Summary
➡ The text discusses concerns about the current political climate, focusing on issues like free speech, social media regulation, and post-election day ballot counting. It criticizes the left’s approach to free speech and the handling of the election, and mentions a Supreme Court petition filed against Illinois’ post-election day ballot counting. The text also highlights the perceived threat to free speech from big tech and media censorship.
➡ The article discusses a legal case where candidates challenged a law allowing post-election day counting of ballots. The Seventh Circuit Court dismissed the case, stating the candidates didn’t have standing to challenge the law. The article argues that candidates should have the right to contest laws affecting their campaigns and calls for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on this issue. It also criticizes the court’s reluctance to hear such cases and emphasizes the importance of fair and clean elections.
➡ Secret Service agents were accused of covering a salon’s security camera and using the salon’s bathroom without permission during a visit by Vice President Kamala Harris in Massachusetts. The agents claimed they covered the camera to mitigate threats. However, the salon owner was not informed about their plans and was left with an unsecured building after their departure. The Secret Service later apologized to the salon owner, despite initially denying their involvement.
➡ A lawsuit was filed against West Point for allegedly disguising a name change of their Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) office to the Office of Engagement and Retention. The change is suspected to be a cover for a radical DEI agenda. This comes amid concerns of decreasing morale and recruitment in the military, with claims that the current administration is making the military inhospitable for conservative individuals. The lawsuit seeks transparency and accountability from West Point and the military leadership.
Transcript
And so this was Matt Gaetz decision tweet to drop out from this position of, or his nomination from Attorney General. He had excellent meetings with the senators yesterday. This all happened, I guess this is Friday. This was yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback and the incredible support of so many. There’s a lot of, there’s a lot missing in that. Not everyone supported him. While the momentum was strong, it’s clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump van’s transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle.
So he’s gone. He withdrew his name from consideration. He’s not going back to Congress, even though technically he probably could have at least next term. And so President Trump quickly, later that day, nominated the former Florida Attorney General who served two terms there, Pam Bondi. B O N D I and I thought it was another good pick. I worked with Pam slightly, in fact, during the Trump administration. And here was my initial tweet. He’s well qualified and has direct experience battling the corrupt DC Swamp, which has tried to destroy Trump. And that is true. She was his representative, his lawyer, during one of the sham coup impeachments targeting him.
She did a great job and she knows just how bad the other side is. And I don’t mean the other side being, oh, politically, I mean those on the other side of the law who were abusing the rule of law and positions of power, certainly in the Justice Department, to try to smear and, and target Trump. And I’m convinced, and I want to take a step back about how all of this worked. You know, this confirmation process is an abomination, at least the modern version of it in the Senate. And the idea that you have hearings and hearings and investigations and investigations are designed to cull and conservatives from those, from the types of people who might be nominated, strong, powerful reformers, because what happens is the left uses the confirmation process in the Senate to smear them, destroy their reputations, and even if they can’t defeat them, tar them forever if they get into whatever position they get into, whether they be a judicial appointment, which is a lifetime position at the federal level in most cases, or cabinet appointments.
And Gates shows really, you don’t really need confirmation hearings for the process of advice and consent to work. You know, the modern day confirmation hearing is just that. It’s a modern day development in the Senate. The Senate used to handle confirmations in the ordinary course and it would take days, weeks, rarely months to provide advice and consent for the President. But now these hearings are, as I said, nothing more than search and destroy missions by the left. So to the degree this nomination process can be short circuited or Republicans kind of reform them in the next few weeks, that would be good.
And of course, the old bulls of the Senate, the conservatives, and I don’t use that word in a, well, I shouldn’t say pejorative way or positive way, just conservatives, they don’t want the institution changed. Include people like Mitch McConnell, the former majority leader who’s still a senator. And as I tweeted out yesterday, I have no doubt Senator Mitch McConnell is responsible for the Gates confirmation failure in the Senate. So let me be clear. The reports are that there were senators in the Republican caucus that were not going to vote for Gates. They don’t believe that they were concerned about any of his personal issues.
