➡ The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Judicial Watch, representing Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, challenging Illinois’ practice of counting ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. The case argues that this practice contradicts federal law, which establishes a single national Election Day. Lower courts had previously denied that the congressman and electors had the right to challenge this practice. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is seen as a significant step towards upholding federal law and ensuring election integrity.
➡ A congressman and two federal electors have challenged an Illinois law that allows absentee ballots to be counted after the federal election day. They argue that this law contradicts federal statutes and have taken the case to the Supreme Court. The case is seen as a significant step in election law as it questions who has the right to challenge election procedures. Meanwhile, Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, has been working to ensure election integrity by cleaning up voter rolls and challenging states that don’t adhere to federal election laws.
➡ Ashley Babbitt’s family has reached a settlement with the government over her death during the January 6th incident. The lawsuit, filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Ashley’s husband, Aaron Babbitt, was initially for $30 million but settled for $4.975 million. Despite the settlement, the government does not admit any liability or fault. The case has sparked controversy and debate, with some accusing the left of defaming Ashley and her memory.
➡ Judicial Watch has filed a $30 million lawsuit against the U.S. government for the wrongful death of Ashley Babbitt. The speaker also discusses a disagreement between Elon Musk and President Trump over government spending, expressing his own desire for significant tax cuts and reduced government funding. He criticizes the Senate for not working full time and not confirming Trump’s nominees quickly enough. Lastly, he expresses concern over election integrity and the counting of ballots received after Election Day.
➡ The article discusses the slow pace of Senate confirmations for presidential nominees, blaming it on the Senate’s short work week and lack of urgency. It criticizes Senator Thune, the Majority Leader, for not keeping the Senate in session longer and suggests that some Republicans are unwilling to work full time. The article also mentions the controversy surrounding the Epstein files and the lack of transparency from the FBI and Justice Department. It calls for the release of these files to the public for transparency and accountability.
➡ The speaker is frustrated with the lack of transparency and urgency in releasing certain records, including those related to Epstein, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They suggest the creation of a separate investigative unit outside the FBI and Justice Department to avoid conflicts of interest. They also discuss concerns about the legitimacy of actions taken during the Biden administration, particularly the use of an auto pen for executive orders and pardons, and suggest that these issues should be investigated.
➡ The speaker discusses ongoing investigations into President Biden’s cognitive ability and potential cover-ups, expressing doubts about the validity of his pardons. They also criticize the judiciary’s actions against former President Trump, arguing that courts are overstepping their authority and acting politically, which undermines the government and puts people at risk. The speaker encourages support for Judicial Watch, an organization that seeks to uphold the rule of law and election integrity.

Hey, everyone, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here. Big news this week. We just heard from the Supreme Court that they will take up a Judicial Watch case related to the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. We had a major lawsuit in Illinois over the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. We were representing and are representing Congressman Mike Boston Bost from Illinois, two presidential electors. And in Illinois, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election day. And rather than address the merits, the lower courts found that Congressman Bost and our clients did not have standing, meaning the ability to go to court and essentially challenge this lawlessness by Illinois, which is contraventing, which is contravening federal law that requires the counting of ballots that arrive before election day, not after election day.

Because federal law sets an election day, not an election week or month. And we asked the Supreme Court to take up this issue. Do candidates have the right to try to stop unlawful counting of ballots contrary to federal law? Well, the Supreme Court said, well, we’re going to consider the issue. And so it was a big announcement this week. And I talked about that issue in a video announcing the big news earlier this week. Everyone, the Supreme Court just announced today would take up an election law related challenge filed by Judicial Watch in Illinois on behalf of a congressman and electors in Illinois concerned about the counting of ballots that arrive after election day, which they do for two weeks after election day.

In Illinois, that means ballots arrive up to two weeks past election day and they still get counted, which is contrary to federal law, which states an election day, not an election week. Now, the congressman, federal candidate obviously has standing that challenges the law, but the two lower courts decided, no, he doesn’t have standing. They were divided, but the Supreme Court wants to settle this issue and they decided to take up this massive Judicial Watch case. Historically important that the rule of law be vindicated on election integrity. So this is a big step and the court will hear our case next term.

So the hearing of the case could occur as soon as October of this year. They haven’t set a hearing date yet, but we expect it will be before the end of the year because the term ends the end of this month. I think it ends July 1st, more or less. And then they start up hearing cases again absent extraordinary circumstances, in October, the first Monday in October. Right. So major victory for Judicial Watch in terms of bringing a case before the highest court in the land on a core issue related to election integrity. And it’s currently, we don’t know what the court’s going to consider if they’re going to get to the merits if the court, the justices want to talk about the underlying issue.

But in the lease, the issue of standing is a key one. And we did an explainer video a little bit which kind of summarizes this issue pretty succinctly for you and I encourage you and we’ll provide a link to it separately. But I’ll play it for you here so you know to go find it later and share it with your friends and colleagues. Judicial Watch is taking its election integrity fight to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal for a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors challenging an Illinois law extending election day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law.

The lower courts had previously denied that Congressman Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received for up to two weeks after Election Day. In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch argues, despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton had this to say about the upcoming Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity.

Illinois’s 14 day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. Last year, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after election day. Visit judicialwatch.org to learn more. Yeah, so this is not the only case we have over the counting of ballots after Election Day or ballots that are received after Election Day. As President Trump noted in his executive order supporting essentially our theory of the law, that federal law sets an Election Day, which means in the lease the ballots have to be received in order to be counted as valid, he said.

It’s like someone showing up three days after the polls close in person and demanding to have their vote counted. It’s too late. And in Mississippi, they were counting ballots that arrived for up to five days after Election Day. And as we noted in that video, the fifth Circuit found that that’s unlawful federal law is what it says on Election Day. You know, it’s nonsense in my view, to say there is no provision requiring ballots get there by Election Day. Because what is the, what’s the, what flows from that? What flows from that is there’s no deadline at all which can’t be.

