➡ Judicial Watch is preparing for a significant Supreme Court case regarding election laws, specifically the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. They argue that federal law sets a specific Election Day, not an extended period, and that counting late ballots can lead to fraud and undermine public trust. The case could impact over 30 states’ laws if the court rules in favor of Judicial Watch. The hearing is scheduled for March 23rd.
➡ Judicial Watch, a group focused on election integrity, has been working to clean up voting rolls and protect voter ID laws. They are also fighting against race-based gerrymandering. The group supports the Save America Act, a law that would require voter ID and citizenship verification for new voter registrations. The Act also aims to make it easier to remove noncitizens from voting rolls.
➡ The article discusses concerns about election integrity and the discovery of hidden files at the FBI. It mentions that current election processes are flawed and susceptible to fraud. It also reveals that Judicial Watch, an organization focused on government transparency, found up to 1.9 million hidden records at the FBI. These records, which were kept secret from leadership, could potentially contain information about various investigations, including those related to Trump and Hillary Clinton.
➡ Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, has discovered a secret room containing 1.9 million pages of records hidden from FBI leadership. These records could be related to sensitive investigations and other undisclosed matters. Despite the FBI and Justice Department’s reluctance to release these records, Judicial Watch continues to fight for transparency. The group believes that these documents could reveal important information about corruption and is urging for their immediate review and release.
➡ The article discusses the ongoing investigations and legal battles involving the 2020 election, President Trump, and the FBI’s alleged targeting of Catholics. It highlights the work of Judicial Watch, a group seeking transparency and accountability in these matters. The author expresses frustration over the lack of progress and transparency in these investigations, and calls for continued support for Judicial Watch’s efforts.
➡ We had a successful argument in the Supreme Court and hope for justice on important issues for Americans. See you in the next Judicial Watch update. Don’t forget to subscribe and like our video.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Judicial Watch’s legal team has been working hard this week prepping for what may be one of the most important Supreme Court cases in recent American history, at least as it relates to election laws and the way your elections are conducted. The oral argument in this important case takes place on Monday, 3-23-20. Judicial Watch’s legal team will be presenting the argument on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. The RNC is also involved in the case, and we are on the side of the Trump administration as well over whether or not federal law precludes or prohibits the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day.

A relatively simple issue, you would think, but one that has reached the Supreme Court. And I tell you, if it goes our way in terms of having a lower court ruling finding that it is a violation of federal law to count ballots that arrive late, that means state laws in upwards of 30 plus states will be overturned effectively. And states will have to start making sure that that in order for ballots to be counted, they are there by Election Day. So if you’re mailing in your ballots, under our theory, you got to mail them in soon, early enough to ensure that they get there by Election Day.

Because federal law sets an election day, not an election week, not an election month. Some states count ballots. In Washington State, for example, they allow ballots to arrive for up to 21 days after election day. California, seven days. Illinois, two weeks. Mississippi, which is the case at issue here, five days. Now, Judicial Watch has taken the lead role in pushing this issue before the courts because we got, for instance, the first ruling finding, at least at the circuit level, the appellate level, that the counting of ballots that are received late is improper under federal law. And as I said, this case will have ramifications as well.

Over two dozen states do allow the counting of ballots that arrive late. But despite the number, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon. It mostly started during COVID I mean, there were a few states that allowed it beforehand. But there’s no doubt that federal law sets an election day. And the question is, what is the deadline as a result of to make sure that votes are counted? I think it’s the common sense approach and it’s the approach based on history and the original public meaning of the laws. Because there are several laws related to Election day that were passed in the 19th century.

And as it relates to the direct election of senators, they updated as well that Election day is the first Tuesday, I think. Was it the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November. I think I’m quoting it right. And that’s got to be enforced because you can’t be mailing ballots to everybody and their mother and have deadlines that go all over the place. I mean, if it’s, as I said, Washington state has 21 days. If there is no deadline, why can’t Washington State or any other state, say, 100 days? Or just leave the election open until the next federal election? Why not? Or the next presidential election? Why not? And I tell you, if we are able to curb this practice and kind of get back, restore the rule of law on election ballot counting, it will do much to improve election integrity because it eliminates obvious opportunities for voter fraud.

