➡ Former FBI Director James Comey is accused of threatening President Trump’s life by posting a picture online with the number 8647, which some interpret as a call to harm the President. Comey claims he found the number on a beach and didn’t realize its violent connotations, so he removed the post and deleted his Instagram account. Critics, including President Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, believe Comey knew the implications and should face legal consequences. This incident adds to ongoing controversy around Comey’s actions and alleged bias against Trump.
➡ The text discusses the author’s belief that President Trump should use his power as chief prosecutor to direct the prosecution of government officials he believes have wronged him. The author also suggests that the FBI and Justice Department are corrupt and should be scrutinized, possibly even shut down, as their functions could be handled by other federal agencies. The author also raises concerns about President Biden’s mental fitness for office and suggests that he should have been removed under the 25th Amendment. Lastly, the author criticizes the Justice Department for not prosecuting Biden over a records case.
➡ The article discusses a controversy involving an interview with President Biden. The interview transcript was allegedly altered to hide signs of Biden’s dementia and potential criminal activity. Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group, sued for the release of the original audio recording, claiming the Biden administration was trying to cover up the truth. The Trump administration is expected to release the audio soon, which could reveal more about Biden’s mental state and possible criminal actions.
➡ The video discusses the alleged violent behavior of some members of Congress and their threats against federal law enforcement. It also criticizes the left-wing politicians for supporting violence and using it to achieve their goals. The video further discusses the issue of universal injunctions, where judges can shut down entire federal programs, and how this has been used against President Trump’s efforts to reform laws, including the definition of natural born citizenship. Lastly, it questions whether a single judge should have the power to dictate national policy and suggests that the Supreme Court should be the one to make such decisions.
➡ The Supreme Court is overstepping its authority, making decisions that affect national defense and immigration policies, which should be the President’s domain. This could lead to a constitutional crisis. To control such overreach, all available tools, including impeachment, should be considered. Judicial Watch is working on various cases and encourages public support.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. First up, James Comey, the worst FBI director in American history, and that’s saying something corrupt, criminal, treacherous has just been caught, effectively threatening the life of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. And what happened is he posted online the following picture, 8647. Let’s go to number and he says he just happened to run across that on the beach. Now, we’re all supposed to say let’s hold on a second on the next tweet. So we’re all supposed to believe that he just magically ran into this phrase 86, 47.

And if you don’t know what it means, it means kill President Trump. Now, I know there are other definitions of 86 that defenders of Comey have suggested, but in that context, it doesn’t matter. It’s the word literally is 8647 means kill the president. When you 86 someone in this context, you mean to kill them. And do I think he just ran across this on the beach and posted a photo? No, I don’t. I think he knew what he was doing. And here’s what his reaction was, suggesting that he knew he had done something wrong. I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message.

I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. Some folks, it is associated with violence. It never occurred to me that I opposebut I oppose violence of any kind. So I took the post down. And since then, he’s deleted his entire Instagram account. I don’t believe his account. He sounds, he makes it seem like he just ran across this number while walking down the beach. Do you believe it? I don’t. It’s like some episode of Lost. You walk down the beach and there’s some message written with seashells. Who is he fooling? Not me and nor it looks like, is he fooling President Trump or key members of the Trump administration.

Let’s go to that video of President Trump responding to Comey’s death threat. He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear. Now, he wasn’t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant. And he did it for a reason. And he was hit so hard because people like me, they like what’s happening with our country. Our country has become respected again. And all this, and he’s calling for the assassination of the president.

Obviously he apologized and said he doesn’t want to. Well, he apologized because he’s about violence. But look, he’s a very big. What do you want to see happen? What do you want to see happen? I don’t want to take a position on it because that’s going to be up to Pam and all of the great people. But I will say this. I think it’s a terrible thing. And when you add his history to that, if he had a clean history, he doesn’t. He’s a dirty cop. He’s a dirty cop. And if he had a clean history, I could understand if there was a leniency, but I’m going to let them make that decision.