So if there’s no deadline under federal law, that means states could have a deadline that extend years after Election Day, potentially. And that’s why, in my view, the fifth Circuit threw out essentially the Mississippi law, overturned it, essentially found it to conflict with federal law. Now, Mississippi just certified their appeal of that ruling to the Supreme Court today. They filed a cert petition. So the Supreme Court may have more than one Judicial Watch case before it before too long, depending on how that turns out. Now, separately, we have this lawsuit in California that’s like the Illinois case, that’s like the Mississippi case.

In California, they count ballots that arrive for up to seven days after Election Day. And notoriously, in California, there were seats in Congress that switched from Republican to Democrat, two seats at least, as a result of ballots that arrived after Election Day. And for whatever reason, Congress or the House doesn’t want to deal with that because the House is the judge of its own elections and they can find an election wanting and make a change in the least. They should be investigating the issue, don’t you think? If they were, if Democrats were running the House, do you think they would, if there was an arguable case that the law was violated and changing seats from Democrat to Republican, do you think they would just sit idly by? I don’t think they would, nor do I think they ought to necessarily.

And I think the House should try to vindicate the rule of law and at least investigate this issue. But in the meantime, we have a lawsuit to try to stop the unlawful counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. We filed it on behalf of Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman from California. And now the state doesn’t believe that ISA has standing. Right. Just like Illinois said. So that case may be put on hold for a bit until the Supreme Court gets to the issue as to whether candidates have standing. And here’s the brief. This is the cert brief we filed.

That’s what the lawyers call it, writ assertiari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, then the Supreme Court of the United States, petition for redisociari. The question presented, as we say in the. In the material here, the question presented, you would think, several pages later. Excuse me. Well, you would think the question presented would be easily found, but now I can’t see it. Well, the question presented is whether candidates have the standing to challenge the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. Not every state allows this to happen. Only 18, 19 states, I think, in the District of Columbia allow it to happen.

And it’s Got to stop. It’s got to stop. It undermines election integrity. It invites fraud. Besides being contrary to federal law and as we say in the lawsuit, excuse me, say in the, in the petition that I just read to you or showed you, it’s pretty clear that candidates have. If, if candidates can’t try to vindicate the rule of law on elections, who can? For over 130 years this court, the Supreme Court, has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state, time, place or manner regulations affecting their federal elections. Until recently, it was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations.

Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has more, who has a more particularized injury than the candidate has. That is because a candidate who quote, 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 undeniable different, has an undeniably different and more particularized interest in the lawfulness of the election than some random voter petitioners are sitting multi term congressman, Congressman 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 the Illinois receipt deadline is preempted by the federal election day statutes. The petition presents an opportunity for this court to provide lower courts and litigants much needed guidance on candidates standing outside of the high stakes emergency post election litigation where these issues commonly arise. So we shouldn’t have to wait for the election day related crisis to get justice here. There’s plenty of time to do it arguably before the 2026 elections to help settle the law in this regard. And the Supreme Court took up our offer. So it’s an incredibly positive development. Now the left has been opposing our efforts to stop the counting of ballots that arrive after election day in California.

The judge there let’s leftists into our case as literally defendants to try to oppose us. So we’re not just taking on the states in these various cases, but we’re taking on these left wing advocacy groups, well funded, well organized, who come in to try to thwart our efforts to clean up election integrity. And you can be sure as our battle escalates to the Supreme Court, these leftist groups will not only jointly and rise against us further in the Supreme Court by filing briefs and such, but they’ll come after us directly because we’re terrible people for wanting to make sure, for wanting to make sure that elections are being run according to the law.

Do I have to explain to you why it’s important that Election Day means something. That if there are no rules, it means that there is an open invitation to fraud and loss of confidence in the outcome of any election result. As I said, it would be an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal voters, illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks after Election Day. So it’s critical the Supreme Court take up this case because it’s not only the rights of voters, the rights of candidates here and electors, presidential electors, but they’re acting in the place, in many respects, in most respects, in the place of the citizens who support them, the voters who support them.

And the American people have a right to have their elections run according to the law, not according to the. Whatever the left can get away with. Federal law defines Election Day. In case you don’t know what the federal law says, it’s interesting as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year, despite Congressman’s clear, despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election day. Illinois, Mississippi, California, here, Washington, D.C. for example, they’ve expanded Election Day for days and weeks past the deadline set by federal law. And as I said, in California, it’s led to different election outcomes than otherwise arguably would have happened if the law had been followed in California.

This is why the House should take a look at it, because they’ve got two members who got in there as a result of what can be plausibly argued was the counting of votes that were invalid. So this is a major issue for the Supreme Court coming up. It’s the most important election law related issue because it’s the question of who can challenge and dispute the way an election is run. The left wants to restrict that in such a way so that only their buddies and allies can, and that anyone who has serious concerns, the way Judicial Watch or clients do, about the law being specifically adhered to, strictly adhered to, they shouldn’t have the right to challenge it.

And so it’s not just about the challenging of vote counting that occurs of the challenging of the counting of votes received after Election Day. It’s other election battles. Who has the right to vindicate the rule of law in that regard? Who can go to court to stop an election from being stolen? The state of Illinois, the state of California? The left say, not a candidate, not a candidate. And that to me is absurd on its face. And clearly the Supreme Court has enough of a concern about what’s going on that they want to consider the issue fully and decide for itself.

So great victory for the rule law. And this, of course, comes on top of all of Judicial Watch’s other legal work related to election integrity. I got to give credit to our legal team, Bob Popper, Russ Nobeil, Eric Lee, who have been litigating these cases. We’ve cleaned up 5 million names from the rolls through our other litigation, legal action against states across the nation. 5 million dirty names clean from the rolls. Because there’s another federal law that requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up the. Clean up the rolls. And it’s pretty easy to figure out when they’re not taking reasonable steps to clean up the rolls, because people don’t vote for years and their names are kept on the rolls nevertheless.

So they could die, potentially move away. And obviously, dirty voting lists can mean dirty elections. That’s why the law requires they be cleaned up. And it was Judicial Watch who really broke the mold and filed the first private lawsuits to force states to try to clean up the rolls as the law requires. And as a result of those lawsuits, and as a result of even sending warning letters to some of these states and localities, we’ve had 5 million names clean up the rolls, cleaned from the rolls in just the last few years. But we still have cases pending.