It restores at least partial confidence or increases confidence in the outcome of elections. Because, look, when you’re counting ballots after Election Day, most normal people realize that’s just, that’s an opportunity for fraud. And that process is almost inherently untrustworthy. So if you want to restore election confidence, if you want to restore democracy, as the left likes to say, I would hope the court agrees with us here and we seek to uphold this historic ruling by the U.S. court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which found that Mississippi’s counting of ballots received up to five days after Election Day to be unlawful.

And as I said, the RNC has a challenge as well. So we’re there together in court making the plea to the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court ruling. Judicial Watch. As Brice points out, and as I mentioned last week, the whole point of the federal Election Day statutes is to set a single uniform day for election. Allowing ballots to trickle in days or weeks after Election Day is antithetical to that basic goal. Indeed, a patchwork of state ballot receipt deadlines replicates the problems Congress was trying to remedy with a single national Election Day. And someone asked me, a reporter this week, said, we know the other side says it would be a disaster and cause confusion and such if this deadline is affirmed.

And I said, well, that’s just crazy. I mean, the deadline is designed to avoid the confusion that’s been created by having 20, 30 states with alternative deadlines that undermine, as I said, not only federal law because they’re contrary to federal law, but invite voter fraud and ruin public trust in whatever the outcome of the election is. In California, we have a lawsuit in California challenging that rule that allows the county with seven ballots that arrive for up to seven days after an election without a postmark. Without a postmark, which is obvious, another inducement for fraud. But in California, in the last congressional election in 2024, our lawsuit alleges there were at least two Democrat candidates who won in the House as a result of the late counting of ballots, meaning the Republican, I think they were incumbents, were winning on Election Day, and the result changed because of ballots that arrived late that were counted.

That’s not appropriate. That’s simply not appropriate. And I hope the Supreme Court rules our way. So pray for wisdom and discernment among the justices. The hearing takes place on Monday, March 23rd. If you miss it, it will be at 10 in the morning, east coast time. You can listen to it later. And I’m sure there’ll be all sorts of press reports. But I’d like to thank our lawyers who have been working hard on this case. Rusty o’, Beal, who’s been shepherding these cases directly, a former trial attorney at the Justice Department, a former other Justice Department official, Bob Popper, runs our election Law Project.

Our colleague Eric Lee, another great attorney who’s been with us for years, has been doing yeoman’s work here. Our litigation team is led by Paul Orphanides. Paul Clement is an outside lawyer who we’re bringing in. He’s a former solicitor general to argue the case on behalf of the rnc. Credit to the Trump administration for also taking the lead on this. Now, one of the interesting, one of the interesting issues that pops up is that the Justice Department is taking the position that the separate federal law that manages the voting of deployed military and citizens who are overseas suggests that maybe those folks can count late.

And our position is, you, you can’t. The ballots have to get there by election Day. And now the Justice Department’s position is, well, military ballots get an exception, but we don’t see that exception there. I mean, there’s got to be a deadline. And in the military, they get ballots 45 days ahead of time. So there’s really not an issue. The bigger issue, frankly, are the overseas voters who aren’t military. So it’s, you know, the George Clooneys of the world in Paris. Should they get the vote 10 days late, you know, get 10 extra days to vote? I don’t think so.

Certainly not under federal law. Now, of course, if you want an extension of time for a category of military ballots, the Congress can legislate in that area. It might raise equal protection issues, but it shouldn’t prohibit the stopping the insanity of 20 states having different ballot deadlines on federal elections. But why have an election day statute if it can be changed at will by the states and it’s not, despite what people may think, a federalism issue. These are federal elections. The Constitution gives purview to Congress specifically on federal elections, the time, place and manner and such as they see fit.