He knew exactly. Well, President Trump, per usual, was right on target there. Of course, Comey knew. He knew better. He ain’t fooling anyone. And in my view, it should be just a matter of when he’s prosecuted, not if he’s prosecuted. Tulsi Gabbard seems to share my same concerns. Let’s go to the video of Tulsi, number 20, like him, who issued direct threats against the President of the United States, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law. Do you believe Comey should be in jail? I do. Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be.

I’m very concerned for the president’s life. We’ve already seen assassination attempts. I’m very concerned for his life. And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this. The left and Democrats want to get Trump killed. I’ve told you this before, and I’ll tell you again. It’s further evidenced in Comey’s death threat to President Trump. Quite obviously a death threat. Remember Bennie Thompson, the senior official, senior Democrat leader in the House, offered a piece of legislation to deny President Trump Secret Service protection if he was, quote, convicted by one of their lawless judges in their kangaroo court proceedings, with the thinking that he would go to Rikers without Secret Service protection, which would be a death sentence.

The Biden administration deprived him of Secret Service protection, adequate Secret Service protection, restricting his activities and leading to not one, but two near death experiences by the president. And we’re supposed to believe that this leading anti Trump activist, James Comey, who had it in for Trump from the get go, just innocently posted this I don’t buy it. And maybe he has a defense, but my view is he should tell it to the jury. And we’ve been investigating Comey for years. And one of the outrages of what happened to Trump is that Comey was never prosecuted for the abuses of him, of his targeting Trump, where he literally, personally spied on him as he’s coming into office, authorized interference and operations against the president.

And previous to that, his campaign, in ways never seen before in American history, he stole and leaked President Trump’s FBI files. And Bill Barr, the attorney general for President Trump, didn’t bother to prosecute him. Outrageous. And I had a little video on this. I think it was two. Was it two? What video was it? Or the 2019 video? Let’s go to that. Comey was spying on Trump. The reason he was writing the memos was to create a record so that he could destroy him. I’m paraphrasing, admittedly, but that’s pretty clear what was going on. This report confirms they went in to confront him with that ambush interview because they were trying to make a case against him.

You had the FBI director under Obama playing spy. We’re talking about spying on the Trump campaign, spying on President Elect Trump, spying on President Trump. Comey was the chief spy, and he was designated as such by Barack Obama because they met about this very issue a day or two before in the Oval Office with Barack Obama, Biden, Susan Rice, all the king’s horses, all the king’s men in there. And Comey was the go to guy. That’s right. I’m getting mad. Watching me from several years ago. I may not play videos from that long ago. It’s disturbing how much older I’ve gotten since then.

But we don’t forget here at Judicial Watch about this corruption. And so when you’re considering whether Comey is, quote, innocent, as President Trump says, he’s not an innocent guy. He’s a dirty cop. And him threatening Trump’s life is not only perfectly consistent for his behavior, but of the Democratic left generally in recent years, where they’ve embraced violence and the threat of violence in order to achieve their results. And as I noted in that previous video, it’s not just Comey. It was the whole gang that targeted Trump. And they all knew, and particularly Comey knew that there was never any basis.

As I highlighted in this major speech to CPAC a few years ago, Judicial Watch protected Trump and our republic from the worst corruption 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.

And he’s a crime victim again as a result of this gang, specifically Comey’s death threat against him, a threat issued while he was overseas, increasing the risk and again, elevating through his Instagram account. You know, Comey’s on tv, he’s a public figure. So it wasn’t like some guy in the far off never reaches of the Internet posted a threat. He’s a serious public figure. Now, I don’t take him seriously, but this corrupt city does too often. And he abused and seemingly violated the law to put the President’s life at risk. Now, our friend Susan Crabtree reported online, Twitter the other day or on X, that for threats such as this, the Secret Service normally just goes immediately to the person who made the threat.