We’re out in California, we’re out in Oregon. Illinois has a filthy list as well. We have another lawsuit there. There are tens of millions of names, arguably that should be removed from the rolls nationwide. So $5 million is a pretty good start. Pretty outrageous when you think about it, that it was Judicial Watch who had to step into court, a private group to do this basic heavy lifting on election integrity. And it wasn’t just Democrats, it wasn’t just liberals, it was states run by conservatives and Republicans who also weren’t doing what they were supposed to do to ensure the rolls were being cleaned.

I mean, we were in North Carolina, we were in Pennsylvania, we were in Kentucky, California, California cleaned up 1.2 million names alone. In LA County, New York City cleaned up nearly a million names. DC, like 20% of their lists, they cleaned up, I think one county in Pennsylvania we sent a warning letter to. I think within like, minutes, not literally minutes, but practically minutes, metaphorically minutes, they said, hey, thanks for the, thanks for your letter. We just cleaned up 69,000 names from the rolls. So we are relentless for cleaner, fairer, more honest, more reliable elections. And so what it means cleaning up the rolls or ensuring only ballots that are valid are counted it’s essential work that your Judicial Watch has been able to do, thanks to the support of all of you out there.

If you’re supporting Judicial Watch, you should know that the reason our elections are cleaner, I would argue the reasons we had, I think, at least at the presidential level, a more honest election. We stopped the steal in 2024 in large measure, I would submit, thanks to Judicial Watch’s efforts for cleaner and fairer elections. And now we are going to be before the Supreme Court on a core issue of who has the right to go into court and try to vindicate their. Their rights under the law to ensure that elections are being followed according to law. You know, it’s one thing to stop the steel through making sure the rolls are clean, but to be told you can’t even go to court to try to ensure election integrity as the law already requires, that would be bad if that happened, right? So this is a big, big case.

So just great news. Is there anything else I was supposed to cover on the election issue? I don’t think so. More great news. Today we can announce that the wrongful death lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed for Ashley Babbitt’s family has been settled with the federal government, the United states government, for $4.975 million. $4 million975. And it’s a great victory for Ashley and her family. It is necessary. It’s a fair settlement. And we had filed this lawsuit for her family back in, I think it was 2022. And we’ve been battling in court for years, investigating, litigating, exposing what went on with her.

What I would. Well, it’s not what I would call her literal homicide. And thanks, frankly, to the Trump administration being in power, they settled this case with us. And what a day for justice as a result. As our press release sets out, this fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashley Babbitt’s family. Ashley should never have been killed. And this settlement destroys the evil partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer. Judicial Watch’s team spent years investigating, litigating, exposing the truth about Ashley’s homicide. And credit goes to the hundreds of thousands of Judicial Watch supporters who fought for this cause.

President Trump was an absolute rock in supporting Ashley’s family and advocating for justice. So what a wonderful team effort by Judicial Watch’s team, with the support of Americans, and, of course, Ashley’s widower husband, Aaron Babbitt, who we filed the lawsuit for. And, of course, we’ve been helping and praying and supporting. Also Ashley’s mother, Mickey, and I can tell you they’re thrilled about this settlement. And you can be sure the left, because there’s been stories previous to this, because I couldn’t talk about the amount or the settlement. I mean, it just happened literally today. The government signed the settlement papers today.

Here, I’ve got the settlement here. This is what it looks like. And the lawyer for the Justice Department signed, doesn’t look like they used an auto pen today on June 6th. And. But it had been previously reported someone had leaked it, that the settlement was out there. And of course, we had a court battle earlier on that required us to disclose that we had settled in principle. And the left went crazy. They started smearing and defaming Ashley and her memory, attacking her family, attacking Trump, attacking January 6th. She said, it’s all about this, and this settlement blows out of the water.

The lies about January 6th, you know, their whole narrative depended on only police officers being hurt that day. And there were police officers who were hurt that day. But what got in the way of that narrative about how terrible January Sixers were? Poor Ashley was killed for no good reason by Lieutenant Byrd. Let’s play the video of Ashley being killed again. There’s a gun. There’s a gun. He’s got a gun. I can’t believe he shot her. To this day, I can’t believe he shot her like that. I think she was crawling through that window. I think, you know, looking at the videos for safety.

And we published online the last 19 minutes of Ashley’s life. And it looked to me watching what went on, they could have saved her life if they had moved more quickly to save her life and provide her medical support. So we filed the lawsuit in 2024, not 2022, as I misremembered. And we filed today. I don’t think we filed this actual document with the court, but the document it reads, it’s called a stipulation for compromise, settlement and release. Now, of course, the lawsuit initially was filed for $30 million, but. But the settlement now is for 4.975 million.

And it’s a settlement, right? It’s a compromise. And this is how it describes. This is how the settlement is described legally in the document to settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, including claims for wrongful death arising directly or indirectly from the acts of. Or, excuse me, from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in the stipulation. The stipulation is not and should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants or employees.

And it is specifically denied that they are liable to plaintiffs. The settlement is entered into all by parties. Excuse me. The settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. And that was the law under which we sued for Ashley’s family and avoiding the expenses and risk of further litigation. So in consideration for the plaintiff’s agreement to accept the terms and conditions of the settlement, the United States agrees to pay plaintiffs the amount of $4,975,000. There you have it. That’s how settlements are reached. It’s relatively standard language.

So the government is admitting liability. But, you know, my view is you can draw your own conclusion from the number $4.975 million that they gave to settle the case. It’s a compromise number. They admit nothing, but they were prepared to go to trial on this case before the Trump people came in. We’re going to be in trial in 2026. The lawsuit included claims against the government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence claims. And the lawsuit was very useful and still is useful potentially for anyone who wants to actually pursue further law enforcement action against Ashley Babbitt’s killer, who should never, in my view, been anywhere near that scene, let alone even having a gun.