And in this case, they were trying to. In the 19th century, you had these alternative deadlines. States were holding elections on different days. Even they said, no, no, no, we got to stop that. And what’s interesting, the mass mailing, or excuse me, the absentee balloting, which has heightened the issue because now absentee balloting is so widespread, improperly so in my view, in terms of policy, but that’s another battle. But during the Civil War, you had absentee balloting being used really for the first time in large measure for our troops fighting in the Civil War. And what the history shows is that even then the states were very stringent in ensuring that the ballots were received on time.

So I tell you, if it was good enough for our troops fighting in the Civil War to make sure their ballots got there on time, it should be good enough for states to make sure that other voters get their ballots there on time. Early voting is another matter. I think there could be a possibility for certain early voting mechanisms, but you got to make sure your ballots get there on time. And whether or not the law requires it, you really should make sure your ballots get there on time. And that’s why I don’t like personally vote by mail, because I don’t trust the post office.

So this is a mega case. And this is on top of other mega work that Judicial Watch is doing on election integrity. And I will assert, and I think I assert fairly, that Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader in ensuring the rule of law on our elections. Justice Department is stepping up on some balloting issues. That’s great under the Trump administration, but we’ve taken the lead in cleaning up the voting rolls, protecting, trying to protect voter id, trying to stop these race based gerrymanderings that the left wants to continue that ensures that voters are segregated by race to ensure that Democrats get elected.

It’s only, it’s just completely upside down view of the rule of law on elections that you can segregate people by race in order to ensure that a political party gets elected. It’s outrageous. And as I said earlier or last week, I reminded you that we have cleaned upwards of nearly 6 million dirty names from the voting rolls thanks to Judicial Watch’s litigation and legal actions. And we may in this case really single handedly strike the biggest legal blow for election integrity in a generation if the Supreme Court agrees with us. Now, do I think the Supreme Court’s going to agree with us? I do, but I don’t know that for a fact.

It’s. Take it for what it’s worth. It’s just a guess. So big great work by Judicial Watch to get the case up to the Supreme Court, but we’ve got this argument ahead and we’ll see what happens. But it’s an exciting time here at Judicial Watch. And concurrently, interestingly, is this battle in the Senate over the Save America Act, a law which would require voter ID nationally, voter ID or citizenship verification as well in order to newly register to vote. If you’re already registered to vote, you’re covered. And it’s quite a reasonable law given the overwhelming 85% public support for both provisions, voter ID and making sure that you’re a citizen in order to vote.

Because currently there are at least 15 states, as best as I can recall. I think I put it up here. Yeah, these states have no voter id. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, they had voter ID but the left wing court there threw it out. Vermont, and of course here in Washington, D.C. it’s not a state, but it’s the nation’s capital. No voter ID here, despite Republicans running things. And of course voting by mail has no serious requirement in terms of ID verification in any state. So this is a real crisis.

These are not small states and they got to be brought into compliance with the wishes of the American people because we have a right to ensure our elections are run fairly and cleanly. And voter ID is obviously almost makes it impossible to guard against in any serious way or even mild way, voter fraud. Now, citizenship verification, we have tens of millions of noncitizens here in the United States. And if you’re not a citizen, whether you’re here legally or illegally, you’re not supposed to be voting in federal elections. The only way to stop that now that’s the law.

But the only way to check. Well, there is no way to check under most. I think there’s one state that may check for state variations of it may have state requirements for state elections, but no state, as best I can recall, has any requirement to prove citizenship in order to register to vote for a federal election. The only thing you need to do when you register to vote is attest that you’re a citizen under penalty of perjury. And obviously there’s a criminal charge potentially there. But there’s no check and no one really looks at it. And the left objects to people looking at it or even asking questions about it.