They don’t wait days to pursue online threats made against the President of the United States. So my guess is that Comey’s already been interviewed or he’s, or he’s about to be interviewed, like not three days from now, but, you know, if not this evening, but over the weekend. And so the question is, is there going to be a prosecution as a result of that interview and the evidence gathered by the Secret Service or the FBI understanding? FBI is providing some backup support. And as President Trump noted that he didn’t want to say anything because it’s Pam Bondi’s decision.

And, you know, in the way things have worked in Washington, D.C. before, too often it is Pam Bondi’s decision. The United States Attorney General, as appropriate, makes prosecutorial decisions of this nature. But that’s purely at the discretion of the President of the United States, who is chief prosecutor. And I said it once and I’ll say it again, if I were President Trump, I would direct the prosecution of these gangsters in government that abused him. And in the case of James Comey, the FBI director he had to fire because of his corruption and abuse. He’s president, he’s prosecutor in chief.

He can direct the prosecution of James Comey right now. Now, he may not choose to exercise it for fear of causing a political fight over that or for some practical reasons, but he does have that power. And my thinking is he should exercise it forcefully, especially in matters like this. His life is on the line. His Secret Service agents around him, death threats, they could get killed as well. Citizens around him could get killed as well. We saw that with the assassination in Butler, the assassination attempt, an innocent American was murdered that day as well, people injured.

So this isn’t just about President Trump. It’s about other innocents in the vicinity of a president during an assassination attempt. And so I would just get on the horn and tell Attorney General Bondi, if I were President Trump, prosecute him. I’m directing you as president. If you don’t want to do it, I’ll find someone else. Now, my guess is, in these circumstances, Pam Bondi is going to do it. Pam Bondi is going to do it, but you never know, right? And so President Trump, the best way to ensure that something is done in many cases is to do it yourself.

Right? And he can do it literally himself by ordering the prosecution. And this kind of raises the bigger question of the Justice Department and the FBI, who runs the show there. And I highlighted last week, and it bears repeating, that we need to really put those agencies under the microscope. You know, James Comey is a perfect example. He was director of the FBI and ran the agency like some sort of stasi against the political enemies of the deep state, working hand in glove with the Obama gang and essentially partnering with the Hillary Clinton campaign to target Trump.

Now, I haven’t seen any move by the new leadership of the FBI, Cash Patel, who I consider to be a friend, Dan Bongino, to curtail the FBI’s powers in the sense of defanging the FBI, laying people off in mass numbers, like is happening at USAID in the Department of Education. If I were director of the FBI or I were president, I would direct the FBI director to essentially make the FBI in terms of. There’s a. If indeed there is a statutory minimum for the FBI to operate, I would say to Kash Patel, let’s get down to that, because there’s nothing the FBI is doing that can’t be handled by another federal agency in terms of law enforcement, or, frankly, even counterintelligence, if necessary.

And the same goes with the Justice Department to a lesser extent, because there may be some more statutory basises for allowing some more people to work at the Justice Department. And the other issue is who investigates the FBI over these abuses? I’ve talked about the targeting of Trump under the Biden administration, Justice Department and the FBI. Who investigates the investigators? I don’t think they can do it themselves. And so the president should stand up, a separate entity funded with Justice Department dollars, but reporting to him in the White House. Appoint a prosecutor that reports to him directly, partners with Attorney General Bondi as the prosecutor deems fit, and just prosecute, investigate, call grand juries, and the president as the chief prosecutor, or the prosecutor in chief, as I call him.

He can decide in the end what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. He can even suggest areas of investigation and actually more than suggest direct areas to be investigated as it relates to the criminality of the weaponization by the Obama, Biden, Clinton gang against him. Think of all the other things that need to be investigated. The issue of the invasion, who’s responsible for that? The issue of censorship of Americans, who’s responsible for that? The Biden criminality, the Biden crime family. What’s this Justice Department doing on that? I would just charge as if those pardons didn’t exist because I think they’re null and void.