No, they saw this. Those personal issues gave them an opportunity to undermine President Trump, who they oppose and whose support have contempt for. I mean, Mitch McConnell generally is a conservative guy, but he doesn’t like Trump and he doesn’t like this sort of aggressive, proactive approach from Trump supporters in dealing with the crisis that’s facing our country. And so the question that Trump has to deal with is, is this core group of senators centered around McConnell going to continue to obstruct his efforts to get cabinet officials appointed? One way around that, the constitutional option is to have the president and working with Senate Majority Leader Thune and Mike Johnson, essentially construct a situation where he is able to basically call the Congress into recess or demand that it go into the recess as is allowed under the Constitution.
And if that happens, the theory is he can start appointing people after at least 10 days to the Cabinet that he wants. This is all assuming there’s this, there becomes roadblocks to keep positions getting through. So that’s what’s facing Trump, that you know, that a objections from Mitch McConnell to reformers that could sink key nominees that the president wants on his team and the possibility of getting into a bigger fight through recess appointments and that constitutional action that again, that is in the Constitution. But the left will object to because President Trump isn’t allowed to exercise his prerogatives as president.
I mean, that’s what we’ve learned, that he’s not allowed to do what other presidents are allowed to do because they hate him. And this is an opportunity for you to participate in the process as well. Because as far as I’m concerned, these confirmations really should be done by Inauguration Day. And I did a quick video explaining what you can do there. You have the U.S. capitol, a lot going on, President Trump putting together what looks to be a powerful cabinet. And of course, the Senate doesn’t want to move too quickly on them. I think they should, whether it be Matt Gaetz or Tulsi Gabbard or Pete Hegseth, Bobby Kennedy, Marco Rubio, there’s no good reason to deny any of them a quick confirmation.
Frankly. The Senate should have the president’s entire cabinet ready to go and confirmed by Inauguration Day. What do you think? You need to share your views with the Senate. 2022-2431-2120-2224-3121 call your senators. Let them know what you think. Should it be business as usual with stalling and delaying and abusing appointees, or should they just get going because this country needs saving and we need to team in place to begin saving the republic immediately under President Trump? Yeah, and I think Gates just dropped out like a minute after we did that video. But it still applies. If you think Pam, as I noted earlier on social media, Pam Bondi can be confirmed in minutes, practically speaking.
So this whole process, as I said, it’s designed to punish appointees and nominees, especially those who are conservative. And so you should call your senators every chance you get. Every time it occurs to you at 202-2243-1212-2244-3121 and then ask them or tell them respectfully. Remember, they’re just regular folks answering the phones. They’re not the senators asking the phones. So don’t punish them. Be respectful, even if they’re not even respectful to you sometimes. I know that’s the case. And share your views about it. I mean, if you want Pete Hegseth in there, you need the call. If you want Pam Bondi in there, you need the call.
If you want Tulsi in there, you need the call. If you want Robert Kennedy Jr. In there, you need the call. This is not a time for wasting. I mean, as far as I’m concerned, you know, the work has got to be done now. And the Gates nomination proves that the Senate can move quickly to consider a nomination just through regular meetings and internal deliberations. And Gates got the message. He wasn’t going to get through without significant pain to the Trump team, and he probably wouldn’t get through at all. So that was the end of the nomination.
So why can’t we get that same process accelerated for nominees that are clearly going to get through? And Congress has got to get going on everything. I mean, right now, they’re talking about continuing resolutions through March. Some want continuing resolutions through the end of the fiscal year, which would be October, which would mean, practically speaking, everything that Biden has been spending continues to be fully funded through the first year of the Trump administration. How would you like that? Right now, there’s going to be a continuing resolution, and they just want to let it go through, even through March, with no real significant policy amendments.