So Americans want people to assure officials that they’re citizens before they’re able to vote. It’s simple. And if you’re already registered, you’re generally covered. The law also makes the process easier to remove noncitizens. So if there are current noncitizens on the rolls, it will be easier to remove them. So the Save America act is a common sense piece of legislation that moves forward on a priority of the American people. There are few. I can’t think of any other public policy issue that has like an 80%, 85% type support. That means that Democrats and Republicans. So the only people who support it are the left wing lunatics who have utter contempt for elections.

And they see these rules as a way to stop them from stealing elections. And they want to be able to steal elections. And so unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the Senate have been fighting tooth and nail and John Thune has at least it’s not the talking filibuster. I don’t want to get into the whole filibuster issue, but he has allowed a more vigorous debate process that is lengthier. It’s not the talking filibuster, but it’s lengthier. And you can see the debate has forced the left to say, oh, we’re not against voter ID while voting against voter id.

I mean, for example, in the course of this debate, I think Senator Schmidt just put forward a straightforward voter ID law, a variation to the Save America Act. Democrats all voted it down. I don’t know if they all voted it down, but it lost because of Democrat votes. So the filibuster continues or the debate continues in the Senate. And I encourage you to call your senators 202-224-3121, because this could go on for several more weeks and it should go on for several more weeks. I think our elections are worth defending and talking about for weeks and weeks and weeks, maybe even months.

Lord knows the Senate isn’t doing much else. It’s an election year. They’re not going to be doing anything else. I exaggerate slightly, but I’m not. Practically speaking, I’m generally right. And I know some of you may say, well, I live in California or I live in Maryland or I live in Illinois. My senators are Democrats. There’s no reason to call them. That’s not true. They track the volume of calls. And I tell you calling your senators has an impact. Don’t be told. And calling them repeatedly because issues Pop up. You should educate your senators as well.

Be polite, be direct, share your views. But you are a citizen and you have, I would argue, an obligation in some respects to try to protect our country. And one way you can do it in terms of being vigilant is communicating with your elected officials. And so, yeah, call your California senators, if you live in California, because they know how the calls are running. And it’s one thing to be against this, it’s another thing to work hard against it. Right. And if they’re hearing a public outcry, they will. I shouldn’t say it guarantees a certain result, but it may.

Moderate views. Now, I’m not telling you what to think about it. I’m just sharing what my view was on the legislation. And I’m not telling you what to say. I mean, you could be listening to me and think, Tom’s all wet. I’m going to call him and tell them to vote against it. That’s fine. God bless America. You’ve got that First Amendment right to petition your government. You know, we’ve got this. We hear about the First Amendment, right. And you know, the media is obsessed with the First Amendment, free speech side of it, because that’s what they do, they speak.

But there are other aspects of the First Amendment, the religion clause, free exercise thereof, and the right to petition your government. Now, I want you to ask yourself, do you take that right seriously? How often do you petition your government? How often do you communicate with your elected officials? I’m not saying you’re a terrible person if you don’t, but I just ask you to. You know, it’s our 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding this year. And that First Amendment was a core issue, obviously for the founders. That’s why it’s there in the Constitution. Yeah. Remember, our founders gave, what’s the phrase, their.

Sacred honor, their fortunes, their lives for these freedoms. Are you exercising those freedoms, the right to petition our government? It’s Court of Judicial Watches work. Our lawsuits are effectively a form of petitioning our government. We ask our government for records, ask them to do the right thing, and then we go to court. That’s petitioning the government. So the Save America act in my view is aptly named because in my view, the left not only wants dirty elections or wants to be able to steal elections, they want to be able to end elections. You know, when you combine that with our litigation about whether election day means anything, I tell you, if you have an election that begins two months before an election and ends two months after an election.