Let them raise them as defenses and argue that they’re null and void. You can’t issue a pardon to someone for no crimes going back 10 years. That’s not a pardon. It doesn’t mean anything. And this is the sort of thing that a president can get done. And it would be very difficult that for Pam Bondi to get done, or frankly, Cash Patel to get done. I don’t trust the FBI to investigate the FBI. I just don’t. And I don’t trust the Justice Department to investigate the Justice Department. I could have a half a dozen friends in both agencies.

It doesn’t matter. It’s the institutions that are corrupted. And I don’t think the American people trust them either. I mean, they’re stonewalling on document after document in response to our FOIA request. Still, there’s no significant criminal investigation, as best I can tell, of the lawfare, against Trump and other innocent Americans. Time’s a wasting. Time’s a wasting. Of course, Congress is completely AWOL on this. So the FBI should be effectively shut down, at least. My personal view is that others may have different views. I recognize that, but I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them.

Same goes for the irs. IRS has been abused time and time again to target Americans. That’s reason alone to shut it down. And this is the kind of thought process and thinking and leadership, you know, if I do say so myself, leadership necessary to protect the Republic. We’ve developed these deep state agencies, these administrative agencies at the federal level whose goal, among other things, is to be ready, willing and often able to target Americans on the basis of their political beliefs, Third world tyrannical activity. And if someone’s using a gun repeatedly against you and the gun being the IRS or the FBI or other agencies, you take the gun away.

Now does it mean they’re going to stop their criminality? I’m not naive. But let’s take the weapons out of the hands of the toddlers who are running the deep state. And that’s a charitable interpretation of their behavior. This is the communist approach to governance. Jail and kill your enemies. And Comey is a malicious example of it really is. So I don’t know if you’ve seen all the books out there. I guess there’s at least one book by Jake Tapper and a co author, forgive me for not remembering his name, essentially confirming that Judicial Watch and other critics of Biden were right.

He was completely out of it. There was a major cover up and everyone knew he was out of it. But no one did anything to fix the situation. So that’s in the books now. So now it’s confirmed. Everything we’ve been hearing about and saying in terms of everyday Americans looking to see, looking at Biden thinking he’s out of it. And it was a dangerous situation because if you’re out of it, you can’t be making the decisions that are of a life or death nature. As commander in chief, and you may recall that I was highlighting the issue as it relates to the 25th amendment.

There should have been a 25th amendment process to remove, to remove, excuse me, Biden from office. Of course, the left calls for the, I say Trump because the left calls for Trump to be subjected, 25th Amendment removal all the time. I couldn’t even get Congress to hold a hearing on the 25th Amendment while Biden was essentially walking around bumping into walls. They literally used his dementia, the Justice Department did, as an excuse not to prosecute him on a records case while they raid President Trump’s home on the very same legal issues, completely corrupted. And that’s why when it came to that so called investigation of President Biden on his handling of classified information, remember he stole records, classified records from the Senate, from his days in the Senate and then he had records from his days as vice president that were classified as well.

I think there’s an argument, a strong one actually, that the vice president, he had the right to have them as vice president, even as a former vice president, because the same law applies to the vice president as it does to the president, which protected Trump, but he didn’t have the right to the records in the lease for the Senate side. And he should have been prosecuted, but her decided, not her. The special counsel interviewed Biden and based on that interview, decided not to prosecute him. We have considered that at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.

Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him. He. He is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. So no prosecution. And so, oh, what we saw there was a transcript of this interview. Where’s the video? Where’s the audio? Turns out there was an audio taken. So we sued Judicial Watchted. We initiated the first litigation for the audio of the hero interview of Biden or interviews. I think they took place over two days. And we immediately got the runaround from the Biden Justice Department and the Biden White House. They didn’t want to turn them over.