He left his gun in the bathroom in the middle of the Capitol Visitor center, which is where all the tourists walked through to visit the Capitol. He was involved with an improper shooting near his home. He couldn’t even get a shotgun from civilian authorities because of his record, and it had to be lent to him by the U.S. capitol Police. We also exposed how during the shooting, he put out a radio call. Shots fired, shots fired. He was the only person who fired a shot and they covered his name up for months. They hid him from the American people.

Judicial Watch exposed how he was given special accommodations. He was allowed to stay rent free at Joint Base Andrews, a United States base. A military base. The Defense Department was involved in the COVID up of who he was. For months, this shooting was treated like no other police involved shooting in recent memory. And I don’t think there was ever a serious criminal investigation of that shooting. Death of Ashley Babbitt, the only official homicide victim that day. Let’s put up another Picture of Ashley, 14 year veteran of the United States Air Force. And she came to D.C.

by herself because she loved Trump, supported Trump, and she ended up in this situation where she got shot by this out of control police officer. So yeah, the government was right to settle the case for $4.975 million with Ashley’s family over what happened. Does it mean this issue is over? Of course not. We’ve got litigation for records about Ashley. And I know, you know, people who were there. The shooting occurred at. Let me tell you what the people said who were there. The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s lobby after demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby.

This is from our lawsuit. Two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door sidelight. Lt. Byrd, who is the United States Capitol police officer, police commander and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, 2021, shot Ashley on sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door side light. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands while were assessing her intentions or even identifying her as a female. Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Byrd and other officers in the lobby.

The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed. When she was shot by Lt. Byrd, multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. He’s still up there. You know what they did? They made him a captain. Despite his record, despite this unlawful, awful shooting, they made him a captain. Basically an endorsement of the killing of an innocent woman by the leadership of Congress and the police administration, the U.S. capitol Police. It was an ambush as far as I’m concerned. So the major lawsuit over Ashley’s Death is over $4.9 $75 million settlement for her family.

The litigation for records about Ashley continues by Judicial Watch. And the question is, is there going to be law enforcement action? Is there going to be a reopening of the investigation, a criminal investigation into the death of Ashley Babbitt? And again, I want to thank our team for doing this. The lawyer who is running this case, Robert Patrick Stick, spent thousands of hours investigating this Aaron Babbitt, great, great guy, Mickey, who’s been not only advocating for justice for Ashley, but her mom, Ashley’s mom, Mickey has been, no matter what’s happening in D.C. you can be sure Mickey will be there advocating for Ashley.

And she’s been a trooper in terms of advocating for the rights of the January 6th defendants who then thankfully have been pardoned by President Trump. So just a great. And of course you, dear Judicial Watch, supporter. We’re only able to do this because of the support of our members. So if you’re giving donations to Judicial Watch, this is the type of work that it supports. Justice for Ashley Babbitt. And you know, one of my fondest memories, at least as it relates to this case, is talking about this issue before a crowd at cpac. I think it was last year and I simply was kind of.

It’s hard to tell from the video, but I was kind of overwhelmed by the powerful response. Let’s play that speech excerpt. I got very upset again recently about January 6th. I was re watching the video of the needless killing of Ashley Babbitt, the Air Force veteran shot for no good reason by Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the U.S. capitol Police. Now I’ve watched those videos. I can’t believe he just shot her dead like that. I just can’t believe it. And few in this corrupt city give a rat’s tale about that awful shooting. But millions of Americans care and her family cares.

I think her mom, Mickey is still here at cpac. Is Mickey here? Well, give her a round of applause anyway, God bless her. It and that’s why I’m so pleased. Judicial Watch just filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the US government on behalf of the family of Ashley Babbitt. As our lawsuit states, the facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed. When she was shot by Lt. Byrd, multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Judicial Watch is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. I tell you what, if it takes 30 more years to get justice for Ashley, that will be time well spent.

So we did get justice for Ashley. And is it sufficient? It’s never going to be sufficient. She’s still bad. She’s the victim of a homicide. But this settlement certainly is a wonderful way of vindicating her, a veteran wife, daughter. And there are a few more important things that Judicial Watch has done over the decades I’ve been here at least than to try to get justice for her. So this settlement, again, thank you, Aaron. Thank you, Mickey. Thank you, Robert. Thank you, Judicial Watch supporters. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you to Trump Justice Department and thank you everyone else who is a citizen who’s been praying for justice for Ashley because we got a good piece of justice for her just today.

So God bless Ashley and God bless America. So you’ve been watching the news, getting to another kind of. I don’t know. I don’t know what to make of the battle between Elon Musk and President Trump. I think Elon Musk is generally right to be concerned about the bill and government spending, but to kind of go after Trump in the way that he did so personally doesn’t fly well with me. President Trump’s a friend of mine, so I don’t like that. And you know, President Trump and the challenge that Republicans have had who are conservative and want spending cuts, as Elon wants, and less debt and such, they are facing too many liberal Republicans, a hostile media who don’t want to cut government.

And I issued a tweet, I say issued like from on high about the budget battle the other day. I forget which tweet number that was. Obamacare tweet, Medicare tweet. Oh, no, not that one. That’s another one. Well, I made the point that there were just too many Republicans in Congress that support Obama welfare through Medicaid. That support. Oh, here it is. The big beautiful bill would be bigger and more beautiful if not for two many Republicans who wanted to protect Obamacare welfare through Medicaid. I did remember it. Right. And Biden’s inflationary climate scam spending, the Inflation Reduction act spending taxes are too high and should be significantly cut above and beyond the current plan in Congress.

Capital gains, corporate and personal income tax rates should be slashed further. I want taxes to be slashed. And by the way, despite what the DC class tells you, stopping taxes from increasing by over $4 trillion is not government spending. And of course, you know, I, as president of Judicial Watch, I want the doj, their funding significantly cut back. I want the FBI essentially to go the way of the U.S. agency for National Development, USAID, you know, but Congress isn’t doing that. So there are all sorts of things I want as a conservative or as president of Judicial Watch out of these bills.