That’s not an election. That’s not an election in any meaningful way. We got to get back to that because that’s how we lose our country, I tell you, in terms of our ability to govern ourselves because there’s no way of tracking outcomes in any reliable way or guarding against fraud in any reliable way. We have elections that last for months. No voter id, no serious way of enforcing the prohibition of noncitizens voting. And that’s why Judicial Watch has taken this issue of election integrity to heart. And as best as I can tell, we’re the national leader on it.

And I don’t say that lightly. So again, call Your Senators at 202-2243-121202-22431. You’re not going to believe what we just found. So you may have heard about the secret rooms and the burn bags and such that Dan Bongino, who was then FBI deputy director and Cash Patel have disclosed these were files that supposedly were hidden from the leadership and designed to be hidden from the leadership by the deep state, the Biden and Obama, FBI, the anti Trumpers, the Jack Smith people and all of that. And Dan disclosed last year material about or information about what they found.

We actually linked to this in the lawsuit. We wanted the information about what Dan is about to say here on FOX News or said on FOX News back in looks like May of last year stuff that’s coming out. But does he still have a loyalist in the building? Because when I hear the FBI director saying you guys are finding boxes that are hidden. Okay, how does that happen in the bureau? Well, we were there a couple of weeks and luckily there are a lot of people up there who grabbed us by the arm the minute we came in and said thank you for being here, you know, we need to talk.

There are people there who are really horrified at what happened. And there was a room and we found stuff, a lot of a hidden room, I wouldn’t call it hidden, but hidden from us at least and not mentioned to us. And then we found stuff in there and a lot of it’s from the Comey era. And we are working our damnedest right now to declassifying just so you know, because I get the public, I totally understand people saying we’ll do it. Now. The process is not all the information is ours to declassify some as other intelligence agencies.

It’s not we literally can’t do it. Once that gets done and that gets out there and you read some of the Stuff we found that by the way, was not processed through the normal procedure. Digitizing it, putting in FBI records. We found it in bags, hiding under Jim Comey. Quickly. Yeah, you’re going to be stuck. So Judicial Watch, but. Oh, isn’t that interesting. So our team filed a Freedom of Information act request, literally just asking for the records. Dan Bongino referred there asking for the records. Kash Patel was referencing the boxes and things. And the FBI stalled, installed, installed.

But they finally confirmed to Judicial Watch, yes, there are files there. And not only there are files, but there are a lot of files. One point upwards of 1.9 million records have been found in that secret room that Dan Bongino disclosed. Records about Jack Smith and other anti Trump investigations and who knows what else. Here it is in black and white in. Let’s go to the. Let’s go to the. This may date me. Let’s go to the videotape. Even though I’m not going to the videotape, I’m going to the Internet here. So here you see our press release lawsuit on Carver’s FBI found up to 1.9 million Jack Smith and other records in hidden room.

And I’ll read you this section. You probably can’t see it, so I’ll just read it to you. So they explained the documents were found in a skiff. So at least they were kept in a secret facility, meaning a facility with or room that has protections in terms of securing classified information. But as Dan Bongino disclosed, it was, they were, it was in a room designed to be hidden from the new incoming leadership. You have to remember over in the FBI they have maybe five or six, I literally don’t know how many. But it’s a scary small number of people that are hired as, quote, politicals.

You’ve got the FBI director who’s appointed by the President, Dan Bongino, even, I don’t think he was even technically a political appointment. I think he was a civil servant who was hired. So there are no typical political, few typical political appointments. It’s all just deep staters or to be fair to some who are trying to do their work, just civil service employees or FBI agents, etc. So they found their records and they told Judicial Watch in the court. So this is a court filing. It was in a. I think it was in a joint status report filed in our lawsuit for these records.

So this is the government talking in this part of the joint status report for item one. Plaintiffs seek all documents referenced by Deputy Director Dan Bongino concerning a room Located in FBI headquarters. So you just saw the video. The room references a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, which is the shorthand for that is scif, the acronym that houses records related to both closed and open investigations. The FBI continues to assess the contents of the room and the total volume of records in the room. The FBI continues to determine what records, if any, are responsive to the request until all documents have been digitized and reviewed.