They said there was a privacy interest President Biden had in his own voice, which is absurd. He’s President of the United States. And they even went so far as to say that AI could be used to manipulate his voice, which is absurd as well. Although interesting in the sense it was the first time, I think AI was used as a basis to hide government records from the American people in order to protect Joe Biden and the Democrats from covering up his dementia for years. So the Trump administration comes in and a federal court in Judicial Watch’s case asks the Trump administration, well, you’re new.

Do you want to change your position on the hiding of Biden’s audio transcript? Now, Judicial Watch had already proven through our litigation, they had actually changed the transcript to make it better for Biden. They eliminated the hems, the haws, the uhs, the sorts of verbal tics that people make when they’re confused or maybe lying or trying to come up with an answer, buying time. You know how it works. You get asked, did you take the cake? No. Well, if the transcript just says no and takes out all those ums and ahs, it’s a very different transcript.

And then sure enough, we get further documentation that they were literally trying to not just eliminate certain tics like us and things like that, but the records show that they were trying to change the transcript itself, the words attributed to Biden in order to cover up his dementia. We just uncovered that a few weeks ago, frankly, thanks to the Trump administration. They gave us those records. They were extraordinary in the sense they’re typically not released under foia, but at least in this case, Trump went and his people and Pam Bondi went full on with more transparency.

So the court wanted to know if the Trump people were going to change their views or the government’s position on releasing the audio. And what was the answer by the Trump administration? They came back and said we need three months till May 20, which I think is ridiculous. But May 20 is in a few days and there’s been reports that they are essentially planning to release the audio. They’re not, it’s not final, but it looks like it’s going to happen, which is great. Which is great. And to me it’s one more piece of the scandal that should be further prosecuted and investigated.

Who was running the White House? Were decisions made under the name of Biden legitimate in the sense that he was able to make them or literally he did make them as opposed to outsourcing them in a way that was improper. And the court, and along those lines, what about the coup? Why wasn’t there, there should be a criminal investigation of the coup against Biden? I mean, there’s a report that I think Obama or someone threatened him with the 25th amendment if he didn’t pull out of the wet ra. That would be a crime if it’s true or potentially a crime.

And we just got a new batch of documents showing the Biden White House was pressuring special counsel her on the release of the report and other matters as it relates to their conclusions, excuse me, about Joe Biden. They were pretending there was national security issues, et cetera, et cetera. So what happened is that we found out that they, the government had to admit that the Biden gang altered the transcript. So we filed a second lawsuit for records about their communications and efforts to alter the transcript and mess with the report. And like I said, I give credit to the Trump Justice Department and Pam Bondi’s team for releasing this incredible information.

And some of the letters are the sorts of letters a lawyer would send to a prosecutor, especially this kind of rarefied area of law or prosecutorial decision making related to a President of the United States. They want to know what they’re planning, where things stand, if they can make a case for or against continued prosecution. But they were desperate to kind of police their report. And that’s clear from the documents. And so what happened is, and we got these documents showing that HUR required the Biden gang to sign off on, to sign non disclosure agreements in exchange for looking at the report.

So we have These non disclosure agreements and we publish them. But it’s all part of the kind of the, you know, you’re putting the picture and the puzzle together about the desperate effort by the Biden gang to cover up the corruption as it relates to Joe Biden’s dementia. And obviously he still had criminal liability issues as well. I mean, it wasn’t just about the dementia. I mean, that would be a political problem for them. They recognized that it was about his criminal activity as it relates to the handling of documents, criminal activity that was going on or was an issue and a known issue, even as they’re throwing the book of President Trump on the fake crimes he was accused of as it relates to document handling.

I mean, the corruption is just like ait’s like an onion, right? You got to, there’s so many layers to the corruption, the dementia, Trump, you know, the abuse of Trump on charges that Biden could have been and should have been prosecuted for at the same time, if indeed they were really concerned about the issue. I mean, the corruption is just legion here. So I’m going to ask my colleagues to bring in a water if they can. So stand by Biden audio. Hopefully incoming. Thanks again to your heavy lifting Judicial Watch. Oh, and by the way, Biden’s out here.