So they’re going to keep on funding the invasion, they’re going to keep on funding the abuse of Trump, they’re going to keep on funding the First Amendment censorship. You know, everything else that they hate about the Biden administration, they promised to change once they got into office. Well, they won the election, and they still don’t want to change it. Now, that’s not to say there won’t be changes next year, but why in the meantime, would they fund it? I’m sorry. It’s November, December, January, February, March. So four months of Bidenomics, four months of funding all this climate scam money that’s going out the door.
So again, call your members of Congress and let them know what you think about this, because I tell you, I’ve had enough meetings on the Hill, I’ve talked to enough members to know that they have a much different approach than voters do to cleaning up Washington even after the election. Elon Musk and that Department of Government efficiency. Boy, Congress is going to be their enemy unless the voters reinforce what they said on Election Day. That’s for sure. What’s been the left response to the election? Well, first of all, before I get to that, I want to show you this one video because this kind of showed you the leftist approach to dealing with their political opposition.
And it was kind of an unusual video in that it has almost a million views on Judicial Watch’s YouTube channel. And I’m just commenting on what? Well, let’s just play the video. What do we have here? Oh, boy. So this leftist, or what seems to be a leftist, is trying to take down, comically, unsuccessfully, this Trump Vance sign. I’m not sure why he’s unable to do it. I’d like to think I could take it down with one hand. Is this the left’s new masculinity? I don’t know, you know, but it occurs to me, I see lots of signs I don’t like in the District of Columbia political signs.
It doesn’t occur to me to take any of them down, even the ones that might be there in a place they’re not supposed to be under the law. But this is the left’s approach towards free speech. But isn’t that an encapsulation of the left’s approach to free speech? And that was obviously pre election. Now, I don’t know if I could take it down with one hand. I think maybe two hands I could have taken it down with. And this is what I’ve been saying here and elsewhere. You can’t slow down a bit even with an election whose results you might agree with and like.
Because the issues that concern you, such as destruction of our borders, such as the destruction of our First Amendment freedoms and all the other plans and schemes they have up or they’ve had up their sleeve for some time now, it ain’t going to go away. Like, for instance, their reaction, the extremist left’s reaction to speech they don’t like as expressed at the ballot box, is to destroy speech and suppress it and censor it. And here’s a video talking about that. I think in a normal country we would say, hold on a second, maybe we need to have a different set of regulations for social media platforms now.
They’re this big. It would help if we could regulate social media because one of the biggest defenders is D.C. and Congress have not been able to do one thing in regard to the rogue corporations and then moves them through YouTube videos, through, through podcasts, moves them from that annoyance all the way slowly, slowly, slowly to a full blown fascist politic. We don’t have the equivalent of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson to move that man in a feminist direction. Go fuck yourself. I don’t know what that last one was. Well, Elon Musk was. Well, you know, I do remember what the context of that rather blunt statement by Musk was.
He was responding to advertisers threatening to pull their advertising from their platform in order to get him to censor speech. And there was this Boycott organized by the radical left to destroy Twitter, literally destroy Twitter for promoting freer speech. And that was his response. If they were going to try to threaten him and extort him, that was his response. And it’s the correct response. And of course, he has the sort of go bleep yourself money that makes him basically difficult to corrupt and to corral. But the left isn’t going to stop trying to suppress free speech.
They don’t believe in it. They want to regulate it. Our speech at Judicial Watch has been censored by Big Tech. As I noted last week, the Washington Post and New York Times and the whole media censorship government complex has been targeting us for censorship. We’ve got. We’ve been literally censored at the behest of government officials. And I tell you, when Trump comes in, he should expose all of that, because a lot of that was out of the Biden White House. So Judicial Watch had a major development, or, you know, we engaged in a major piece of legal work this past week or so.
We filed a Supreme Court petition on post election day counting in Illinois, and I think we filed the case two years ago. And here’s a summary of the issue that I put out there when we first filed it. Everybody. Do you think they should be counting ballots for up to two weeks after election day? Well, of course you don’t. In Illinois, though, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election day, including ballots that don’t have a postal mark on them. We’re in federal court now trying to stop that, because federal law requires an election day, not an election week, not an election month.