The defendant, the FBI Justice Department cannot identify the anticipated number of documents responsive to the request or the anticipated dates for release of the requested documents. The FBI can provide the following update about the status of the process. Specifically, the FBI has assessed that the room presently contains the following following records that require digitization, meaning they, I guess they get either moved over to an unsecured system digitally or if they’re printed records, they have to be scanned before they can be scoped for responsiveness and process for production. Several five drawer filing cabinets safes that the FBI estimates to include approximately between 950,000.

There you have between 950,019 1.9 million pages, which may fluctuate depending on whether there is material on both the front and back of the pages. So I guess they are. There are actual. I just noticed that they’re actual pages, they’re hard copies. So they literally kept the paper files in that secret area away from, as Dan alleged leadership for, I think, nefarious purposes. So they’re going to need at least 10 to 12 months to even process the records, meaning digitize them and review them for potential release. So what are the records about? The records appear to include the following.

You can see on the screen here, legacy files. These records consist of older legacy records, the majority of which refer to two closed historical investigations. These records belong to the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General and prior to release must be sent to the DoJ OIG for consultation on its equities in the records. I mean, this is like absurdity piled upon absurdity. The doj. So these are DOJ files and the DOJ is going to send DOJ files to another DOJ agency. It’s like the DOJ is going to send files to itself. So we can be told when we get the records, I mean, it’s outrageous enough when they use, oh, these could be CIA records or these could be Department of Transportation records.

We’re going to send them over there and wait forever and a day before we release them because it’s, you know, we have no control over them. I mean, it’s a way basically to ditch Records, effectively, because you can’t. The time frame is incredibly long, but I get distracted. Other files, these records consist of more record, more recent records related to various investigations, including, for example, active investigations and prior special counsel investigative records, many of which are likely to require consultation with other government agencies prior to release. So these are Jack Smith records. They’re probably Mueller records, they’re probably Hillary records, they’re probably Rush Gate records, they’re probably Durham records.

Given the quantity of records, it’s multiple cases, legacy cases. I don’t know what that means, how far back it goes, I don’t know. Go back to Kennedy. I mean, I say that half jokingly, but I have no way of knowing that. And they may not either because they haven’t looked at them all. So when I see numbers like 1.9 million records that have been hidden, I think, what do I think of, I think of the Epstein records, right? There were three and a half million records that were released. I mean, this is comparable, and dare I say it, I think they’re probably more important than the Epstein records, given the lawfare against Trump that could have destroyed our republic, if indeed these records cover it.

This is an astonishing piece of information from the Justice Department and the FBI. It would not have come out but for Judicial Watches. Heavy lifting in federal court. You know, you see these news stories and there’s little to no follow up. The follow up from Congress is easily thwarted and ignored. It’s a political back and forth. I’m not saying Congress is wrong to ask the questions, but it’s relatively ham. It’s relatively hapless in its ability to get the records, or at least all of them. And the value of the FOIA cases that Judicial Watch brings, we can’t necessarily get all the records either, but there’s a process for getting the records in a more timely way and understanding what’s being withheld and the ability to fight and challenge them in a way that’s much more direct than Congress.

And in the best of circumstances, you have Congress asking for records, you have Judicial Watch asking for records, and then you see, what did Congress get? What did the Judicial Watch get? What did Congress get that the Judicial Watch didn’t? And what did Judicial Watch get that the Congress didn’t? And that’s often what happens. And often what happens is Judicial Watch gets all sorts of records that Congress doesn’t get. And it’s infuriating. And just so you know, over time in recent years, Congress has noticed this. They say Judicial Watch gets these records and Congress isn’t we’re done with it.