I don’t think we have any videos of Biden for you. But he’s out there again trying to create a fake narrative about how he left and, you know, why he could have won and why Harris lost and, you know, all of that, it’s just, it’s kind of just silly in some respects. But the point is he’s still a significant political figure. And I don’t, I’m not going to forget about the crimes he committed or his family committed or likely committed, you name it. They always want us to move on. They spend years abusing American citizens, including yours truly and your Judicial Watch.

They raid the President’s home and then President Trump wins or a Republican wins, it doesn’t matter. Here’s my war. Thank you, Matt. And they say, oh, well, don’t investigate any of that. Yeah, we know government was weaponized against you. And the Republican leadership says, oh, we can’t do that. We just can’t. You know, we’ll be as bad as they are. No, you’re not. You’re actually investigating real crimes as opposed to putting people in prison just because they disagree with you, which is what the left had done. And when there’s zero accountability, zero consequences, you can be sure it’s going to happen again.

So Unless there’s something done related to Comey, the Biden gang, the lawfare, the weaponization. And by something, I don’t mean an intermittent prosecution, one guy here and there getting prosecuted. I mean a serious grand jury investigation, an investigation for the ages into the worst criminal abuse of power targeting one man and his supporters, Donald Trump, that we’ve ever seen in the history of the United States. And of course, Judicial Watch is going to push on our FOIA lawsuits, push through with them, file more. One more lawsuits. Excuse me, my cold is acting up and my throat is killing me here.

And so I’ll let you know, maybe we’ll hear next week, because May 20th is the deadline as to when this, her video or audio of Biden’s tapes get released. So stay tuned for that. What else is happening? Give me a second to get my throat under control. So we talked about this last week and it’s worth going over again because the left is now circling the wagons around their dangerous, violent conduct up in Newark, New Jersey at an ICE detention facility. The mayor of Newark was arrested. Now the question is, will other arrests occur, namely of three Democrat politicians, or at least one of them, three Democratic members of Congress.

And as you may recall, the video was pretty awful. It showed a violent attack by these left wing Democrat politicians on federal law enforcement. Let’s play one of these videos at least. You guys pick one. So the woman in red was a member of Congress, believe it or not. And the guy in the red tie you saw in the beginning of the video was the mayor evidently being arrested. And the left is out there pretending and threatening, threatening federal law enforcement for even thinking about arresting members of Congress for engaging in violent behavior. Now the argument is, oh, they have a right to, as members of Congress, conduct oversight.

And that means gaining access to facilities such as that. That is absolutely true. Is it? Is it, Is it the best practice? I don’t know. But separation of powers, et cetera, that’s another fight. But the point is, that’s true. They typically have that right to access or granted access. But they’re supposed to set up a meeting. You know, you don’t just show up and push through a security line in a way that creates unsafe issues and is assaultive of officers. You set an appointment up and then you get the tour. You don’t bum rush the cops.

So the underlying violence isn’t bad enough. These left wing Democrats, these left wing politicians are threatening more violence. Look at this video I came across of aoc. If anyone’s breaking the law in this situation. It’s not members of Congress, it’s the Department of Homeland Security. It’s people like Tom Homan and Secretary Kristi Noem. You lay a finger on someone, on Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there, you lay a finger on them, we are going to have a problem. That’s outrageous. I mean, is that a threat? You know, when they, when you think and understand what they did to the January 6th protesters and you see stuff like that by AOC, or what Comey did with the 8647 threat he issued against President Trump.

