➡ New information has been released about the Russiagate scandal, suggesting that the Obama administration manipulated and misled the public to target Trump while protecting themselves. This information, which has been around for years, was only recently declassified. The documents show that the FBI and DOJ were investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails, which were uncovered by Judicial Watch, leading to a criminal investigation. The released information also suggests that the FBI found disturbing material in their investigation, but did not fully pursue it.
➡ The article discusses allegations of corruption and potential obstruction of justice within the FBI, the State Department under Clinton, and the Obama administration. It suggests that despite credible intelligence pointing to these issues, no action was taken due to political bias and a desire to protect certain individuals. The article also criticizes the delay in releasing this information to the public, arguing that it shows a lack of transparency and accountability within these institutions. Finally, it accuses the Mueller operation of protecting corrupt politicians and criticizes the lack of action taken against them.
➡ The article discusses how various U.S. departments knew that Trump was innocent but still investigated him. It also mentions that new documents released suggest that intelligence was manipulated to make it seem like Putin wanted to help Trump win the election. The article further alleges that the Obama administration targeted Trump with politically motivated investigations related to Russia, while ignoring evidence that they were preparing for a Hillary presidency. Lastly, it suggests that the Justice Department and FBI may not be trusted to investigate these matters due to their involvement in the alleged crimes.
➡ The author suggests that President Trump should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate intelligence matters, as the FBI and Justice Department are overwhelmed and compromised. The author criticizes the handling of the Epstein documents and suggests using investigators from other departments like the IRS, Defense Department, Homeland Security, and the Postal Service. The author also expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of current investigations and recommends reading the Judicial Watch books for a comprehensive understanding of the corruption in D.C. Lastly, the author discusses the issue of counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, with ongoing cases in California, Mississippi, and Illinois.
➡ This text discusses a historic election integrity case where Judicial Watch is appealing a decision that denied candidates the right to challenge election rules. The case argues that candidates should be able to challenge rules that may affect the fairness and legality of elections. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal, which could have significant implications for future elections. The text also mentions ongoing efforts by Judicial Watch to clean up voting rolls in various states, arguing that inaccurate voter rolls can lead to fraudulent election results.
➡ Judicial Watch is working on a lawsuit to obtain records related to Epstein, but hasn’t received any documents yet. They’re also investigating Bill Clinton’s trips on Epstein’s plane. Meanwhile, the criminal investigation into Epstein’s activities has been reopened, with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is in jail for related crimes, being interviewed. Judicial Watch is urging for the release of all relevant documents and information.
➡ A man celebrated President Trump’s arrest four times, suggesting he was playing political games and might deserve a criminal investigation. There’s also talk about the Federal Reserve’s lack of transparency, especially with its spending of billions on renovating their headquarters. President Trump, known for his construction background, visited the Federal Reserve to check on the construction and held the chairman accountable for the spending. Lastly, there’s concern about the Defense Department and West Point’s lack of transparency, particularly with the removal of the crest from Bibles in the chapel, which some view as anti-Christian behavior.
➡ The article discusses the controversy at West Point Academy over the removal of the academy’s crest from Bibles, which was seen as an attack on tradition and Christianity. However, the Secretary of the Army reversed this decision, restoring the crest to the Bibles. The article also mentions a case in Pennsylvania where a mother won a legal battle against Bucks County for withholding public records related to COVID-19 school guidance. The article ends by mentioning the Supreme Court’s recent rulings that push back against attacks on President Trump and the U.S. government system.
➡ The article discusses the ongoing battle to restore constitutional control over the administrative state, or “deep state,” in the U.S. government. It highlights the left’s resistance to an elected president’s ability to change policy and personnel in the executive branch. The article also mentions court cases involving the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Supreme Court’s role in reversing lower court decisions. Lastly, it praises President Trump’s efforts to bring the executive branch under control of a democratically elected president, as required by the Constitution.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. So much happening this week. Let’s get right into it. New information on top of what to me is really quite significant levels of damning information that should have long ago required prosecutions or criminal investigations. But here we have new information on Russiagate, the conspiracy against Trump, the COVID up of scandals far and wide by the FBI and Justice Department and intelligence agencies to not only target Trump, but also protect their own. And as I’ve noted before, and the way you have to think about this is that obviously the targeting of Trump was abusive and they hated his guts politically.

They kind of just decided under the Obama era, during the Obama era, that misusing government to target and jail your political opponents is perfectly legitimate. They abused the irs, and obviously later they abused Trump. But in part, it was always about protecting themselves, about protecting Joe, about protecting Hillary. And we see this with the latest revelations as declassified by the heroine of the moment, Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Office of Director of National Intelligence. She runs that agency, which really is frankly, good for nothing, practically speaking, in the bureaucracy, other than getting documents out there there, because they’re kind of the fulcrum through which all the intelligence community documents can be managed and reviewed and then released.

So important developments from Tulsi Gabbard. And she talked about how important it was at a White House briefing the other day. And let’s go to number 32. The implications of this are, frankly, nothing short of historic. Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious, it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic.

What we saw occur here, as the documents we released detailed, was that we had a sitting president, United States, and his cabinet and leadership team, quite frankly, who were not happy with the fact that President Trump had won the election, that the American people had chosen Donald J. Trump to be the next President, Commander in Chief of the United States. So Tulsi referred the new material she released to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. And given the way the Justice Department works, I’m sure they were horrified because they, in my view, institutionally don’t want to do any of this.

They haven’t shown any interest in doing much of this in terms of actual criminal investigations to date. So we’ll see how that goes. And President Trump responded, as you expect he would respond, with outrage and a focus on the fact that it was Obama who is most chiefly responsible in our system for what went on. Let’s go to number 29. They tried to rig the election and they got caught. And there should be very severe consequences for that. You know, when we caught Hillary Clinton, I said, you know what, let’s not. Let’s not go too far here.

It’s the ex wife of a president, and I thought it was sort of terrible, and I let her off the hook, and I’m very happy I did. But it’s time to start after what they did to me, and whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people. Obama’s been caught directly. So people say, oh, you know, a group. It’s not a group, it’s Obama. His orders are on the paper. The papers are signed. The papers came right out of their office. They sent everything to be highly classified. Well, the highly classified has been released.

And what they did in 2016 and in 2020 is very criminal. It’s criminal at the highest level. So that’s really the things you should be. Yeah. And it should have been investigated because the new information isn’t new information. It’s just been newly declassified. This information has been floating around D.C. for years, and it’s only been released thanks to the second Trump administration. And the documents show, as both Tulsi Gabbard and President Trump highlighted, that the Obama administration, from the very top, manipulated, lied about, misled, engaged in fraud, conspiracy, you name it, to target Trump while protecting themselves.

And there were two documents. And I encourage you because I’m not going to be able to go through them completely with you. I can only read a section or two. It’s the Office of Inspector General report. It was their review of the Russiagate scam. And what happened is they issued this big report, but there was this classified appendix that never saw the light of day. And everyone’s been trying to get it released. And finally, Tulsi released it. So this is what you need to review. This is your homework. The other section of your homework is the oversight, investigation and referral, the intelligence community assessment written by the Congress, the House, I think it was the House Intelligence Community.

And it’s secret and it’s only been declassified as of the other day. I encourage you to review it as well. We’ll provide the links to you below. Now, the first part I want to go through is what they did in terms of targeting Trump through the FBI DOJ gang. So as you recall, they were investigating Hillary thanks to our email disclosures here at Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch uncovered Hillary’s emails and eventually it led to a criminal investigation thanks to Judicial Watch’s uncovering of the COVID up of Hillary’s emails where she stole emails including classified information. The information showed that she was selling her office and providing special favors to donors because they were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

So it just kind of blew the lid off of that whole scandal and it resulted in James Comey having to do an investigation or non investigation. I remember back in the day the FBI was literally following our lead in terms of doing the investigation. They wouldn’t have done anything but for Judicial Watch being allowed by certain courts to proceed with trying to figure out what went on when they hid records and emails from Judicial Watch and the American people about a host of issues as was being detailed in her very emails, whether it be about Benghazi or other topics.

