for the country. And so to go back and read these new FBI documents that Judicial Watch was able to uncover through our FOIA lawsuit, it puts you one back in that place in that time period. So it’s not terribly pleasant, but it’s important to read them because they show what the FBI was asking about, what they were looking at, what information they were gaining, why they were doing the investigation, and other information that we might have guessed about, but didn’t know until Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the release of it.

I think it was just last week. So according to the COVID letter that they gave us with this first batch of documents, 255 pages were reviewed and 37 pages are being released. So hundreds of pages are being withheld from Judicial Watch, and this is the first batch. I don’t know if we’re going to get anything else. But the key There are many highlights or lowlights, depending on your point of view in this document, but it further confirms that everyone who was in a position to do something about it was alerted to the fact that there was a dangerous individual.

And it looked like and the proof is the pudding, right? He was able to get shots off and more shots than he should have been able to get off even once he began firing, which is even more disturbing, despite there being everyone put on alert. And Trump wasn’t protected prior to the start of the shooting. One document shows. This is an interview, it looks like, for the law enforcement agent, redacted. They redact the name of the agent. I think it’s a state official received reports over the radio about an unknown male acting suspiciously. The unknown male had bags and was wearing a gray T shirt with Demolition Ranch written on the front of it.

One report included the unknown male looking at a law enforcement sniper position. Several operators were communicating information about the unknown male back and forth over the radio, including two from Command to the Secret Service to the psp, which is the Pennsylvania State Police, who are providing support to everybody. And they quote everybody, meaning they put everybody in quotes. This is from the FBI. So you have this dramatic confirmation that the Secret Service and the Secret Service is the lead agency here. So. So they’re ultimately responsible. Were warned that there’s Someone up to no good. And yet the president was allowed to get on the stage and later, obviously he was nearly killed.

Really inexcusable. And as far as I’m concerned, it raises questions about whether the FBI, excuse me, the Secret Service has been reformed enough to provide him the security necessary as President of the United States. I don’t think he’s secure under the Secret Service, but protection. Is he partly secure? Yes. Is he sufficiently secure? I don’t believe it for one minute. Not based on my experience and what I know about the Secret Service, which is quite extensive given Judicial Watches, investigations and lawsuits over how it’s run and the problems over there. There’s another interesting document here and there’s a lot of interesting things here and I’m not going to go through all 35 pages, but it is.

They interview a woman who had some interesting run ins with some folks that there. But this I thought was particularly interesting and I want to show it to you and show you how it looks like in the documents themselves. Can we bring that up? So the FBI is interviewing this woman and you’ll see in this center part here, see where the thing is. So she recalled, they obviously redact her name, that approximately five minutes after the shots were fired, a light silver, silver roo hatchback sped past her and almost struck her. She didn’t remember the vehicle having any stickers or distinct markers, didn’t get a look at the license plate, but believed the driver to be an older white male with short hair and tanned skin.

She saw the Subaru in the parking lot near houses, specifically a brown house of the Post. The vehicle departed the parking lot making a sharp right turn near the old buildings. So what do you think of that? I think that’s interesting. Was it someone who panicked? Was it a law enforcement officer or was it someone else? I don’t know. But this is why it’s important to get these records. Once again, it’s Judicial Watch’s investigators that begin this process and then our lawyers follow up with lawsuits when we get the runaround. And I encourage you to read the full batch of documents.

It’s accessible. As I said, it’s not pleasant to read because some of it puts you in that spot again in a few years ago where Trump was almost killed. But it’s important information. I mean, you read about the heroic acts of the local police. I mean, you know, the shots are fired and the local police get in their armored vehicle and immediately go start working. They start protecting people and the medics who were attending to the Injured and the poor man who was killed. Then they run to the hospital to provide security there for President Trump.

Some fine law enforcement officials, certainly at the local level. Prior to these FBI records coming out, the only records we received substantively about the Butler assassination attempt were from local police in Pennsylvania. You’ve may have seen videos. We’ll draw out some videos here. I’ll pause and show them to you. There’s the video of him, crooks holding his phone, looking at his phone. That was uncovered only by Judicial Watch. There are some graphic photos that we’ll show you here. You’ll see there the blood and everything from where he was shot. And I think we have photos of his body as well.