So these challenges are significant and I understand why President Trump and Musk are in a battle over Trump. Musk, Trump can only do so much to get some of these bills passed, given how narrow the majorities are in the House Senate. But frankly, there needs to be better leadership in the House and the Senate to get some of these good things passed, because I think the bills could be a lot better with a different approach. So what’s going to happen between Musk and Trump? My guess is they’ll make up because in the end, without getting into who’s right and who’s wrong in terms of the budget, you know, because you can draw your own conclusions on that.

Who’s the enemy of Musk and Trump? It’s the left. The left, both the left want to get, get Them put in jail and they want to get them killed. That’s, I think, the core issue they got to stand together on, you know, and in the meantime, you know, Congress isn’t doing what I think Congress ought to be doing. On a whole host of other issues I highlighted earlier that Congress has virtually zero interest in this election integrity fight. In California, where Republicans lost two seats, it’s not because I’m concerned because Republicans lost seats. I’m concerned because I think congressmen who shouldn’t have lost seats lost seats due to the illicit counting of ballots received after Election Day.

And in the Senate, there’s another crisis going on. It’s called the confirmation crisis, or I’m calling it the confirmation crisis. I issued a tweet the other day which got a lot of attention. Confirmation crisis over. That’s probably over now. Almost 100 Trump nominees for key positions await four votes in the U.S. senate. Conservatives pushing hard for Leader Thune and Senate Republicans to start working harder to get them confirmed. So let me give you some background on that. So what happens when there. There’s about. It’s well north of 1000 nominees the President needs to make and get confirmed by the Senate in order to fully staff the political appointments he has authorizations to make.

Now, to the Senate’s credit, they’re actually powering through at the committee level, getting a lot of these nominees out of the committee. So there’s typically a committee vote and then they move forward to the floor for a full vote by the Senate. The challenge is the Senate isn’t voting in a timely way on these nominations, the full Senate. And it’s all the fault, to be blunt, of the majority leader, Mr. Thune, because he sets the schedule. Now, Democrats could make it a lot easier, that’s true. But if the Democrats are going to make it harder, it just means the Republicans have to work harder to get the nominees confirmed.

And one of the biggest problems is the Senate doesn’t work full time. So the show is airing on Friday initially. Right. Senate isn’t here on Friday. Are you working today? I noted earlier today the Senate isn’t. Why? Because it’s Friday and the Senate doesn’t often work on Friday. I was going to say rarely, but I’m sure someone on the Senate would say it’s not rare. Most of the time they’re gone on Thursday afternoons, I think they left. I think the Senate adjourned. I checked this week on Thursday at 3. Typically they adjourn midday. They come in, essentially, they work two and a half days a week, to be clear.

So it’s no surprise that 100 nominees are floating around out there unconfirmed. So we complain about the deep state. We complain about Doge not having, you know, not having enough cuts in place or finding enough to cut. Well, the president has people who can help, and the Senate, controlled by members of his own party, aren’t sending them along. So conservatives are getting up in arms about this, and I think voters are, too, because now we’re educating them. This initial. I don’t know what my initial tweet. What did the initial tweet get in terms of views? Can you figure that out? I think it was like 500,000 views, which is pretty big.

And I’ve been telling people to call their Senate, call their senators to let them know what they think, and I encourage you to do that. Do you think the Senate should work full time, maybe even overtime, to do their job and provide advice and consent on Trump’s nominees? Yes. So this initial tweet had 782,000 names, views. So it means that people are a little bit upset. They’re kind of upset about it. Usually tweets of mine go viral because someone gets mad about what’s in them. And you can call your senators to share your views on this issue by just dialing 202-224-3121 and tell them you want to speak to your senators.

You can provide your state name. You can actually go online and figure it out directly as well. Calling has an impact. And call the majority leader, call Thune’s office. And conservatives aren’t. And by conservatives, I mean movement conservatives. As president of Judicial Watch, I’m involved with some coalitions of conservative movement groups and leaders, activists, people from the Hill, you can imagine. And, you know, I’m there for Judicial Watch. I’m not terribly political in that regard. You know, you listen about some of this legislation going on, and, you know, I’m not a budget guy. I just don’t.

I know that you spend too much money, you usually end up having too much corruption. That’s my rule of thumb from Judicial Watch’s perspective. But, you know, we pay senators to work, right? And they’re not working. And here’s. I highlighted a memo that many conservatives had signed as a follow up, not as a follow up to my tweet, but I was highlighting what conservatives were saying in my tweet. And let’s go to the. The tweet where I had the conservative leaders quoted in their memo. It was the one, I think you first popped up. Dozens of conservative leaders signed a memo on the confirmation crisis.

And this is the text of the memo. Conservatives urgent Senate Republicans to prioritize and swiftly confirm the President’s nominees. There are close to 100 presidential nominations now pending on the Senate’s executive calendar, which is like the general floor calendar, and each of them is vital to the President’s ability to carry out his agenda. The president is making dramatic change in Washington, doing exactly, etc. Etc. The lesson. This is a lesson the conservative movement learned acutely during Donald Trump’s first term. The President’s appointees are vital to ensuring the President’s agenda is carried out, as we say, such as ensuring that the permanent bureaucracy does not undermine him through bipartisan actions taken in 2013, 17 and 19.

The filibuster no longer exists for presidential nominees and most of the nominations currently pending on the calendar. Neither does the post cloture 30 hours, which essentially is 30 hours of debate before a nominee is voted on after debate ends. So it’s kind of a confusing issue, but 30 hours can take up a lot of time, but it’s very limited. I think it’s two hours now in terms of debate requirements on the Senate, assuming the Democrats want it like that. Let’s go back to the Twitter, to the tweet. The Senate could easily confirm dozens of nominees a week if they chose to work a full five day work week between the hours of nine and five.

So we’re not even asking for overtime. The Senate. The current Senate work week of 2.5 days a week, Monday evenings through Thursday at 12, means the Senate sometimes confirms less than five nominees a week. This current glacial pace means that future nominees will experience months long delays and the President’s agenda will suffer for it. There is no excuse for the repeated delays and slow pace of Senate confirmations. Democrats can no longer block or obstruct nominations and very little time must elapse between invoking cloture, which is essentially ending debate, and confirming a nominee. The missing element is the will of the Senate Republican Conference to stay in town and do the work.