And we were front and center on it. Not only did we uncover the emails, but we were giving the ability to depose individuals under oath and it put a lot of pressure on the FBI to follow our lead. And here’s just one example back of course I, of course I moved the document that I needed. Here’s just one example of what we were talking about at the time with even trying to. We never were able to depose Hillary, but I described what the case was about in this oldie but goodie number 33. Hi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with a special court update on the Clinton email scandal.

Judicial Watch was in federal court twice this week seeking access to all of the Clinton emails gathered by the State Department. Plus, we want to depose Hillary Clinton under oath about her email misconduct. Judge Royce Lamberth, one of the federal court judges involved in these cases, criticized both the Justice Department and the State Department for giving him false statements on the Clinton email issue. Plus he severely criticized the Justice Department for granting immunity to top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, whom he had found earlier to have committed perjury in another Judicial Watch lawsuit. Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting once again that Congress and the government refused to do, holding Hillary Clinton and the State Department accountable for the massive violations of law and in the Clinton email scandal.

So as you can see from that video, where I’ve turned gray since then, right, that’s what Obama did to me, that the Judicial Watch was right in the center of the storm. But separately the FBI, because of the work we had done was between a rock and a hard place, meaning scandal upon scandal emerged as a result of the investigation we forced upon them and the investigation uncovered. And we’re finding out this now as a result of this release of information by Tulsi Gabbard, that there were five, four or five thumbnail drives that had been uncovered from their counterintelligence work.

And the thumbnails concerned material uncovered from Hillary’s email servers, material uncovered by the. Of the President himself, Barack Obama, and all sorts of other material that they frankly didn’t even bother to look at in a way that was comprehensive. And so rather than pursue the information in these materials, they basically just put it aside. But they did find in this information, though, something that they found disturbing, at least Comey found disturbing. And this is what was the issue. Let me bring it up to you because we heard a little bit about it, but now we’ve got the actual detail.

Let me go to OIG Report. Forgive me while I get on the computer down here. It’s six pages down or so. So they got some documents. And the documents, by the way, come from places that they found to be credible. So this wasn’t like the Steele dossier. This was, oh, this is a credible intelligence source. We don’t believe the information to be credible, but the source is serious enough. We got to figure out what’s going on. Recent information, and this is the translation. Recent information from, I guess from Russian. Recent information appearing in the media about the FBI investigatory investigating possible facts of corruption connected with the State Department under Clinton and the granting of preferences to Clinton fund donors.

Again, all of that uncovered by Judicial Watch, all of that was uncovered by Judicial Watch created a negative reaction within the party, though the information was known to Democratic Party leaders since June of 2015, according to Wasserman Schultz, who then was the head of the Democratic National Committee, the congresswoman from Florida. So far, the FBI does not have any hard evidence against Hillary Clinton because data was removed from the mail servers just in time. Obama is not in the mood to mar the very final segment of his presidency, his legacy, with a scandal around a leading nominee for the Democratic Party.

To deal with this, he is using Loretta lynch, the Attorney General, to mount a pressure on FBI Director James Comey. Alas, so far, with no concrete results, Comey is leaning more to Republicans. And most likely he will be dragging this investigation until the presidential elections in order to effectively undermine the chances for Democratic Party to win the presidential elections. And then the second part of the material, by way of forming a Consensus relative to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama leading the Democratic Party sanctioned use of all administrative levers to remove possible negative effects of the FBI investigation of the business of the Clinton foundation and the email correspondence of the State Department.

Based on the information from Wasserman Schultz, the FBI does not anticipate any kind of direct evidence against Clinton as there was timely deletion of the email servers. The political director of the Hillary Clinton staff, Amanda Renteria, regularly receives information from Loretta lynch of the Department of Justice on the plans and intentions of the FBI. Active work is being done on clarification, mostly with potential witnesses. The primary witnesses are a number of computer specialists in the Clinton private circle. They represent the only tools which may be used in this matter. Therefore, the threat is minimal. So according to Russia Intel, Obama was obstructing justice and Loretta lynch was obstructing justice by conspiring with the Clinton campaign to keep them abreast of information.

Now, does it mean it happened? I don’t know. Does it mean it needed to be investigated? You would think. But as best I could tell, and according to the report, and this is. You’re going to, you can read it in the report, I’m going to summarize it for you here. Comey and top people of the FBI didn’t find this analysis to be credible. Comey says, I didn’t feel pressure from Loretta Lynch. Others say that it just didn’t sound credible to them. Interestingly, they go and visit with Loretta lynch and brief her on this. After the meeting or during the meeting, Comey and his associate who briefed with her at the Justice Department said her reaction was strange.

It was kind of unemotional, kind of very subdued and they were curious about it. Obviously they thought maybe something was up. It was because of this piece of intelligence information that Comey used that Comey justified his going public and with this statement that Hillary may be the worst person in the world, but she shouldn’t be prosecuted because he thought that if this material got out, it would look like Loretta lynch, if she made the decision specifically, it would beit’d make it look like even more of a scandal than it now is. Isn’t that amazing? You had them spying on Donald Trump based on Hillary Clinton campaign intelligence, yet they get intelligence from a Russian source that they previously had found to be reliable, implicating the President and the Attorney General in an interference campaign to help rig the election for Hillary Clinton through obstructing justice.

And they don’t do anything about it. They don’t do anything about it. And in fact, they knew there was material on there that was national security sensitive. They still didn’t try to figure out what went on. They knew Obama’s emails had been compromised. They still didn’t care about it. Why? Because they were more interested in protecting Hillary, protecting Obama. National security be danged because it was all about getting Trump. That’s how I summarize this document. It shows that national security took a back seat because it looked like our systems were compromised. Hillary lost her. Excuse me, I got to get this.

I dropped this document. Hillary’s servers were compromised. That was never disclosed. We had evidence, Judicial Watch, that her servers were compromised and we shared it with the FBI. They didn’t do anything on it. And who was running that? Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, the anti Trump pro Hillary Clinton FBI agents. It’s devastating information. The intelligence in 2016, in terms of serious material that had credibility, in terms of sourcing, had nothing to do with Trump being implicated in anything and everything to do with Obama and the Attorney General of the United States being implicated. So much so that the head of the FBI kind of went into crisis mode in dealing with it and they suppressed the information from the American people.

And I’m sorry, what’s outrageous here is that we’re waiting years to see this. This was July 2018. It’s now 20, 25. Seven years. Really inexcusable. And it’s 20 or so pages of material. And it’s. And it’s devastating. I mean, it shows you how the investigation that gave Hillary a free pass there was a thumb on the scale. It meant ignoring information involving the fact that classified information on her system was for sure compromised, that Obama’s material was compromised, other national security material was compromised. And they didn’t do anything to follow up because to admit it would have been devastating in terms of their decision to let Hillary go.

And this cover up continued well into the Trump administration, only exposed through this IG report that for whatever reason, President Trump and the deep staters around him just didn’t get removed, declassified. This is why the Mueller operation was so successful in kind of, in terms of protecting the corruptocrats. I don’t mean that in a partisan way. It’s my shorthand way of talking about the corrupt politicians here in Washington D.C. because he’s under the gun. They can’t get material like this declassified because no one wants to put their neck on the line to get this material out and expose Obama, Hillary and all the rest.

And they all knew it was garbage. So they’ve got serious material that Obama is compromised, Loretta lynch is compromised, that there have been hacks into Hillary’s system, into Obama’s emails, and they did nothing but cover it up as they were going full bore against President Trump, spying on him in a way that was criminally corrupt. You know, and I knew, I knew it was all garbage from the beginning. My colleagues and I, we knew as soon as they went after Mueller was appointed, like, this is crazy town, we knew when they put out this intelligence community assessment, which I’ll get into now, pretending that Putin wanted to get Hillary electedor, excuse me, wanted get Trump elected, it was obvious it was a scam.