We got a federal appellate court hearing this week. Hopefully that court allows our case to proceed. In the meantime, we’re doing heavy lifting down there in Mississippi, where they count ballots for up to five days after election day. Now, many other states, they also count ballots after election day or ballots that arrive after election day, which is anathema to the very notion of fair and clean elections. It creates a mess, it invites voter fraud, it undermines voter confidence, and it’s downright illegal. Yeah. And we had that big 5th Circuit ruling in the Mississippi case that and the circuit court agreed with us, the appellate court, that counting ballots after election day or received after election day is unlawful.
And just counting, in my view, counting ballots generally after election day is unlawful, although no court specifically has agreed with me on that yet. But certainly counting ballots that arrive after election day is something that is contrary to plain federal law. And we see the chaos caused by, generally speaking, the counting of ballots after election day in California. What are the I checked the numbers just before I came on here. They have yet to count 315,000 ballots in California. Can you believe it? 315,000 ballots. Arizona. They went and counted ballots forever. And a day after election Day it took over.
I think it took well over a week for Clara to be brought to the Senate race. And of course many people think the Senate race was compromised as a result of that past election day post election day counting. Illinois, As I note 14 days after election day and what happened in Illinois was the courts there were afraid to let the case proceed. Really scandalously denied our clients the right to even bring the case by founding they didn’t have any standing. On what earth would a judge think frankly? And I have to be careful here because these are the judges and I don’t want to get them mad at me and mad at Judicial Watch.
Right. And our clients. But the idea that a congressman running for public office and electors who were involved in the presidential contest wouldn’t have the right to challenge illicit counting of ballots, it makes no sense. And of course it’s not the law. And that’s why we filed the petition with the Supreme Court. And I’m going to read you the first few paragraphs of said petition. It was filed earlier this week. Here it is. If you go to page two of the beginning of the petition. Statement of the case. For over 130 years this court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time place for manner regulations affecting their federal elections.
Until recently it was axiomatic that the candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has a more particularized injury than a candidate has. We quote that is because a candidate who pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail and who puts her name on a ballot has an undeniably different and more particularized interest in the lawfulness of the election than some random voter in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. However, for a variety of reasons, this is my editorial comment.
Trump courts have limited candidates ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest and an extreme example of this trend. Petitioners are a sitting multi term congressman, Congressman Bost Bost and two federal electors. They challenged an Illinois law that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the day specified in federal statutes for holding federal elections. They contend that Illinois receipt deadline the election law is preempted by the federal Election Day law standards. They asserted Article 3 standing, which is standing before the federal courts on a number of grounds, including that they incur costs to run their campaigns for an additional two weeks to monitor ballot receipt and counting.
Straightforward standing analysis. They got to spend more money. They also claimed a particular interest as candidates in an accurate tally of validly received votes. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Illinois or has Illinois in its jurisdiction, affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. The majority held that the petitioners had not pleaded an injury, in fact because in the court’s opinion, they did not need to conduct post election monitoring of late arriving ballots in 2022 and thus any expenses incurred for monitoring were self inflicted.
I mean that’s just like Alice in Wonderland logic, Alice in Wonderland logic by the court to keep this case out. The court also declined the fine standing because the 2024 election was then two months away. So it was too soon. So afterwards it’s too late and beforehand it’s too soon. That’s what happened in 2020 with the anti Trump rulings by judges who were afraid to deal with the election controversies. Until this ruling, the only non vacated circuit authorities to confront the question of candidate standing had held that candidates do have standing to contest violations of federal election law affecting their campaigns.