So all of that is because of Judicial Watch. And it’s frustrating as all get out that we had to sue the FBI to get access to basic information about this assassination attempt. Now what was the FBI doing? Why did they do. It’s interesting to see administratively how the, you know, the basis for the investigation because it’s given to us in the document. So I think I’ll share it with you. It’s kind of interesting. So you see here, FBI Pittsburgh is opening captioned investigation based on an articulable factual basis that reasonably indicates that on July 13, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks utilized a DPMS Panther Arms AR style 556 rifle serial number listed to attempt to assassinate former president and current presidential candidate, political candidate Donald J.

Trump while he was speaking at a political rally at the Butler County Fairgrounds. And they list here on the next page the various laws that were at issue in his near killing of President Trump and the murder of that poor innocent man and injuring a others. And so based on the information set forth within this case opening, it is requested that a blank case be opened and assigned to a list of special agents who will be running it for further investigation, such as the subject’s motivation and to identify if there are any co conspirators. As I said, this is just the beginning.

I think it’s just the beginning of the records we’re getting. But this is the first batch of records that the FBI has released to anyone publicly about the investigation of President Trump’s assassination or the assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. And it’s because of Judicial Watch. And isn’t it interesting how like the most important story of the year, arguably other than the election, the near murder of a former president and presidential candidate, Judicial Watch is filing the lawsuit to get basic information about it. I mean, you may Think because a story is of historic importance that the government just automatically releases information or people are lined up to get the info.

That’s not the way it works. So we need watchdogs on the wall, like, let me start over on that one. So we need watchdogs on the wall like Judicial Watch, who in this case is literally at the tip of the spear gaining access to public information about the near murder of our president. And as I say in the press release, you know, I’m happy to get the documents. I’m glad the FBI finally got its act together to release the information. But it wouldn’t have happened but for Judicial Watch. And that’s not really acceptable, the leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department, because when you sue the Justice.

If you ask for documents from the FBI and don’t get them, you’re really asking the Justice Department, because the FBI is a sub agency of the Justice Department. So we sued the Justice Department for FBI documents. So it’s a little bit confusing. But the leadership just get these records out in a timely way. Why are we having to even sue for these records or play this game where we get only a percentage of the records that they’ve actually reviewed? It’s not the way Americans want the government to behave. They want the transparency. I mean, you can see this with the Epstein files.

They want information. Let the chips fall where they may. These documents raise troubling new questions about Secret Service failures to protect President Trump. And it shouldn’t have taken years in a federal lawsuit to get this basic FBI material about the near assassination of President Trump. Unacceptable. So this litigation will continue. Our other lawsuits over Secret Service issues will continue. I mean, we have this lawsuit we just filed not that long ago about how the FBI essentially led Trump into an ambush in a D.C. restaurant that had a bunch of Code Pink protesters who were within dangerous arm’s length proximity to the President.

Unacceptable. Unacceptable. And Judicial Watch will continue to hold the Secret Service to account and frankly, hold the Justice Department and the FBI to account, who seem to be covering for them, as opposed to exposing what went on. So the American people can have some accountability for misconduct and ensure the Secret Service mission is actually being performed, if not by the Secret Service or someone else, which is the protection of President Trump and others who they, by statute and otherwise have to protect. So I will keep you apprised as events warrant. We have a new FOIA lawsuit on another important issue.

And I tell you, some of the worst things I’ve been seeing on the Internet and in the news recently are story after story about alien truck drivers who shouldn’t have licenses or who are otherwise not supposed to be driving or poorly regulated or regulated in a way that’s at odds with federal requirements or even state requirements. To have these truck drivers killing innocent after innocent and crash after crash. It’s just horrible to see. And the American people are outraged about it. They want something done. The Secretary of Transportation, Sean Juffe, has made this a big issue and is trying to fix things.

But this is a case where, you know, where this open borders mentality that we treat, and this is the left’s goal. They don’t want your citizenship to matter. They don’t think noncitizens should be treated any differently than citizens. And so they’ll give them a commercial driver’s license, whether or not they can speak English, whether or not they meet the requirements, or whether or not they’re even legally here. And it leads to people getting killed. But they don’t care. They don’t care because the goal is the destruction of America, destruction of the rule of law and whatever crazed socialist, communist, whatever crazed socialist, communist outcome they want in terms of turning America with a C into America with a K.