It was obvious from the get go. It was all a political operation against Trump. The intelligence was obviously manipulated from the get go. And I get a little frustrated, forgive me, because we were out there exposing this from the beginning. You know, you may not remember this, but when Mueller was first appointed, all the Republicans approved of him. Oh, Mueller has this wonderful reputation. Let’s all fall down on the ground when he walks by because we’re not worthy of him. And I said, no, no, no. The special counsel was a scam and a scheme, and it had the effect of freezing the Justice Department from doing anything in terms of accountability for, for the Obama, Clinton, Biden gang.

And I talked about this. There was a story about this I highlighted again. Where is it, guys? Is it in the emails inbox? Yeah. Judicial Watch virtually alone. Here’s the tweet I put out. This is from The Washington Post. 2000 stood against the Obama and Clinton gang’s Russiagate hoax from the beginning. No longer a lonely battle. Now I can’t see the story because it’s. I’m not signed into the Washington Post. The point was that literally, Judicial Watch was alone. I shouldn’t say literally virtually. Judicial Watch was alone in highlighting these abuses. And of course, they all knew it was a scam from the get go.

They all knew. I mean, listen to this speech I gave a few years ago, number seven, where I expose it. Judicial Watch protected Trump and our republic from the worst corruption system scandal in American history by exposing the FISA abuse, the Comey corruption, and the seditious conspiracy against Trump by the FBI and doj. Obama knew. Clinton knew, Comey knew, Biden knew, Brennan knew McCabe knew, Strzok knew, Clapper knew, Schiff knew, the FBI knew the DOJ knew the CIA knew, the State Department knew. They all knew Trump was innocent, but they smeared and spied on him anyway.

Worse than watergate Trump is a crime victim. Let’s remember that. He sure was. And the new sets of documents released also by, were declassified also by Tulsi Gabbard. Includes this House report, oversight, investigative and referral related to Russia’s influence campaign for targeting the presidential election. And in the report, it highlights how key pieces of so called intelligence was misstated in a material way to make it seem like, or to justify the fake conclusion that President Putin or Putin aspired to help Trump win the election. Now, as I say it, doesn’t it raise a question, what is I aspire to do something.

What does that mean? Right. Just the language itself, which of course initially was kept secret, suggests that they’re doing some sort of shady work. But they clearly wanted to put out material. And we talked about this. Last week, the Obama gang, in a series of meetings targeted Trump with investigations related to Russia that were purely political. And they knew the Russians knew that Hillary needed to push the Russia scandal to protect herself. On the emails, they knew it from the get go. And this is something that Obama knew in 2016. And as of last week, there are at least three meetings that took place where Obama was personally either briefed or directed the operations against President Trump.

And one of the information pieces they had was that the Russians had this DNC hack, supposedly. And what was in that DNC material was some of it was leaked. Now, the theory was, well, it was being leaked to hurt Hillary and help Trump. And the thinking was that there was this piece of information, a fragment, as they say in the report, that Putin was counting on Trump winning. And as the report details. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean he’s counting on Trump winning and he’s helping him? No, because that doesn’t what it. It isn’t what it said.

Does it mean he’s counting on him winning the election? No, because the timing suggests that he could be winning the primary because that’s when the intelligence came through that they’re interpreting. Or it could be he’s guessing that he’s winning and therefore planning for that situation. Nowhere in the intelligence did it warrant the conclusion not only did he aspire to help Trump, but that he was directing assets to be used to advance his campaign, which was one of the conclusions the Obama goons were putting out there falsely. In the meantime, they ignored all the evidence that they were basically planning for a Hillary presidency, including keeping back information that was potentially devastating if she won and so devastating that they could have derailed her campaign if they released it at the time.

And supposedly in the documents, according to this declassified material, they had material that was seemingly pretty devastating, and it looked like it came from the DNC material that they supposedly hacked, although I’m not all that convinced the Russians hacked it. But it is what it is. That’s what the conclusions were. So let’s go to that. So this is what else you need to read. The Oversight Investigative Referral. This is the document. I’m going to read you one section that I think it’s useful to read because you kind of hear these things talked about online and in the media, but you don’t really get to see what it is, at least some of the detail.

And, you know, one of the nice things about Judicial Watch having this broadcast every week is that we get to go into a little bit of the detail with you in a way you otherwise wouldn’t find anywhere else. It’s on page 17 of the of the report. Let me go to page 17 thereabouts. So listen to this. Listen to this. So the intelligence community assessment, the scam assessment, as this referral notes, said Moscow had additional information it obtained from cyber collection against U.S. government and nongovernmental targets, such as reports on Secretary Clinton’s health that it could have used against the Clinton administration’s policies and nominees.

Based on blank, we assess that Moscow refrained from the full spectrum of actions it could have taken to affect the U.S. election. We judge that the Kremlin could have disclosed additional material. And this is the critique. This is on the page above here. The ICA’s generic description of the materials Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton. This violated ICD 2203 directives, I guess, which are eternal directives to intelligence collection that analysis be informed of all relevant information available. Quote. Given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those that Putin chose not to leak, and this is what he chose not to leak.

As of September 2016, the Russian foreign intelligence service, the SVR, had Democratic National Committee information that President Obama and party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton’s health to be extraordinarily alarming and felt it could have beencould have had serious negative impact on her election prospects. Her health information was being kept in strictest secrecy and even close advisors were not being fully informed. The SVR possessed DNC communications that Clinton was suffering from intensified psycho emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness. Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers. And while afraid of losing, she remained obsessed with a thirst for power.

The SVR also had information that Clinton suffered from type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease and deep throating and deep, deep vein thrombosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The SVR possessed a campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to distract the Americans, the American public from the Clinton email server scandal. Trump, Trump knew about that. He was briefed on that, as I recall. Don’t rely on me, you can go double check on it. So I’m going by memory here, by memory here. I think it was In August of 2016, Trump, excuse me, Obama was told about that the Russia Federal Security Services SFB in August had details of secret meetings with multiple named US Religious organizations in which the Obama US State Department.

I’m adding that in, by the way, offered in exchange for supporting Hillary Clinton, significant increases in financing from department funds and the patronage of State in dealing with post Soviet countries. FBI Director James Comey testified to the committee that in August 2016, this SVR had DNC emails in which the head of DNC was telling people that former Attorney General lynch was working to control me and keeping a named member of the Clinton campaign informed on what the FBI was doing in the Clinton email investigation. And that’s what I referred to earlier. So it goes on. All of this information, by the way, the way to describe Hillary, it’s probably consistent to some of what you’ve seen from Hillary publicly.

It’s consistent from what I’ve heard at Judicial Watch from whistleblowers that have been public about what was going on in the Clinton White House. So there’s nothing I’m hearing about what Hillary’s health issues are that would be surprising to anyone who’s been observing her over the years, been reading books about her whistleblower accounts and such. So they had intelligence supposedly created by the Hillary campaign in coordinating coordination with the Obama FBI that supposedly Trump was in bed with the Russians, when in fact they had contemporaneous information that what Hillary was saying was designed to protect her from her emails, which of course is what I presumed.

And most every normal person who looked at this presumed that the Russia, Russia, Russia thing was not about what Trump was doing, it was about what Clinton was doing and had been caught doing, stealing classified information and emails that were not hers to take as exposed by little old Judicial Watch. So what does this all mean? Is there going to be a criminal Investigation of all this. I don’t know, do I trust the Justice Department to do it or the FBI to do it? No, institutionally they’re going to be investigating themselves. The FBI was involved in these crimes.