Straightforward analysis. Petitioners respectfully submit that it is important, and this is key, for the court to correct the serious errors infecting the seven Circuit’s ruling, especially those tending to foster an arbitrary approach to jurisdictional issues involving federal candidates. Again, this anti Trump animus infecting other cases. They didn’t like Trump messing around challenging elections. That’s my perception. And so our clients here challenge an obviously illegal law post election day counting of ballots received after election day and they come up with this idea that candidates can’t challenge that. If candidates can’t, who can? It is also important that lower courts, potential litigants and the public know that federal courts are open to hear timely, well pleaded challenges to state time, place and manner regulations.
Federal court rulings on the merits, regardless of outcome, promote public confidence that federal elections are being conducted fairly, with integrity and in accordance with the law. The petition presents an opportunity for the court to provide lower courts and litigants much needed guidance on candidate standing outside of the high stakes emergency post election litigation where these issues commonly arise. That’s why we asked them to grant cert basically take up the case. So it’s a good effort by our legal team. We had that major victory in the fifth Circuit. And the seventh Circuit doesn’t want to deal with the merits, you know, taking on this.
As we highlight in the brief, this increasingly restrictive view that candidates can’t challenge elections how they’re run and any illegalities associated with it. Now how is that supposed to deal? You know, if we can’t use the law to resolve election disputes, then what do we do? And the court needs to step in, in our view and fix it and make it clear candidates can challenge elections in this manner or the way elections are conducted. We’re not even challenging results. And now sometimes they say, well, you know, this is just too run and gun, it’s too close to the election.
You know, we’re not going to intervene after the election and start throwing out election results. There’s no excuse here. This is a straightforward case that at most would apply to 2024 at this stage. No, excuse me, 2026. We just had the 2024 election. So the two questions I have for you, dear listener and dear viewer, A, do you think that states should follow federal law and only count ballots received by election day? And B, if they’re not, should candidates have the standing to challenge it? And you don’t have to be a lawyer to answer yes to both.
Right? Just common sense. So this is what, again, what I love about Judicial Watch. It’s like we don’t stop the election was done and we’re still fighting for election integrity. A colleague of mine, a friend of mine, he said that in, in, you know, in public policy, there are no intermissions. We’re back to work. We’re back to work for cleaner elections and the rule of law. And we’re trying to get the courts to pay attention, rule and stop using the standing scheme argument to prevent people from raising these issues in court. What a great little case that we’re pursuing here.
And obviously we’re watching what’s going on in California very carefully and we may take some action there. In terms of the post election day counting. As I say in the release, it is a scandal that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted. Illinois’s 14 day extension of election day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. The Supreme Court should take up this case and reaffirm the right of federal candidates to challenge unlawful election schemes. So to bring you up to speed, in case you’re not familiar with Judicia Watch’s Work.
We have numerous historic federal cases to clean up election rolls that in the last two years or so alone resulted in 4 million names being cleaned up. We achieved a massive victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding as unlawful the counting of ballots, at least in Mississippi, that arrive after Election Day. We’ve got this major case in Illinois trying to defend the candidates who want to challenge laws like that in Illinois. And we have multiple lawsuits still to clean up millions of other dirty names from the voting rolls. In addition to all of our other work defending voter id, challenging the left’s attack on clean elections generally in courts across the land.
There is no private entity out there doing more to secure fair and clean elections over the last two decades than Judicial Watch. So you should support our work. Right. One of the other issues out there. Moving on to another topic, another element of the crisis is the failures of the Secret Service to protect the life of President Trump adequately. He was almost killed twice in Butler and then down in Florida. And Judicial Watch has been second to none in exposing over the years the failures, dysfunction, politics and corruption of the Secret Service. And even after you had this crisis of Secret Service failures around Trump’s assassination attempt, the assassination of Trump on Trump in Butler, they, you know, it was so dysfunctional.
Everyone’s expecting, you know, you might think they’d get their act together in a kind of emergency fashion. No, no, no. It’s Keystone cops, contempt for the rule of law, cover up corruption, etc. And I think I announced last week or two weeks ago that we sued over the Secret Service essentially breaking into the office of a citizen to just hang out. Them and local law enforcement use the bathroom and just use it as a place to rest. And there’s something called the Fourth Amendment, among other things, that prevent that type of abuse. And the Secret Service lied about it.