We urge them to act with all urgency and haste in completing the basic responsibility of the Senate. President Trump’s agenda depends on it. So I think their paychecks ought to depend on it. Right? They’re not working. We pay them to work. They’re not working. And to be clear, it’s Senator Thune who has the authority as Majority Leader to keep the Senate in session, more or less, and he’s not doing it. And he promised he’d be doing it the beginning of the year. Beginning of the year. When he came in, he committed to having the Senate in session more, and he did for a period of time, but that’s fallen by the wayside.

Now, I understand he’s the leader, right, of the Senate, but he’s not necessarily the king of the Senate. And he’s there because of the support of his caucus, the Republicans. And there are several members of the Republican caucus who don’t want to work those extra hours. So the reason this isn’t happening isn’t because of Democrats. It’s because of Republicans who don’t want to work a full time job here in Washington, D.C. to do the work that is required for their roles as senators. I mean, the president now has put forward several, it’s at least a dozen, I think, judicial nominees.

They’re going to be acted on by Chuck Grassley’s Judiciary Committee pretty quickly, I suspect. So the issue is not going to get better, it’s going to get worse unless Senator Thune and his colleagues in the Republican caucus commit to working a regular day for at least a few weeks. I mean, I’m not asking them to do it every week for the rest of their term. Just get through these nominations. And frankly, there’s lots of other things to do. They could be investigating corruption, figuring out why the FBI tried to destroy a republic, figuring out why the Justice Department tried to jail a president on a pretext, figuring out why President Biden’s gang tried to suppress the First Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans, figuring out why there was an invasion, getting some accountability there.

I don’t know, if I were senator, I’d think of things to do. There’s a lot to be done and they don’t want to do it. You know, so when Musk complains about the Senate or debt, it’s like the challenge is it’s they don’t want to do any work, forget about the policy. They just don’t even want to deal with the issues because it takes time and energy and they’d rather be home. Now, I exaggerate because not every senator is like that. And some of them are pretty smart and are workhorses, but institutionally it’s lazy. The Senate’s lazy.

The House ain’t much better. So anyway, that’s my little mission for you this next week. So next week, call your senators and let them know what you think about their failure to move quickly on Senate nominations. The president, the president’s doing his work. He’s Putting nominees forward. The Senate is failing. The Republican, not confirming and not doing their work. And maybe they don’t want to vote for these people. Maybe they’re all bad and they want to turn them aside. Then give. Do that then so the President can put someone else in. Just get the process done.

Get the process done. So there’s a big fight between, you know, we were talking about the Musk and Trump fight about these Epstein files. And Musk, I think, unfairly and outrageously implied that Trump was in the Epstein files in a way that suggests he did something wrong. And there’s no evidence that is the case. I mean, he may have known Epstein, but, you know, from my understanding is that once he figured out what Epstein was about, he kind of banned him from his properties. But Judicial Watch nonetheless. Excuse me. Nonetheless. Judicial Watch separately has been long suing several months now for the Epstein files.

And I’m getting a little impatient because it’s been months and they haven’t been released, not even in part to Judicial Watch. Under federal law. The law requires it FBI. The law requires it Justice Department. And right now, the Justice Department and the FBI are outside the law on transparency. And I’m frankly getting a little tired of seeing the leadership of the FBI out there saying about what they’re finding in the Epstein files and we’re not getting the records. Here’s Dan Bongino, who I’m friendly with, talking about the videos of Epstein’s prison facility where he supposedly committed suicide.

And you can tell by the way I’m watching it that I wasn’t. I was wondering, when are we going to get the records? Right. I’m just telling you what we see in the file. I am. I just want to be crystal clear on this. I am not asking anyone to believe me. I’m telling you what’s there and what isn’t. Right. There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case. And there’s going to be a disclosure on this coming shortly. We are working through some. There is video that is something the public does.

Video of him killing him. No, no, not. Not the actual act, but the entire MCC Bay. It was only one camera. There were other. There’s video that when you look at the video. And we will release. That’s what’s taken a while on this. We are working on cleaning it up to make sure you have an enhanced and we’re going to give the original. So you don’t think there are any shenanigans you’re going to see. There’s no one there but him. There’s just nobody there. So I say to people, if you have a tip, let us know.

But there’s no DNA, there’s no audio, there’s no fingerprints, there’s no suspects, there’s no accomplices, there’s no tips. There is nothing. If you have it, I’m happy to see it. There’s video clear as day. He’s the only person in there and the only person coming out. You can see it. Well, you know, I’m not here to make an argument for or against him, his committing suicide, whether he did it or not. As I highlighted before, Michael Baden, who was hired by Epstein’s family, found evidence it was a homicide. What I’m hearing is that the debate isn’t whether he committed suicide or not.

Well, I guess that is a debate, but the American people have a right to figure out and gain access to the records of their government about this very issue. People are concerned about what happened to Epstein, and they want to know what happened. Now, Dan, I trust, is giving us a full briefing as to what he’s reviewing and what he saw, but I’m like, give us the darn videos. You know, I don’t. If he wants to clean them up, that’s fine. If BI wants to clean them up in the public interest, that’s fine. In the meantime, they’re obligated under law to give us the records if they’re releasable under foia, and they haven’t.

And I saw my other friend, Kash Patel was on Joe Rogan, I guess today or this week, I’m not sure when it was recorded. And he was talking about Epstein records, saying, well, they don’t necessarily show what you think they show. I’m like, that may be true, but people want to see the records. Stop telling us what you’re finding in the records and release them under the law. Now, does it mean you release material that shouldn’t be released under the law, that could be violated of people’s rights? No, of course not. I know there’s a process, but there’s a lot of material that can be released in the meantime, at least partly.