The Justice Department was involved in these crimes. This cover up, this fraud. As President Trump pointed out, the Supreme Court decision that acknowledged the immunity he has for acts as president, official acts is going to be very protective of President Obama’s role in this cover up and scandal. I mean, I’ve always observed it was always going to be a difficult task to kind of have any prosecutor come in and second guess a president’s handling of intelligence information. This is very damning. But in the end, it’s the president who gets to decide what to do with it.

And that’s going to be very helpful to Biden, to Obama. Excuse me. Now, does it mean that he’s perfectly immune? I don’t think so. I do think there needs to be an investigation in the least. But to be clear, even an investigation is limited by the Supreme Court. You just can’t go and because you’re curious about something, start asking a president about his handling of intelligence matters. So it’s mightily complicated. So this is what I recommend, and I’ve recommended it before, you may have heard me say it before. President Trump should directly appoint a prosecutor, call it whatever he wants.

Special presidential prosecutor, presidential prosecutor, special prosecutor, independent counsel, presidential counsel, whatever you want to call it, someone who reports to him, who investigates this. The FBI and Justice Department are compromised. They’re conflicted. I think the current leadership are kind of overwhelmed. They’re completely overwhelmed. As I’ve commented before, there are thousands of James Comey’s still in the Justice Department than the FBI. And relying on those two agencies to do to basically expose themselves as incapable of ever being trusted again, I think we’re asking too much of them. And it’s no criticism necessarily of Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, who’s running the Justice Department with Pam or Kash Patel, etc.

It’s just the reality of it. There’s just too much going on. And if I could be mildly critical, given the way they handle the Epstein documents, yeah, I don’t think they can handle a much more complex investigation like this. I just don’t. And nor should they. I don’t trust the agencies generally, no matter who’s running them. And so the president can designate as chief magistrate under the Constitution a special counsel that reports to him to investigate anything he needs to have investigated. And they can bring in outside Resources to do the investigation or other law enforcement resources outside the FBI, which are plenty in terms of availability.

You have, the IRS has investigators, Defense Department has investigators, Homeland Security has investigators, the Postal Service, they’ve got a lot of great investigators over there who can do this type of investigation. You could even get U.S. marshals involved. The marshals, they’re pretty good guys generally, even though they are doj. So maybe not, given my concerns about the institution’s compromised nature, but that’s the way to get it done. Because otherwise, what I think we’re going to have are hit and miss prosecutions on largely irrelevant things that don’t get at the heart of the matter as what happened under Durham.

Do you want, you don’t want a Durham 2.0? I don’t. And I fear that’s what’s going to happen. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Pam and Cash will go to town and get a serious and comprehensive investigation going on. Well, they have it. Thus far, they’ve known what’s in this material or should have known. It’s six months. Why hasn’t anything been done yet? I mean, we’re only finding about it, finding out about it now, you know, and when I’ve complained earlier, I was told, and people like me were told, oh, you don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes.

They got it all covered. They’re going to do something. We don’t know what they know. Well, now we do know what they know. And still there’s no evidence anything significant is being done. I put a tweet out the other day. All I wrote was, I’m skeptical, but this is pretty devastating material and it’s going to be complicated to get people held accountable over this. It’s a grand conspiracy against our republic, that’s for sure. And we’ve detailed as much as we can in our various books. Rights and Freedoms in Peril is the most recent one. Our Republic, I think it’s Our Republic Under Assault was our last one.

I mean, go to Amazon, go look at all the Judicial Watch books there. I’m the author of all the Judicial Watch books, if you want to know. I’ll show you on Amazon here. If you want to know what happened and, or to your frustration, what didn’t happen, you really do need to read the Judicial Watch books, kind of. I got this nice computer here, but I’m not able to type the way I’d like to here. Okay, so here’s the first book. Rights and Freedoms in Peril, the prior book is a republic under assault. We go through all of the Hillary Clinton stuff and the garbage that happened there.

The second book is Clean House, another great book. I mean, really, all of this is your guidebook to the corruption that everyone thought should and must end. And of course, the first book was the Corruption, Obama’s Big Secrecy, Big Corruption and Big Government. It’ sthose four books alone tell you everything you need to know about D.C. now. Literally everything. No, but more than enough. And you’re going to get frustrated because you’re going to see there is plenty of evidence to prosecute everybody that you’re worried about. And it’s really inexcusable that nothing’s happened to date. And I would argue nothing still has happened.

So read the books, Read again. I’m giving you the homework. If I could test you on it, I would. But read these reports. You’re going to. It’s even worse than I’m telling you about when you see the added details in here about the corruption. So one of the things I love about Judicial Watch is like, we’re in the middle of these fights where like for instance, like on this Russiagate stuff, we’re still trying to get text messages from Strzok and Page, we’re still battling for text messages there who are at the center of a lot of these scandals.

I mean, the COVID ups have been going on for seven years just on struck and page from the government. But separately, we still have a lot of other work to do and we just, you know, the establishment here always tells you, oh, well, we’re doing all this other stuff, we can’t do that too. I don’t believe that. First of all, they’re the government. They can do whatever they want. And I know from Judicial Watch we do everything. I’m exaggerating slightly, but we try to cover the full orbit of corruption issues that Americans care about. And number one or near the top is election integrity and Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader are in terms of ensuring our elections are free, fair and clean.

And one of the big cases we have concerns the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. There are, I think 19 states or so, maybe 21. I forget the number changes depending on how you count. But nearly two dozen states that allowed accounting of ballots that arrive after election day. And the problem with that is federal law sets an election day on the election day. You all know about every four years or two years there is a specific election day set by law. It’s when you’re supposed to typically get your ballots in or show up and vote by then.

But you have these states counting ballots for weeks after Election Day. And it’s one thing to count ballots for weeks after Election Day because you’re so incompetent you can’t even count the ballots you’ve had since Election Day, which I think is problematic, to be clear. But it’s beyond, beyond belief that you would dare to count ballots that arrive after Election Day. As President Trump noted in talking about the issue, he said, it’s like someone showing up three days after an election and demanding the vote too late. You don’t get your ballot in by Election Day, it shouldn’t be counted.

At least under federal law, as we’ve alleged in various federal courts. We have three cases, one in California, one in Mississippi, one in Illinois. In Mississippi, it went up on appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our client is correct in our analysis of the law that it is unlawful to count ballots that arrive after Election Day. In California, the case has been stayed because I’m going to tell you about it now because in Illinois, we sued on behalf of a congressman and two presidential electors. Congressman MIKE Bost, B O S T Because eight count ballots that arrive for up to.

Excuse me. That arrives for up to 14 days after election Day in Illinois. And I don’t even think you need a postmark sometimes. And rather than deal with the merits of our claim, the courts there said that he has no standing. We’re like, what are you talking about? A federal candidate for office, a sitting member of Congress, doesn’t have standing to challenge an election being illegally extended for two weeks. It doesn’t make any sense under Supreme Court precedent, basically any conception of the law. So we appealed. We lost at the appellate level, two to one powerful dissent.

So we appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court took up the case. It was announced about a month or two ago, and we just filed the opening brief in the case. And I encourage you to go to our website and review it now. We expect to get the oral argument set in October. I don’t know that for a fact, but that’s likely to be the case. So all the briefing has to be done well before then. So in this case, which is. Captioned, what’s it Captioned. Representative Michael Boss, Laura Palestrini and Susan Sweeney versus the Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews and I’ll bring up the case here or I’ll bring up the press release.

Give me a second. You see the press release here. Judicial Watch announces us Supreme Court Brief in Historic Election Integrity Case this is the way to think about it. This is at least the way I think about it as a non lawyer. This is about whether a candidate can challenge a dirty election in federal court. If there are illegal rules, who can challenge those illegal rules if not a candidate? Right. And you never know if you’re going to win or lose. But I can’t imagine we’re going to lose. I just can’t imagine it. It would be terrible if we lost because it would just allow rampant illegality to go unchecked in significant ways when it comes to election administration.