And of course, we asked documents, we asked for documents about the scandal, and we got, again, the proverbial hand to the face. And so we sued in federal court. And as a result, we got documents. 62 pages of records were turned over to Judicial Watch after our lawsuit. Why don’t we file the lawsuit? It’s almost contemporaneous with the filing of the lawsuit. Oh, wait, no. We filed the lawsuit in. Do you have the lawsuit? Can you click on the lawsuit? Tell me what the date is. Go to the last page or it should be on the top of the document as well.
Okay, go down and click on the caption on the end of the first paragraph there. Judicial Watch. Yeah, there you are. Pull it Down. Okay. So we filed it. Yeah, it was longer ago than I thought. 9, 26, September 26th, we got these documents. Two weeks later, October 15th, where they were sent to us. 62 pages. We asked for documents about this video and the subsequent invasion of this person’s office by local law enforcement. Invasion might be a strong word, but unlawful intrusion. And here’s the video of a Secret Service agent. It looks like covering up what was about to happen there.
You have her come up. She sees the video camera. Now, in the documents, they pretend, well, it showed a spot they thought they shouldn’t be showed, so they needed to cover it up. But it’s clear that wasn’t the case. They were just doing it because they were going to do something that was improper. Here she comes, gets a chair, stands up, and there you have her. I don’t know, maybe you can even hear her pulling the tape in this audio. Yeah, I think you can. And there you go. So the documents are really incredible. I encourage you to read the entire material.
This is the headline. Records confirm agent on Harris Secret Service detail broke into Massachusetts hair salon and taped over security camera. So they were playing games as to what happened. Right. And we got the emails showing the admissions that they did what they were. They had been accused of doing. The records show one agent telling colleagues that by covering the hair salon’s external security camera with tape, the Secret Service was, quote, mitigating threats. Do you believe that? It’s one thing to lie to us, but are they lying to themselves? They wanted to use the restroom and they knew this place was closed because they probably.
I think, according to the documents that the woman had said they’d been through so many times for. For security reasons already with, you know, checking for bombs and things like that, as they do, prepping for a visit because it was a Kamala Harris visit up in Massachusetts that, you know, she decided, well, I’m not just going to close. But they were all familiar with her place. Secret Service agent in New York field office states in the July email the owner called the duty desk saying she has pictures of agents going into the house, covering up cameras and using the bathroom.
Then they list the address. She just wanted to know would give him permission to go inside and use the space. The Harris detail official forwards the email to an official in the tsd, the Technical Security Division. The building in question. Someone responded is blank. It’s redacted. It was a multistory building with a salon on the ground floor and residence above. I entered the day prior during working hours. To ask one of the employees about X redacted. I have no knowledge of any teams assigned entering the building at any time. And then he just opines that maybe someone on the balcony above let them in.
Nothing. So he didn’t have anything to offer. Someone else Says also, I was informed after the visit by the arrival departure agent, special agent, Secret Service name redacted, that local PD were utilizing the bathroom within the building. The Vice Presidential Division VPD did not give permission to use this facility. So they’re blaming the locals. A Critical Systems Protection agent informed us of a camera vulnerability located on the hair salon facing the area departure area. I was informed that attempts were made to contact offer owners, but unsuccessful. They a visit. A special agent mitigated threats due to coverage due to covering the exterior camera.
So their excuse is that they needed to cover the camera to mitigate threats. Not serious. Then it, you know. So when you look at the documents, it’s just email chain after email chain. And it’s really a kind of a useful insight to the way government bureaucracies respond to negative press inquiries. Because the press was asking about this, she started complaining. The thread worked its way up to Brian Lambert, who was assistant director in the Office of Investigations, and he wants to know who was there. So they started getting names of other Secret Service agents who were assigned to the area at that on that day.