Going back to the old Cold War days. And you know, I don’t use the word communist lightly, but I tell you, the lawlessness here is so ideologically based and so impervious to logic, rationality and basic human decency. In terms of concern for public safety, it’s not liberalism, it’s communism and outlook. I mean, they may not, these politicians who defend this type of regulation or lax rules as it relates to the border and open borders and such, they may say, well, I’m not a communist. Well, they certainly act like communists. I don’t mean to belabor the point, but you know, let’s be clear here.

This approach to governance is so inimical, inimical to the American way and our constitutional republic. So that’s kind of a kind of fulsome introduction to the lawsuit that we filed because we asked for some basic records about this key issue. We asked the Department of Transportation for a variety of records. And we know what we’re asking for. We work with people who are concerned about this issue. Our investigators are expert in asking for records generally, and they’ve got a wealth of experience in knowing what to ask for, what the specific request should be, what are the programs we’re asking for.

And you’ll see that here the first request was for records and correspondence related to the cross Border Trucking pilot program. Follow up data. So cross border means Mexico and Canada, likely Mexican domiciled carriers and ownership, driver licensing and expedited processing. English language proficiency enforcement. Right. They’re supposed to enforce the English language requirements in law. It’s not being done. NAFTA renegotiation, guest workers and labor impacts and general safety and oversight records. So this is all about the trucking issues from the Department of Transportation. And the second request asks for records and communications about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s tracking of the grantees they give money to related to commercial vehicle safety plan goals and performance outcomes.

So look, the government’s supposed to be tracking this. They give money away in order to ensure that that the public safety is protected through this commercial driver’s license programming. And it’s clear it hasn’t been. And we want the details as to why it hasn’t been and how to fix it. In April 2025, shortly after he was he came back to office, President Trump got on the horn about this and signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Transportation to rescind guidance that watered down the law requiring English proficiency for commercial drivers in an effort to ensure that drivers, quote, safely navigate roads, comply with regulations and communicate effectively with authorities and employers.

And then Shawn Duffy followed up with an order establishing new guidelines to strengthen English language enforcement. And then in September of last year, he announced further emergency action restricting eligibility for non domiciled commercial learner’s permits and commercial driver’s licenses. The rule was established in response to a nationwide audit by that Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sub agency that no one’s heard of until people started dying on the roads in large numbers and a series, as I said, of horrific fatal crashes. So there’s all sorts of operations to try to pause these commercial driver’s license issuances, get the states to follow the rules in places like California, etc.

And generally protect the safety. And the administration deserves credit for taking this on as directly and aggressively as they are. But we want more information about what happened, who did what and when and why wasn’t it done sooner and what the Biden administration did or didn’t do and what the Trump administration still needs to do. And that’s why we asked for these records and that’s why we sued in court. Americans were dying on our highways because of lax oversight by the Biden administration. President Trump and his administration, as I said, Sean Duffy at Department of Transportation and others are trying to clean it up.

The American people should know the full details of, of this regulatory disaster. So more is coming. We’re looking and doing a deep dive into this issue. You can expect additional litigation by your Judicial Watch. But, you know, look, we all, I shouldn’t say we all drive, but many of us drive. Most of us drive, you know, and if you’re a grandparent or a parent, you know, your kids are out there driving. Just think of families driving on vacations and such. They shouldn’t have to worry needlessly about some alien who has no business driving because of lack of familiarity with the language or the rules of the road, etc.

Or just not supposed to be driving anything. You know, they’re not legally able to drive. Driving giant trucks that can kill countless people in a millisecond. It’s just, it’s unacceptable. That’s the word of the day. Unacceptable. It’s unacceptable that we are seeing people die as a result of lefty politicians refusing to enforce the rule of law on basic, basic oversight that states are supposed to do in line with the federal government requirements. Licenses, driver’s licenses. Get that right. I mean, I’ve skipped over this section going through some of these crashes because I’m going to get too upset looking at them.

But you’ve seen them look them up. So you’ll see why this is just the beginning in terms of litigation with respect to the crisis on our roads caused by the illegal alien invasion and the enablers thereof. So with that, I wish you the best. Have a wonderful week and 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.