As I note, in June the Supreme Court agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal of the decision of the U.S. court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The lower courts had denied that Boston the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received up to 14 days after election Day. And we quote from our brief. Let me get a page of the brief here and I encourage you to read the full brief. Did a great job. Our lawyers did a great job. Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as a federal election day.

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. So what’s there to argue about? I mean, that’s my approach.

Either you buy it or you don’t. And I would hope the Supreme Court would make an easy make easy work of this issue. Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court. It is obvious that candidates have standing to challenge unlawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources. So this is a big deal. I mean, this is about as big an election case that the Supreme Court has heard at least in the last decade. And they’ve had significant gerrymandering cases. But this, this one’s pretty darn important and will guide how courts approach who can challenge election issues.

And the other piece of news is that we hired a major league attorney to help us with the case before the Supreme Court. His name is Paul Clement. You may have heard of Paul before. He’s argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. I don’t think there’s anyone else out there who’s argued as many. Maybe there’s one or two on the left that have. And he’s representing Congressman Boss in partnership with Judicial Watch’s attorneys. He’s former Solicitor General. What is the Solicitor General? He is the official in a Justice Department that is in charge of arguing the US Government’s position to the Supreme Court in matters that the Court’s hearing.

So he worked for President Bush from 2000 to 2008 in that position and is widely regarded as one of the top Supreme Court litigators in the country. And on top of that, we’ve got this crack team of election lawyers here at Judicial Watch that isthat is the top election law team in the country. Bob Popper is our senior attorney who runs the team. Popper was previously the voter sectionpreviously was in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. So he saw what was going on in the Justice Department, and he was really quite happy to come over to Judicial Watch, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

And Russ Nobile, who has been litigating this case below, also worked at the Justice Department, and he has been front and center in litigating these cases as it relates to counting the illicit counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. Now, I probably don’t have to tell you why it’s illegal, right? Make much of a case to persuade you, but it does call into question potentially, election outcomes in California. Our case is on hold because the Supreme Court is considering the issue about whether Congressman Issa, who we’re representing in California, who’s suing over the state counting ballots that arrive for seven days after election.

In our lawsuit, we alleged there were two seats that were flipped from Republican to Democrats in the House of Representatives based on votes that were counted that arrived after Election Day, which, in my view, means those seats should still be Republican. And I’m not saying that because, oh, I support Republicans. I’m saying it because that’s what the law would require. So think how close the House is. Two seats matter. So this isn’t an academic argument, and it just highlights the need not only to resolve this issue in terms of the merits, but how important it is to have a vehicle in court to resolve this issue.

Meaning candidates got to be able to fight for the rule of law when their candidacies are on the line, when their election outcomes are on the line. So you can read the full brief@judicalwatch.org, we’ll provide a link to you below. It’s a great decision. It’s a great brief, but it’s pretty simple and it’s accessible to. You don’t have to be a lawyer to benefit from it. But wait, there’s more. We have a lawsuit against Illinois to clean up its voting rolls. Illinois’s voting rolls are, as you might imagine, a mess. And federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up the voting rolls.

We’ve got cases active in California, Oregon and Illinois. We’ve had two court hearings, one in Oregon, one in California, in recent weeks. We have one. I thought it was going to be this week, but the court changed it to next week. So there’s a hearing coming up next week in Illinois in our case to clean up the voting rolls there. Now, Judicial Watch already has cleaned up 5 million AMEs from the voting rolls, thanks to our litigation and legal action. But there are millions more that need to be cleaned up. And in Illinois, we are taking steps to do so.

We know that there are major issues in Illinois. And the good news is we’re finally getting a little backing from the Justice Department, which for years, because it’s been run by the left, even when Republicans have been running the Justice Department. In this case, they filed a statement of interest that supports Judicial Watch in our voting roll lawsuit in Illinois. The filing notes, this case presents. This is what the statement of interest notes. Let me get the press release up so you can see it. There it is. This case presents the Justice Department rights to the federal court, important questions regarding enforcement of the National Voter Registration act, and Attorney General Harmeet K.

Dhillon of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. The Trump appointee. Great, great lawyer who’s been fighting on the front lines with Judicial Watch in many cases on these issues. It is critical to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls so that elections are conducted fairly accurately and without fraud. Under the National Voter Registration act, states have the responsibility to conduct a robust program of list maintenance. The Department of Justice will vigorously enforce these requirements to ensure compliance. So up until now, its Judicial Watch has been enforcing their requirements. During the first Trump administration, I think there was one case they came in and helped us on, meaning took our position as well, Kentucky.

Other than that, they were basically awol. So it’s good they’re now at least filing statements of interest. They’re also taking other legal action following Judicial Watch’s lead in the American people’s desire that the laws be enforced, that the voting rolls Be clean now. Do they have to be perfect? No, they don’t. But, you know, people move, you know, people die. And they got to take reasonable steps to track that and remove people when they move away, remove people when they die. Because dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. Having ineligible names, having dirty names are opportunities for voter fraud.

That’s why the law requires their removal. And listen how bad things are in California. Judicial Watch’s Lawsuit details that 23 Illinois counties with a combined registration list of 980,000 voters reported removing a combined total of only 100 registrations in the last two year reporting period under a crucial provision of the National Voter Registration Act. This is an absurdly small number, and there’s no possible way that these counties can be conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence while removing so few registrations.

I think there are hundreds of thousands of names that should have been removed. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit demonstrates Illinois voter rolls are a mess, and the Justice Department is right to be concerned about the state’s failures to keep them clean. So again, Judicial Watch with the heavy lifting on Russiagate, on election integrity, including a massive case before the Supreme Court. And of course, we only do it with your support. And so if you’re not supporting us, I hope I’ve given you, just with our first part of the show, plenty of reason to support us. Go to judicial watch.org for the link to support our work.

And if you’re already supporting us, thank you. You should make another donation, too. So what else is going on, huh, Epstein? I mean, don’t get me started. So first up is we have a lawsuit for the Epstein records, and we haven’t gotten one record under FOIA yet. I don’t understand it. I just don’t understand it. If you can explain why that’s the case, tell me. But there’s no reason. And it just shows you, I don’t know what’s happening at the Justice Department and the FBI that they haven’t gotten around to giving us the records yet. They admit they’re reviewing them yet not one document has been released.

Not even the videos they released have been given to us under foia. Really unacceptable. And then there are these news reports this week. You know, I talked about last week a little bit. You know, supposedly Trump sent a letter to Epstein wishing him a happy birthday. It was bawdy, says the Wall Street Journal. And his name shows up in the Epstein files generally, according to reports, which is about as surprising as the sun rising. Trump was known to have been a friend with Epstein, and unlike virtually everyone else around him, he seemed to be the only one who did anything.

Once he figured out he was probably a creep and kicked them out of his home and the Mar a Lago club. So the fact that his name pops up is no surprise. And it ought to be no embarrassment, other than him being just associated with a bad guy like him, even in an innocent way. But of course, Bill Clinton’s name shows up a billion times, not literally a billion times. The Judicial Watch separately investigated Bill Clinton’s trips on Epstein’s plane. Interestingly, the Secret Service said they had no records, even though it was clear Clinton was traveling as a former president on the plane.

How did that work? Did he not have Secret Service protection? And if he didn’t, why not? And then? And then it’s now the case that the criminal investigation into Epstein’s activities and anyone else potentially has been reopened. It looks like Todd Blanche, the number two at the Justice Department, flew down to Florida and spent two days visiting and interviewing and questioning Ghislaine Maxwell, who is the only person in jail for Epstein related crimes. He’s in jail for 20 years for grooming, etc. Underage minors. So my question is. Well, actually, I talked about it. Let’s go to the videotape.

I was on Fox News last night with my friend Kevin Cork and we talked about the Epstein issue. Let’s run it. Let me share this. This is a West Point story that I found very interesting. The MacArthur Society, a group for West Point graduates concerned about potential politicization at the military academy. That was the bring in the author of Rights and Freedoms in Peril, Judicial Watch president and friend of the show, Tom Fenton. Great to have you with us. I’m going to show this. This is Todd Blanche, actually with a post on X again talking about this idea that, you know what, it’s good to have these meetings.