Doesn’t look like any of our people. They look at the tape other than the female with the tape. So it was one of their people. It was a Secret Service agent. It wasn’t a local police official. It was a Secret Service agent. These documents confirm who covered up the camera. And this is the kicker. The special agent in charge at the Secret Service Boston field office. So a senior agent up in Boston emails the Pittsfold Police Department. The Boston agent writes, hi, Chief, hoping all is well in Pittsfield. Quick question for you regarding the video from the salon.
Were the individuals who went inside ever identified? After I reviewed it, the police chief responds, it appears two females were ems, county ambulance, one Secret Service agent and one state police. Hope all is well. And then they respond to Business Insider. I think it’s in the documents here. I think because I called it up. Did a Secret Service officer picked the lock of a door? So the proposed response is no. No one from the Secret Service picked the lock of the door. Secret Service personnel did not ask for permission. And they suggested that none of the video, none of the people who entered the salon were Secret Service agents.
Well, the chief said otherwise. So you’ve Got this internal issue about the truth here. What else did I flag? Essentially, the Secret Service agent and a Secret Service person supposedly gave permission for all of this to take place. They directed people that they could enter the salon. That’s what I think is in the documents, if I recall correctly. And according to Fox News, they apologized to the woman because she told Fox they apologized to me, but they issued a statement which was a non apology saying we, we respect people’s rights. Let me give you the story there, Fox News, the U.S.
secret Service. So it’s in the documents they’re giving us news stories. Fox News. The Secret Service was forced to apologize to a Massachusetts salon owner after using her building’s bathroom without permission. They broke into her building by picking the lock, then allowed various people to use the salon’s bathroom over a two hour period. Powers told Business Insider she was aware she had to close her salon but was not informed the Secret Service had other plans for her office. They had a bunch of people in and out doing a couple of bomb sweeps. Again, totally understand that they had to do that due to the nature of the situation at that point, my team felt it was like a little chaotic and we just made the decision to close.
There were several people in and out for an hour and a half just using my bathroom, the alarms going off, using my counter with no permission. And then when they were done using the bathroom for two hours, they left and left my building completely unlocked and did not take the tape off the camera. So they left her place unsecure. Secret Service said that it had been in contact with Powers following the incident. The business owner said she received an apology from the Secret Service Boston’s office. So they’re telling folks internally they had nothing to do with it and they’re apologizing to the woman for doing it.
Which is it? Powers said that an EMS worker told her the Secret Service agent in charge of security that day was telling people to come in and use the bathroom. So I was right. I didn’t remember it correctly. So do you trust the Secret Service to protect President Trump? Do you trust them even to protect Kamala Harris? I don’t. I don’t trust them to protect any of the protectees. Given the current failures evident in the way the operation they operate. You have this DEI issue. You have this politicization, this nasty bureaucratic infighting and mismanagement, all of which has been uncovered by Judicial Watch.
Imagine if your home broken into or your office is broken into. Have you read the Declaration of Independence recently? You know what this reminds me of. I’m going to call it up. I know it’s getting late, but I want to talk about it. Those of you who know that, you know, I want. You know what I’m talking about. Right. You know what I’m going to point out too. Right. So the declaration, for those of you who haven’t read it recently, it’s kind of an indictment of the King of England and the abusers in Parliament of the rights of the colonies.
And one of the, one of the big issues that they had was following was the quartering of troops for the quartering of large bodies of armed troops among us. So essentially troops were quartered within the colonies and individual households and businesses had to essentially take care of them despite whatever objections they had. Now, is this the same as quartering large bodies of troops? No, it is not, obviously, but it’s what it reminded me of. Like the government sending in law enforcement to hang out in your house or your private property, your business. It’s really, it goes beyond being anti constitutional, it’s actually anti American in the sense of the Declaration of Independence.