The left, this is what I’ve repeatedly tried to tell you and warned about. The left didn’t care about January 6th because of the violence. They saw it as an opportunity and leveraged it to target and scheme to jail Trump, jail Trump supporters and make it more difficult to challenge elections in the future that they want to steal. The left does not object to violence. Violence is a core leftist value. They rely on it and wield it repeatedly to advance their goals. And we’re seeing this with the targeting of ICE officials. When you saw Ed Martin get assaulted, the then acting U.S.

attorney, now senior Justice Department official, you see these law enforcement officers get assaulted by members of Congress and elected mayor, and then the former FBI director threatens the president’s life. These are dangerous times, everyone. Dangerous times. And we’re going to be taking strong action or at least the action that we can take soon on this issue with the corruption of the members of Congress who targeted that ICE facility. So stay tuned for some legal action from Judicial Watch on that. Oh, and I promised you a coup. Update this one on the judicial aspect of the coup against our constitutional republic, where judges throughout the land are issuing what are called universal injunctions that effectively through one US district court judge, which is just one judge of 630 or so, shut down entire federal programs in this case with respect to Trump that was before the Supreme Court, his efforts, for example, to change or restore the proper definition of natural born citizenship by effectively denying citizenship to those children born to people who are here illegally or just passing through.

The 14th Amendment says you’re a natural born citizen if you’re born just as long as you’re born here in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What is subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean other than not just passing through as a tourist or a student, but maybe as a student, maybe you’re here long enough that you are subject to the total jurisdiction is the way the framers understood it of the 14th amendment. So that could be an interesting, that’s more of an interesting question. But certainly someone coming in, staying a week just to have a baby and then leaving, which has been frequently highlighted as an issue with the Chinesewith Chinese nationals doing that.

That is not, that’s no. How many Americans would think that’s sensible And a correct application of the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to a foreign national who flies in, has a baby in a hospital and then goes back home and they get to treat that child as an American citizen. So judges don’t like Trump’s basic understanding of this law of the Constitution and trying to apply it as it was written. And so they’ve shut it down through so called universal injunctions that shut it down across the land. And so the Supreme Court had a hearing this week on the use of universal injunctions, which have been abused and weaponized by anti Trump activists on the courts, to shut down President Trump’s efforts to reform, manage control, protect Americans, manage the government, control government spending, combat waste, fraud and abuse, secure the republic from the foreign invaders, restore citizenship under law.

And judges are just completely overruling the republic whose voice has given effect through our elections and the election of the president of the United States. So the Supreme Court was trying to figure out how that would work out in terms of not necessarily addressing the underlying issue in this case, which was universal injunctions as it relates to the natural born citizenship question, but the idea of them being used at all circumstances. And Justice Thomas, as is typical, got to the heart of the matter historically. General, when were the first universal injunctions used? We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wirz in 1963 was really the first, first universal injunction.

There’s a dispute about Perkins against Lucan’s Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the court’s opinion that reversed that, that that universal injunction issued by the D.C. circuit and said it’s, it’s profoundly wrong. Now, if you look at the, the cases at the either party site, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite, like National Treasury, Treasury’s employment union Perkins against Lukens Oil, Frothing Hammond and in Massachusetts against Mellon, going back to Scott against Donald and all of those, those are cases where the court considered and addressed the sort of universal, in that case, statewide issue of provision of injunctive relief.

So when the court has considered it, addressed this, it is consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs of appearing in court and complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions. That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those are very, very rare, even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007 in our circ petition in Summers against Earth Island Institute, we pointed out that the 9th Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims. So the challenge President Trump has with this, because I think the majority of the court is willing to restrict the use of universal injunctions, but ironically, this may not be the case in which it’s restricted.

Because if there’s an excuse, if there’s any excuse for a universal injunction, maybe this is the excuse. Right. Where there is a question about whether everyone who’s here, who otherwise might be a citizen under the old interpretation of the 14th Amendment in federal law would not be a citizen under the new interpretation. And maybe a universal injunction is justified, although the response to that is there’s what they call a class action process that would allow this to be certified as quickly and as broadly as would be done under a universal injunction. Which, of course, again, begs the question further, if judges abuse their authority to grant radical and nationwide relief, whether through lawful means, through class action, national lawsuits, at least lawful, in terms of the way the Trump administration thinks it ought to go, and the way I think many conservative justices think it ought to go, versus abusive means, I don’t want to call them unlawful because they’ve been upheld universal injunctions in the past.