He said. Today I met with Ghislaine Maxwell and I will continue my interview of her tomorrow. The Department of Justice will share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time. What, if anything, should we draw from that? Well, maybe she gave them more information. I’m a little skeptical that she has much more information. I mean, look, her position is she did nothing wrong. Is she going to say she saw something wrong happen? Others were involved in criminal attacks on young women. If so, why didn’t she do anything about it and how did she enable it? So there may be less there than Meets the eye.

The other big question is why weren’t, why wasn’t she interviewed before? And why did the DOJ and FBI conclude there was nothing else to be done just a few weeks ago without interviewing the one person who they put in jail over the years? Yeah, and that’s the part that’s most perplexing to me. Why make such a proclamation? First of all, no one asked you for that. Second of all, does that mean you’ve talked to everyone? Did you disclose everything? And if there were people injured, young girls in particular, there has got to be an arrest or several arrests for the johns who took part.

So they got to get the documents out. It’s really that simple. And we’ve got the FOIA lawsuit. Give us the documents under foia. And according to reports, they reviewed them all already. Just release them. And if there’s material that has to be withheld, there’s vehicles to withhold them. They’ve sought, Justice Department has sought approval from the courts to release certain grand jury materials. It’s under consideration of one court. Another court essentially rejected it. So we recognize we may not be able to get everything that the American people may want under law. But we know there are documents that can be released now.

And I don’t know what else to say other than they got to get released, they’ve got to get released. There’s no good reason to hold the material up. And it’s going to come out now. The Congress is going to subpoena the records. They’re going to subpoena witnesses as well, Bill and Hillary and all the rest. I mean, Epstein talks about himself according to his lawyers. I think I had a tweet about it. Go to the Tom Fitton. Now. This is strange. I can watch myself on Twitter. I can’t find the tweet. Hold on a second here.

Look at this. Mr. This is what I tweeted out in 2019. So that is six years ago. Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative, which is the Clinton fundraising scheme, part of the Clinton foundation, according to his lawyers. And there below, you can see me talking about how the Epstein death was a disaster for the rule of law and the Justice Department. Who do you trust? They got to get the information out. It’s six years later, seven years later. They’ve got to get the information out. And Trump’s right to be annoyed.

And his Justice Department and FBI, they screwed things up. I mean, they issued a memo closing down the Epstein investigation without having talked to Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person who’s in jail on Epstein. Why would they do that? Why would they do that? Is that I don’t have a reasonable explanation for that. I have many explanations, none of which make the Justice Department or FBI look good. And I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. The handling of the Epstein investigation further confirms the need to have a separate independent investigation of pretty much anything politically sensitive that needs to be done because there’s kind of an error of they don’t know what they’re doing.

That’s the most charitable way of putting it. Keystone cop type of approach. So we’ll keep you updated. I mean, we’ve been asking the justice. It’s not like we’re just sitting on our hands here. We’re in federal court demanding the Epstein records. Congress hasn’t asked for them yet. We have under law. What else is happening? Oh, yeah, Schiff. He’s one of the worst. I talked about him last week, and there’s a really simple criminal case that potentially could be brought against him on mortgage fraud. And it’s worth highlighting again, because he’s not just, you know, a loser congressman.

Not that they’re losers, but you know what I mean. He’s not just one of 435 House members. He’s a senator from California now. And I talked about his corruption on his buying his own homes and potential fraud with Eric Bolan on Real America’s Voice News. Do you trust Adam Schiff? And he says he doesn’t. And he says Adam has a terrible ethics record, calls him an abuser and a liar. Let’s welcome the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton. Really good beyond Tom. And how about Adam Schiff there? Guilty of some of the things that he was trying to nail Trump with in impeachments.

1.0, 2.0, and who knows in between the two presidencies. What’s going on with Marilyn, man? Schiff? Well, besides his lying about Russia and abusing his office to target people he doesn’t like politically, taking secretly subpoenaing phone records, for example, and then leaking the contents on top of that, there’s credible evidence he committed mortgage fraud. It’s quite simple. When you apply for a mortgage, you’re supposed to declare whether the property is a primary residence or not. And you can’t have two primary residences. And he cited that he had two primary residences falsely, it looks like, according to the records, you know, three, four, five times on various loan applications.

And that’s potentially a federal crime. But he can complain all he wants about being targeted and such. It’s a readily apparent crime. And this is the same man who happily celebrated President Trump getting arrested not once, not twice, but four times. For based on the political lawfare targeting him here, it’s pretty clear he was playing games, and he deserves in the least a serious criminal investigation, if not more. What do you think, Tom? Again, I ask this to every guest who we talk about. Do you think we will eventually see a perp walk for some of these people? By the way, we’re watching Trump come down the stairs here.

He’s approaching a podium. So I apologize, Tom, if I cut you off, but will we see a perp walk? I don’t know. I think. I think there will be figures involved in the abuse of Trump who will eventually be prosecuted. Will it be sufficient? Probably not, but there’ll be some who are targeted. Yeah. So we’ll see what happens with Schiff. But on top of the criminal investigation potentially against him, the Senate should commence an ethics investigation as well, and there’s nothing precluding the Senate from doing so. So I think we’ll be pressuring the Senate to do that as well.

The other issue that popped up this week that I think is worth talking about since, because Judicial Watch has been seeking transparency from the Federal Reserve for well over a decade plus. And it’s like banging your head against the wall because the Federal Reserve gets special protection from the courts and they literally have contempt for the people’s right to know. So I was particularly impressed and loved how President Trump, who’s kind of at loggerheads with the head of the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, over his failure to cut interest rates thus far, has focused on the fact that his.

The Fed is spending two, three billion dollars renovating their headquarters. Two to three billion dollars. And you know, that’s. That sort of money should get you headquarters on Mars as far as I’m concerned. And so President Trump, who, as you know from his background, run a construction operation or two, many, many buildings had been built on his watch through his companies, went and visited the Federal Reserve to see how the construction was going. And this is just so phenomenal what happened here? Let’s watch it here. It looks like it’s about 3.1 billion, went up a little bit or a lot.

So the 2.7 is now 3.1. I’m not aware of that. Yeah, it just came out. I haven’t heard that from anybody at the Fed. Just getting that. Our notes at about 3.1 as well. 3.1. 3.2. This came from us? Yes. I don’t know who does that. Are you including the Martin renovation? You just added. You just, you just added in a third building is what that is. That’s a third building. It’s a building that’s being built. No, it’s been, it was built five years ago. We finished Martin five years ago. It’s part of the overall work.

So are there things the chairman can say to you today that would make you back off some of the earlier criticism? Well, I’d love him to lower interest rates. Other than that, what can I tell you? Wasn’t that great? And that’s, that’s kind of, I commented online that’s a nice example of the way accountability ought to work in this town. The president taking a personal interest in a matter and then moving and going and holding the responsible official accountable. And it doesn’t mean the person’s going to get fired. He said he’s not going to fire Powell probably, but he was held accountable in front of the world.

And I talked about the issue about transparency and Fed corruption and accountability with Eric Bolling as well yesterday, this live, watching Jerome Powell and president side and just with his tail between his legs and then out here explaining, you know, why are we spending $3.1 billion to renovate a building that cost a lot less than that to build in the first place, valued at a lot less than. Your thoughts on this? The usual suspects here in D.C. oh, well, that happens all the time in government. Yeah. Well, you know, the American people are done with that.

And, you know, Judicial Watch has been a big proponent of transparency for the Fed. And this is exactly why we need transparency and oversight. You know, the catchphrase is audit. The Fed, many of us have been calling out it for years. This is just one example of an agency that has power that really is not comparable anywhere else in our government in terms of our economy, that has little check and balances, little checks and balances as it relates to its conduct. You ask for records, there are. It’s one of the most difficult agencies to get information from about its operations and what it’s up to.