And Judicial Watch has uncovered more the truth about it. Judicial Watch has been second to none in working through FOIA lawsuits and investigations and exposes to expose the corrupt dei. Basically it’s just a repackaged version of anti American Marxism that’s being force fed. Our cadets and young officers in training, are they officers in training at the academies or are they officers when they are in the academy? I don’t know. Well, you know my point, the rising military leadership in our military academies are being basically abused through this DEI programming. And now they’re on the run. Right.
Head Seth is coming in, I hope, and he’ll clean house in that regard. And they’re all nervous about it. And in part because of Judicial Watch pressure, they are kind of running away from it because we’re working with a great veterans group, stars, which is composed of veterans including very senior folks who are retired from the military who are apoplectic at what’s happening at the economies and in the military generally. And so we filed this lawsuit against the Defense Department because it looks like West Point. I’m trying to pull it up here, forgive me from looking for it here, because West Point, it looks like, tried to disguise a name change, disguise their DEI programming by changing its name.
And we sued. We sued the West Point for information where it looks like they rebranded the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion DEI office to the Office of Engagement and Retention. So what was up with that? Did they actually Change the mission or did they change the name? So we asked for documents. It was a straightforward forward request. We asked back in. When did we ask? August 28th was our FOIA request. And they’ve been giving us the proverbial hand to the face. I always say it’s the hand to the face from the deep state when we ask questions like this.
And there was. The FOIA was generated because there was a report detailing the name change. The West Point office, and this is a story from the Armed Forces Press. The West Point Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Equality Opportunity is now called the Office of Engagement and Retention. On the West Point page, there’s not much change beyond the title. So changing the title doesn’t change the vicious anti American left wing, racially divisive, abusive Marxism that’s being pushed through this DEI collective operation. As I say in our press release, it seems games are afoot at West Point to disguise the radical DEI agenda.
And, you know, so there was a story in the Wall Street Journal the other day that they were going to bring back some type of a review board where they were going to look at the generals, the, certainly the top leadership in the military who are running the show, who for the last four years have been either elevated by Biden or prospered under the Biden regime as they’ve abused their troops. I mean, let me put it this way. Our morale in the military is falling apart. They’re not able to recruit troops because they don’t want the people who normally applied in the military to apply because they don’t like their politics.
So they’re making it miserable for those mostly conservative people who are in the military and patriots. They’re making it miserable for them. So they’re leaving in droves and they don’t want people like, you know, similarly minded people to replace them. So they’re making the military inhospitable to the folks who typically join the military. I mean, how many stories have you seen? I don’t need to tell you, and many of you are veterans. You know exactly what I’m talking about. Where veterans and graduates of the academies are like, you know, their kids and their grandkids, they’re like, well, I don’t know if he should go.
I don’t know if they should go. How terrible that is. I mean, they are alienating our military from the nation. It’s supposed to defend. What. That’s what the left is doing under the Biden administration. So is it. It’s an emergency, Pete. If you get in, you gotta shut it down and he knows it’s an emergency. That’s why they don’t want him there. We had documents and we’ve got case after case over the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy in West Point detailing this outrageous DEI agenda. And we have it all on our website. And of course, we have a lot of it in my new book, Rights of Freedoms and Peril.
So I encourage you to get it, but we’re just not going to stop. And Breitbart had a story I wasn’t able to find it before I came on, that the generals are trying to hide their DEI work for fear of being fired. And I hope Pete is smart enough Pete Heff to know what to do to get around their obstruction. I wish you a safe and happy Thanksgiving with your friends and your families. And and I know I’ll be thanking God for all of you who support Judicial Watch because we wouldn’t be able to do any of this and help Ashley Babbitt’s family, help our clients, help our whistleblowers, help the American people without your support.
And of course, I’ll be thanking God for the US Constitution and our wonderful nation and the rule of law that allows us to do this work, because there’s nowhere else in the world that we’d be able to do it other than America. So have a wonderful Thanksgiving. God bless you, God bless your family, 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, sa.
[tr:tra].
See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.
Author