I mean, we’re still stuck. If the courts are abusing their authority, it doesn’t matter what, what whistles and bells they put on it, how they decorate it, what language is used. It’s still the same fundamental abuse. And it seems to me that that’s the challenge the Supreme Court has. Are they going to let one judge dictate national policy? Now, the Supreme Court is the court established under the Constitution. Now, we can argue about whether the Supreme Court should overrule the president in this regard, but no one would argue they don’t have national jurisdiction. Right. Do you think a California judge should have national jurisdiction, effectively, even through a federal class action, over whether to grant citizenship status to essentially Chinese nationals, abusing our system, coming in, having babies, getting the citizenship there associated with that and then leaving? I don’t think that should be the case.

Now, is the Supreme Court going to be the solution here? No, the court’s wrong. The court’s wrong. But at least it’s a constitutional dispute then, right? You’re. No one doubts the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and why you Know, I say the word jurisdiction, I’m not a lawyer, but, you know, you should recognize jurisdiction means the power to hear the case and create a remedy. So that’s why it’s important that it be nationalized through the Supreme Court process at least and as quickly as possible when these lower courts go rogue one way or the other. But the Supreme Court is in trouble, too.

I mean, they just issued a decision now essentially further hampering President Trump’s ability to protect this nation from terrorists and invaders by expelling them under a law that’s been around for centuries. And they’re essentially telling President Trump, each person being expelled gets some court hearing of an indeterminate or, or access to courts and a pause on any removal proceedings for Lord knows how long. The court isn’t empowered to run our national defense policy like that. At the second guess, the president’s determinations in that regard. That’s the way towards a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court exercising authorities they have no right to exercise under the Constitution.

So I don’t know how the court’s going to rule. I suspect Trump will win some and lose some in this case, or those of us concerned about universal injunctions will win some and lose some in this case. And it’s going to be win some and lose some. On all of the fights that Trump is engaged in. The left is waging warfare with the help of radical judges or judges who may otherwise not be radical, but are radicalized because they hate Trump. And I say win some, lose some, but you know, if the sum you lose or the constitutional republic loses could be extensively damaging.

And that’s the concern we have. And that’s why all the tools available to rein in rogue judges should be on the table. I mean, the court has, I mean, this Congress has. There are bills related to this universal injunction issue. There are bills potentially related to stripping jurisdiction over some issues by the courts at the lower level at least. And then of course, there’s impeachment. The founders saw impeachment as a way to check out of control judges, activist judges, and that should be on the table as well. And I’ll put, and I, and I don’t want to belabor it since I’ve talked about it often, but the founders thought about it and people were concerned about the judiciary being too powerful.

And they said, don’t worry, I have an op ed on this. I described it in the op ed. We’ll put a link below so you can see the specifics of the quotes from the founders. They said the judicial branch is the weakest branch because they don’t have guns, essentially. And they said, plus the ultimate security, the complete security against outlaw judges, radical judicial activist judges, they didn’t use that language, but they used similar language. Judges who would usurp the powers of the executive and legislative branch. A judge who thinks he’s commander in chief or thinks he’s a congressman who can just write law from the bench.

Impeachment is the complete security against that abuse. So count me in as someone who thinks that we should follow the founder’s vision and utilize the impeachment method as a way to police out of control judges. So a lot going on here at Judicial Watch. I encourage you to join our cause, support our movement. Go to judicialwatch.org Many cases ongoing over Biden corruption, lawfare, the immigration invasion under Biden, censorship, saving our elections, election integrity, you name it. Judicialwatch.org thank you for your support. I’m thanking you for your support, not my support. 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.