And I could. You would knock your socks off to hear the various arguments they use. For instance, you know, they’ve got all the local Fed banks, right. They say those Fed banks are outside contractors and they don’t have to give us records about their communications with them. There’s not a darn thing the agency does that to me, is suitably transparent. And I’m glad the president’s holding the chairman accountable whether he fires them or not or the fight over the interest rates. That’s irrelevant to me. It’s someone being held accountable for an outrageous misuse of tax dollars.

You know, I. There’s a question one of the reporters said, well, you know, if this is the last, last thing you need to kind of make the economy whole and make it yours and more robust, why don’t you just fire him? And Trump said something so. Well, because it’s a lot more difficult. That is the general consensus that it’s difficult to fire. You’re not supposed to really get involved in politics. One side ism with the Fed. You’re supposed to let them, you know, their only job is to keep prices in check. And you don’t want to become partisan.

But this is a clear example. There are so many indicators that say that interest rates should be substantially lower right now, given what’s going on in the economy. I don’t think it would roil the markets the way a lot of people think it would if he fired Jerome Powell. Yeah, I do think it would be less. Everything we told about with Trump if he does X the world will collapse. That’s never happened. And taking a reformance mentality, I think is something would be good to do. You know, I just think back to how Powell and the Fed had no problem financing the greatest expansion of government in modern American history under Joe Biden.

Trillions of dollars in spending with low interest rates and, you know, and once that gets under control, he wants to keep the interest rates high. You know, I’m sorry, but I think it’s fair to conclude maybe some of those decision makings are more political than economic. Yeah, Tom, really good. I’m sorry we extended you here a little bit. Hope we didn’t make you late for any sort of appointments. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. Always good to have you on, my friend. Good to talk to you. Thank you, Eric. So you can be sure that Judicial watch has some FOIAs out there.

I haven’t even checked this, but I know Judicial Watch well enough as its president to know our people are already on it, that we have material out there. Foy is out there on the construction of the Fed building. On top of that, we’ve been kind of prodding the Fed, as I told Eric, on transparency issues for years. And we will continue. It’s kind of the old phrase that I think it was Ron Paul’s father used to say, Rand Paul’s father, Ron, you know, audit the Fed. Right. We’ve got to hold that entity accountable. It’s politicized and it’s so damaging to our economy and the confidence in our economy to have the Fed playing games on behalf of the left.

What else is happening? A big news about DEI up in West Point. It was so crazy up there under Biden’s Defense Department because I’ve told you previously about DEI programs up in West Point where they were force feeding the rising leadership we were training there for our army, this DEI anti American clap trap. But it was, it verged into anti Christianity, anti Christian behavior with the removal of the crest, the official emblem of West Point from Bibles in the chapel. And we had been told that by a group that was monitoring DEI issues up at West Point, the MacArthur Society, association of West Point Associates.

And we asked for records about what went on. We got the runaround, as I say, the proverbial hand to the face from the Defense Department and West Point. So we sued in federal court. I talked about this with Kevin Cork last night. Let me share this. This is a West Point story that I found very interesting. The MacArthur Society, a group for West Point graduates concerned about potential politicization at the military academy, tipped Judicial Watch off to the potential removal of the crest from the Bibles. A spokesman for West Point telling Fox News Digital that the chapel’s Bibles now feature the name of the military academy.

What’s behind that? They reached out to you folks. Well, there was this DEI fanaticism up at West Point and there were a lot of veterans groups and groups concerned about the military academy at West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy. So you had the DEI craziness being pushed on the cadets up there and then you find out they didn’t want to be associated with the Christian Bible. So, you know, hope it looks like things have changed for the best up in West Point under President Trump. But there’s got to be accountability for what happened and the attacks on the traditions of West Point and our rising leadership who were training there.

I’m so glad that people know that you are a trusted resource. They can come to you if they have a storyline. If there’s something that’s happening, they trust you to get to the bottom of it and so do we. Tom Pitton, great to see you, my friend. Hey, thank you. Good news. As I sit here, it’s come down from Fox News, who initially broke this story for Judicial Watch, that the Department of the Secretary of the army has decided to reverse the order and order the. Excuse me, he let me start over on that, the Secretary of the army has said it’s going back on the Bible now.

Supposedly it’s already been put back there. So it’s great that he took these steps. According to Fox News, this is what the Secretary of Army, Richard what’s the secretary Dan Deerskills has said. Since the founding of West Point and before, generations of cadets, officers and soldiers have drawn strength and inspiration from God’s word. The decision to remove the academy’s historic crest from the Bibles in the cadet chapel is yet another example of the previous administration pushing far left policies into our military institutions. I am directing West Point to reverse this decision immediately and restore the important symbol of duty, honor and country.

So this is fantastic news. It shows that Judicial Watch’s work has gotten some results. As I told Fox earlier today, Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting gets results. Goes to show again how our lawsuits exposing corruption and can fix corruption. The US army and West Point can’t go wrong in honoring God. They can’t go wrong in honoring God. And again, exposing corruption helps fix corruption. And what was going on up at West Point was an abomination. You had the DEI craziness. Judicial Watch expose the facts and the abuse behind the removal and the change of West Point’ swhat else did we do? Yeah, regarding the Army’s continued commitment to.

No, regarding the Army’s removal of the duty, honor and secrecyduty, honor and country from their mission statement. We exposed the DEI obsession that led to that and now we just exposed how they removed the crest from the Bible. They took steps under Trump to fix it and now the Secretary of Army has said, look, it’s official. It’s not. It’s going to be on the Bible, the crest of West Point. I just can’t believe we’re talking about it. How fixated on leftist obsessions do you have to be in order to remove the name of your school from the Bible in your own chapel up there in West Point? Unbelievable.

And it shows you that Pete Hegseth, Dan Driscoll, who’s Secretary of the army and the new leadership under President Trump, they’ve got so much cleanup to do in our military. I mean, our military is so woefully, in my view, underfunded, so they’ve got to arm up, but they also need to stand up the morale and clean up and hold accountable those who abused our troops, abused our rising leadership, our young men and women in the academies. And they were literally attacking Christianity and God by denying him, by removing the crest from the Bibles to begin with.

And so Judicial Watch, I speak on behalf of my team here. We are extremely gratified by this turn of events. But in the meantime, our lawsuit still stands. We want to know who did this and how it came about. Just great work by your Judicial Watch. We have another little great story. Remember Covid, how they tried to destroy our society and abuse school children through Covid restrictions that were completely out of line? Well, Judicial Watch has been helping, investigating and suing with and on behalf and sometimes just helping informally, parents and citizens concerned about the COVID abuses, which there still needs to be accountability for.

And we’ve got just a little bit extra accountability from a court recently, Pennsylvania appeals court ruled that Bucks county acted in bad faith by illegally withholding COVID 19 school guidance records. So we had been working with Megan Brock, who was a mom up in Bucks county, who was trying to get information from county officials about the COVID school guidance. And she’s a fan of Judicial Watch. She knew enough about FOIA to ask questions on her own. And actually, believe it or not, in some jurisdictions, the state or the locality or the government entity that’s being FOIA’d can sue to stop the records from coming out.

So imagine Judicial Watch getting sued every time we filed a foia. That’s what happened to Megan Brock up in Pennsylvania. Brock is a parent who was sued by Bucks county after the trial court’s ruling in her favor in an effort to prevent the release of documents related to Covid restrictions and the reopening of the county schools that she requested under the commonwealth’s Right to Know law. In February And March of 2022, Brock sent a public records request asking for all electronic correspondence between Buck county executives, you know, public officials, and the health department regarding the Public School COVID 19 guidance, which was issued in August of 2021.