Get it done. I mean, we’ve been suing for records from FBI and FBI corruption for years, and we still haven’t gotten all the records yet. And it seems to me there’s little urgency for the transparency there. They don’t care much about foia. They’re breaking the law on foia. That tells me they don’t care, you know, and then there’s a bigger issue of, you know, what’s the FBI and DOJ doing about lawfare and the judicial, excuse me, the Biden abuses of Trump and the civil rights of millions of Americans. I don’t think they’re doing much. And I do think there’s a solution.

I’ve talked about it on this program and I was on Vince Coligny’s show the other day. He has a new podcast and I went and sat down with him and talked about it. Here’s an excerpt of what I think should be done. So here’s my worry about this, and it sounds to me like you’re sharing it, that the president’s asking for a full blown investigation into this and then we’re going to get some sort of, you know, spiral bound report without the kind of accountability that you and I want. I can do an investigation. You do this all the time.

Right? You know, you don’t have prosecuting. We don’t need the government to do, quote, an investigation. We need the government to do, as you say, a prosecution. And, and what? If I were the president, I would just have a separate investigative prosecutorial unit outside the FBI and Justice Department. I know Dan and Cash probably want to get into some of this as to what the FBI did in the past. Yeah, I don’t think the FBI can investigate the FBI and the doj, especially on lawfare. They’re compromised and conflicted and I would just, we kind of just need to get it done.

It was last year they tried to destroy our republic by jailing our president. Yes. And I’m not seeing any urgency to figure out who should be held accountable for violating civil rights of Trump and anyone else at the top of this program. Yeah, I’m still waiting. It’s been three, four months and I’m. And it’s. That’s a long time. Certainly we’d have evidence of something serious going on if it were. I don’t think the FBI DOJ should be doing something because they’re conflicted. But they tell us they are serious about it. But I’m not seeing evidence they are, which highlights the fact that maybe they’re not doing it because they’re conflicted.

The Deep State is expert at stopping appointees of the opposition from getting the work done. They’re expert at it. So the president should create a separate entity to go around the Deep State like he did with Doge. Just do a version of that for special prosecutions. And there’s talk about doing that. President authorized an investigation of the auto pen scandal. Whether Joe Biden was actually running the country. I talked about that the other day on who was on who was I on with Fox Business with Charles Payne. Let’s dig a little deeper as these Biden investigations take shape with Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who is celebrating his 29th birthday for the 10th time.

I think that sounds about right. Thank you. Happy birthday, my friend. Thanks for coming, spending a little time with us. I want to get your thought on a few topics. First of all, this auto pen situation, does that nullify some of these pardons and other things? If it is proven that it wasn’t the president who did it, who controlled the auto pen? Was it the president? If the president authorized the use of the auto pen to create executive orders or pardons or what have you, then it might be okay. But if it wasn’t him who was controlling the auto pen, then it raises additional questions to what? What to me are already sham pardons.

Did Hunter write his own pardon? In effect, did Jill write the pardons? Those are the questions that Congress is going to want to get answers to. And frankly, President Trump can start releasing White House documents from the Biden years. Yeah. So we get a feel for what was going on. Let me share this from the House Oversight. This is a source on the probe. This is at FOX News at Night for you. This is very interesting. Lawyers for near attention Tandon Anthony Bernal, that’s a real name to keep an eye on. Annie Tomasini, Ashley Williams and Dr.

Kevin O’ Connor all contacting the Oversight committee regarding Chairman Comer’s request. And we’ll be in discussion with them about transcribed interview dates. We expect all, again, all witnesses to fully comply with the committee’s investigation. The committee will issue subpoenas if necessary. Good job there by Sean getting that for us. Your thoughts on that? Well, who knows who those names are? Yeah, they were all Biden White House officials who were essentially allowed to remain anonymous by the media as they seemingly ran the Biden presidency. And of course, his doctor was there who inexcusably didn’t check him for cognitive issues despite everyone’s obvious discomfort and concern about it.

Yeah, it was a really crazy story when you think about it. Let me share this. This is a post from X the AG Pam Bondi. A very interesting storyline here. I just want to share this. The American Bar association has lost its way. We do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees. DOJ will no longer give the ABA the access they’ve taken for granted. That really raised a Lot of eyebrows in legal circles. Your thoughts on that today? Well, the ABA pretends to disinterestedly evaluate judicial nominees, and Republicans are concerned they don’t treat Republican conservative nominees well or fairly.

The ABA is a leftist interest group. I’m not sure why they got any primo access to begin with during any Republican administration. And Pam Bondi is right to call them out. So you say they’re leftist. Does that mean in your opinion, they’re not fair arbiters, flat out? Oh, no. They’ve got this demonstrated record of treating conservative nominees quite differently than liberal nominees, suggesting they’re not as fit for office as their friends on the liberal left. Tom Finn, always great to see you, my friend. Thank you so much spending time with me. Happy birthday. Go home. Go home.

Thank you. That was good. It’s a good little interview, huh? Kevin Cork’s great. And I talked about the auto pen. We meant to bring up Charles Payne, but we brought up Kevin’s show on Charles Payne’s show on Fox Business the other day. And Charles is super sharp. Great interview as well. Let’s talk about the auto pen with him. 6B. Speaking of, you know, second guessing and presidencies a lot now over President Biden and the auto pen and you know, what was legitimate, what wasn’t legitimate. These are the kind of things I know Judicial Watch is usually out in front on.

It feels like right now just, you know, it’s being looked into and investigated, but feels like we could have some court dates here real soon on the legitimacy of the to the last part of the Biden administration. Yeah. I think given the crazy nature of the pardons, the fact that they were for no crimes, just general pardons that we have never really seen before in American history to a great extent like this suggests there was something up in the Biden White House. And given his obvious and evident dementia, now we’re all able to talk about it now that the media has blessed the discussion, people are going to ask questions about how policies were made at the White House at the presidential level, you know, with someone essentially guiding his hand as he signed specific orders, or were they guiding his hand indirectly by taking control of the auto pen and making policy without presidential approval.