She was trying to determine who authorized reopening guidance that was changed to include more restrictive rules about masks, quarantining, and testing. And so what happened is they. The court affirmed the trial court’s May 23 award of sanctions against Bucks county in the amount of $3,000 to our client, Megan Brock. And so it. I know it doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but it’s a big moral victory. And as I note in our press release, the ruling confirms that Bucks county egregiously targeted. Excuse me. As our client notes, the ruling confirms that Bucks county egregiously targeted my civil rights by wrongfully withholding public records.

It’s frightening as an everyday American to be Bullied and attacked by your own government. I’m extremely thankful to Judicial Watch for their hard work in protecting my rights and the rights of all Americans. When Bucks county filed multiple lawsuits against me for exercising my constitutional rights, Judicial Watch was there when no one else had my back. I’m grateful for this legal victory and, and the precedent it sets for all Pennsylvanians who have hadwho have the right to government transparency. This was not a fair fight, and I could not have fought this battle alone. Judicial watches again ensure that no one is above the law, not even radical local politicians.

That was so nice of Megan to put that in. I approved the press release. I hadn’t seen Megan’s comments, so that was put in after I put approved the press release. So I’m kind of gobsmacked about how sweet this comment is about our work. And Meredith Deliberto is our lawyer up in Pennsylvania who helped her. And we were also assisted by Jay Shadwick Schnee of Schnee Legal Services up in Lilitz, Pennsylvania. Liditz, Pennsylvania, not Lilitz. Just great, great victory for Megan. And you know, I don’t need to tell you, you go and fight somebody city hall and you’re just, and you’re trying to ask for documents you do under law and they sue you, they sue you.

I mean, and you’re just a regular citizen, a mom activist. That’s outrageous. It’s outrageous. And so I tell you about our case before the Supreme Court and going into Illinois and suing the FBI and Justice Department for Epstein records and taking on Hillary and, and the Russiagate smears. Well, this is pretty darn important work too. Working with parents who are trying to protect their kids and their families and their communities from being abused by know nothing leftists using whatever excuse to push whatever agenda they have. In this case, it was the COVID agenda. It’s a nice victory for transparency and accountability over arrogant local officials who abuse citizens and school children over Covid.

The court’s imposing the maximum bad faith penalties on Bucks County. Sends a warning to every bureaucrat and elected official in Pennsylvania, as Megan says, that no one is above the law. So great, great news out of Pennsylvania, out of Bucks County. And I’m so happy for Megan Brock. Before I go, I know I’ve been talking for a bit, but there’s been a lot going on. You know, we got our republic to save. There’s some good news out of the courts. The Supreme Court has in a series of rulings. Really? Has it been sufficient? No. You know, we can all argue about the timing.

And you know, I don’t agree with everything the Supreme Court has done in this regard, but they are really pushing back on the judicial coups against President Trump and our system of government under our constitutional system, our constitutional republic. And I issued a tweet and I think is where that’s worth sharing with you because it’s important that you understand kind of the time we’re in and how important some of the work that’s going on is to our Republican form of government. And let me before I kind of just meander, I’m just going to read it out.

Right. Hopefully this is the one I wanted. Nope. Forgive me. We have it on Skype. Oh, they have it up. Okay. So this is a decision that just came down the other day, and this is my comment on it. Leftists on the Supreme Court are furious that President Trump is moving to restore constitutional and democratic control of the administrative state. Think about that. Constitutional and democratic control of the administrative state. The left does not believe that an elected president should be able to change policy and personnel in the executive branch. They want this permanent administrative state, the deep state, as we sometimes call it, to run the country and the president to have really not significant impact on how the government is administered.

That’s not democratic. Yes, I know we’re a constitutional republic, but we’ve got democratic forms in terms of electing our presidents and members of Congress, etc. And when we elect a president, we expect him to do what voters voted for and what he ran on. And President Trump ran on fixing the corruption here in Washington, D.C. and getting the deep state under control. And it’s to me, a core duty for any president to assert political control. The left doesn’t like that word, political. I use it in the democratic sense of the word, the accountability sense of the word, of the deep state.

They work for us. They think the president doesn’t own them. And when they think of that, that means they don’t think the voters own them in terms of their responsibility is to the voters, to the taxpayers. And as I say further in the tweet, thankfully, a strong majority of the court is repeatedly reversing judicial abuse below, meaning the lower courts to ensure constitutional government. The latest battle involves the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I don’t think there should be a Consumer Product Safety Commission, but there is a lower court effectively ordered the rehiring of Biden appointees fired by Trump, who then went on to hijack the agency completely.

They came backand I’m going on memory from the corporates. But you can look at it that they came back and essentially countermanded everything the Trump appointees had done after they were fired. It was like a complete hijacking of the agency on behalf of Joe Biden, who no longer was the president. How is that not a coup? The coup attack was just reversed by the high court. As I note, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion with the majority thinks the court should have also granted cert outright as the underlying and dubious Supreme Court opinion being maliciously misapplied by anti Trump judges is likely to be overturned.

Kavanaugh effectively say, let’s just do it. And what am I referencing there? It’s this opinion. You can look up the debates about it online. Humphrey’s executor, which found that in certain circumstances Congress could appoint and create independent agencies that had some insulation from having its appointees or members of the agencies fired by the President. And the Supreme Court has significantly curtailed that recently. But the lower courts haven’t gotten the message. And the Supreme Court has essentially said if an agency is engaged in executive decision making, well, the Constitution says the president’s supposed to be running that.

So that’s what the big debate is. And Kavanaugh’s saying, let’s just get to it and let’s stop having the lower courts misapply Humphrey’s executor and ignore our recent decisions and let’s cut it now in terms of this abuse of power by the lower courts who are allowing unelected appointees again to exercise anti democratic power. Real Donald Trump and his team in the White House and at Attorney General Bondi’s Justice Department are engaged in an historic battle to bring the Leviathan executive branch back under control of a democratically elected president, as the Constitution requires. The left media political complex here in DC Is apoplectic, but the founders would be proud.

These court battles are part of the most significant, significant movement for accountable government under our Constitution in the history of our grand republic. So I know you hear me complaining about a lot of things, but this is a significant government reform effort to restore constitutional balance to our system, to restore constitutional control over a key aspect of our government, the gargantua, as I call it, the leviathan administrative state. And the courts are resisting Trump in an abusive way. And as I call it, the judicial coup. Telling the president he can’t save money. Telling the president he can’t fire people as chief executive, even though the Constitution gives them that inherent authority.

And the Supreme Court in case after case is coming down. Not in every case, admittedly, or in a way that’s quick enough from my perspective, upholding the Constitution and the president’s authorities there. And the left sees it as a power grab. No, it’s a restoration of power to the people under President Trump. So, yes, there’s Epstein, there’s Russiagate. There’s all sorts of things that the president’s having to deal with. But there’s also this tremendous development for which he deserves credit. And when I was talking about the attorney general and the Justice Department, they deserve credit, too.

I mean, they’re just being fired upon by court after court after court, and they’re going to court to defend the president’s prerogatives here. And which are your prerogatives as citizens of the United States? Because the separation of powers requires the president to exercise authority as the chief executive. The courts can’t do that. They’re the judicial branch. When they exercise executive authority or legislative authority, that’s anti constitutional. And the reason we have separation of powers is because the founders thought the executive branch, the powers there, should be kept apart from the legislative branch. Similarly, the legislative and executive powers should be kept apart from the judicial branch because the founders recognized that anyone who exercises two or three of those core powers, or legislative, executive and judicial, that’s dictatorship.

So I don’t want a dictatorship of judges. I don’t want a presidential dictatorship, and I don’t want a congressional dictatorship. I want the powers to be separated so our freedoms are best protected. And President Trump’s in these moves to assert constitutional authority over these agencies that are rogue, constitutionally speaking, as I said in the tweet, is some of the most significant government reform in a positive sense that I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s just great. So I’m sorry, I’m going to end on a good note. I wish you the best. 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.