And the other big question is was he able to give the approval in terms of having the dementia challenge that he obviously has? Yeah. Hey, Tom, it’s always great catching up with you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yeah. So Congress should investigate this issue. Of course, Judicial Watch had called on Congress to investigate this issue when President Biden was in office. So I guess better late than never because to me it was dangerous. He was in office and so clearly out of it and being able to unable to govern. So Congressman Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, did issue a subpoena to the president’s doctor.

I say doctor with quote marks. He is literally a doctor. But he certainly didn’t act appropriately in my view. And of course, we have our separate investigations. I mean, heck, it was a lot of this was spurred on as a result of Judicial Watch being able to force out the audiotape of Joe Biden’s interviews with the special counsel her that confirmed that there was a cover up because they audiotape showed it and they tried to cover it up literally from Judicial Watch that Biden was completely out of it when being questioned by her in key areas.

He was unable to communicate. And that’s the reason in no small measure that we’re in this position where people are now investigating it. So we’re not going to stop. We’ve got pardon FOIAs out there over the Biden pardons, as I say. And I think, you know, we just got to proceed as if these pardons are not valid. I don’t think they’re valid on their face. And there are new issues related to his ability to even cognitively approve them. So before I go, I want to give you an update on the judicial coup. The lawfare out of the judiciary against President Trump, which is just putting lives at risk and undermining our Republican form of government.

And I had a tweet the other day. Well, actually it was just earlier today, just tracking and this is only part of. There’s so much going on. I can only put so much in a tweet. Let’s put up this tweet I posted earlier today. Number 6jpg there. Judicial Coup update. Court orders Real Donald Trump administration to keep. So this is what happened in the last, I think it’s literally two days. A court ordered Trump the administration to keep funding grants to the Corruption AmeriCorps program. A judge says the Trump team can’t even detain for deportation, can’t even arrest the person foreign national who promoted terrorism.

And an appeals court here in D.C. ordered Trump to personally rehire an official he had fired. Now that’s really outrageous that last one. They don’t. No court has the ability to force the president to do something personally as president of the United States. They have authority over his agencies and such. But they can’t tell a president and join a President to do or not do something completely outside their power as a court. But that’s the lawlessness we’re facing here. And to me, it’s a dangerous form of lawlessness. It’s impacting our lives. It’s placing our people at risk abroad and here at home as we’re dealing with these being forced to keep and secure these dangerous people that should be deported.

It’s undermining our national security and our foreign policy, even messing with our economic policy. On Charles Payne the other day I talked about some out of control court in New York, the International, was it International Court of Trade, I think the name is, who basically said the president has no authority to issue any emergency or pursue any tariffs under the emergency powers specifically and broadly granted to him by Congress. I talked about it a little bit with Charles Payne the other day. Let’s go to that. I want to bring in Judicial watch there. President Tom Fitton.

Tom, you know, trade uncertainty now is back on the rise, but not from things happening inside the White House. It’s from all of this legal intervention, what’s going on here. Yeah, you had a three judge panel intervene and try to stop President Trump from pushing through his tariffs. And the market’s reacting negatively to that because the court was acting in a way that brought uncertainty to the process. Now, if you’re a judge and you don’t Trump’s like policies, that’s your right as an American. But you’re supposed to strictly apply the law and not play legislature, not play president and give the president and the Congress the respect due under the Constitution.

And the problem that the courts are having now in terms of their public perception is they’re acting like politicians. And when you act like a politician, the public’s going to treat you like a politician. And that’s why the courts, in my view, their reputation is plummeting among the public. And the Supreme Court really needs to take control of the reins here and rein in these lower courts that are acting like Democratic committeemen in Congress as opposed to neutral jurists. There are certain judges, I know what their decision is going to be made when they at certain cases, anything involving Trump, I know there are certain judges.

Once that judge sees it, I already know the outcome is going to be and I suppose the White House must know as well. But the public knows. And this is after all of that lawfare, I’m concerned about the idea that, you know, this is the foundation of our nation. Yeah, it’s judicial law, fair in some respects. Right. You have these left wing activist Groups, by and large, using friendly courts to hamstring the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, which have generally been endorsed by voters through an election. Right. No one voted for these judges to be president, but they voted for Trump to be president.

And there are powers he’s exercising in accordance with his constitutional authorities. And judges don’t like it. And rather than sticking to their lane, they’re usurping power that the Congress, the Constitution, doesn’t give them. So how do you see things settling out? Because this is not one of these instances. Everyone’s a lawyer all of a sudden. Everyone’s a lawyer, and everyone’s an expert on terrorists all of a sudden. Well, section 122. Well, section this. I want to know how Tom Fitton sees it may be playing out. Well, you know, as not a lawyer, but someone who’s been watching the courts for some time, Trump’s going to win some and lose some.

I think he’s going to win more before the Supreme Court in terms of vindicating his core constitutional powers to run the government. It means hiring and firing people, not being second guessed by independent agencies that are answerable to no one and saving taxpayers money. And, yes, exercising tariff policy and protecting the border, all core powers to the presidency in terms of national security, protecting our country from invasion and matters like that. And it’s going to be a bumpy road, and I hope the court doesn’t undermine its legitimacy in the meantime. Yeah, I mean, that’s the challenge, because the court’s had some good rulings for Trump, but in the meantime, it’s chaos below until the Supreme Court acts, and they’ve been too lackadaisical, to put it mildly, in allowing these lower courts to mess with President Trump’s constitutional powers and the Congress’s attendant legislative powers, because the president often is enforcing law passed appropriately by Congress, and they just can’t let the lower courts mess with him in that regard.

Improperly creating emergencies and giving special treatment to litigants simply because they’re challenging Trump, it’s not appropriate, and they need to step it up. So there we are. Thank you for your support of Judicial Watch. As I said, we’ve got these tremendous new victories, substantial, really, steps forward in terms of the rule of law and election integrity, potentially, with the Supreme Court. A massive vindication for Ashley Babbitt and her family with this settlement for $4.975 million by the United States government. And none of this would have out, would have been able to happen without your support. And so if you’re already supporting Judicial Watch.

Thank you. I encourage you to support us again. And if you’re not, I ask you to join our cause and movement. Go to judicialwatch.org and make your most generous donation today. With that, I wish you the best. 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.