Let’s push harder. So our work has encouraged Congress to do more. It’s not enough, but to do more in terms of getting access to records. So you could be sure that our friends in Senator Grassley’s office and Senator Johnson’s office and Jim Jordan’s office and, and Congressman Comer’s office are going to look at this press release next week, say, wow, 1.9 million records. We haven’t gotten half. I think they’ve gotten maybe 40,000 records at most. And I don’t even know those records came from that secret room. So, again, the headline is the FBI admitted there was a secret room hidden from FBI leadership appointed by President of the United States that contains essentially secret records, 1.9 million pages, potentially on issues that are quite sensitive, related to special counsel investigations and Office of Inspector General investigations and who knows what else.

I mean, this is like, why it’s crazy to work at Judicial Watch because we’re prepping for a Supreme Court hearing of historic proportions. And concurrently, we get this disclosure from the FBI and Justice Department in a joint status report, which is usually, they’re pretty, I shouldn’t say boring, but they rarely have significant disclosures. This court filing that says they’ve been hiding 1.9 million records from the American people, it’s just crazy town sometimes here at Judicial Watch because of all the work that we’re doing. And it just comes in, boom, boom, boom of disclosure after disclosure, evidence of corruption after evidence of corruption as we continue our cases to save our elections, to preserve transparency and protect our constitutional republic.

This is an astonishing and troubling revelation. I note in our press release, the FBI and Justice Department must go all out to release the nearly 2 million secret FBI and DOJ files on the lawfare against Trump and whatever else the Obama and Biden gangs want the American people to know about. And I have no doubt, as I said, that these records are far more important than the Epstein files. Now, you know, as Congress passed a law requiring the release of the Epstein files, so the FBI and Justice Department had to go to town, right? And they had hundreds of people looking through millions of records.

I think they should take the same approach here, and it shouldn’t take a law. In fact, there already is a law. It’s called foia. And they should take it seriously, given the nature of the records that are likely here, and review them as quickly as humanly possible. When did we file this lawsuit? Well, I’m sure we asked for the records last year. So we asked for the records in the summer of last year. We filed the lawsuit. I think it was in November, and now it’s March and we still don’t have any records. And they want us to wait another year.

Do you think that’s acceptable? If you don’t, you know who you should call? Call Pam Bondi. Call Kash Patel. Remember what I said about petitioning your government. Ask them to, hey, give these records to Judicial Watch of the American people. These could be the keys to these scandals. Heck, they’re not prosecuting anyone. The least they can do is release records on the corruption. This is just great work by Judicial Watch. And you know, I was looking at the release and at the end of the release, sometimes we put, at, let’s say we do a press release on topic X, we put the material in the press release and at the end we say, by the way, on topic X and related issues, this is also what we’re doing.

And so when you look at that in our Release, you’ll see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. At least eight major cases and disclosures that Judicial Watch has filed and been part of the release of FISA warrants. The illegal, lying FISA warrants. We exposed them, we got them public. First time ever FISA warrant applications have been made public, thanks to Judicial Watch litigation. We’ve been suing for Hunter Biden records, shady FBI records, all the lawfare records. And we’ve been exposing so much of what we know about the abuses targeting Trump and American citizens. And I suspect we’ve hit the mother lode here with the 1.9 million records.

Potentially could be a little less, or it could be a little more, depending on what goes on. That we’re in this secret room. Really incredible development. And I do give credit to the Justice Department and FBI for being forthcoming in this regard. I mean, it wouldn’t be out of the realm possibility that they could come up with reasons not even to tell us the number. I mean, they have all sorts of reasons for not telling you information. They have all sorts of excuses, oh, we can’t tell you the number. We can’t tell you what it’s about.

So I don’t want to. I want them to do more. But I do applaud the transparency in this disclosure, however troubling it is, because it could have gone the other way. We may have been kept in the dark by a prior administration, even under a Republican president. I mean, during the Trump first Trump administration, it was a disaster in terms of transparency. The DOJ was In some ways, worse than Obama in terms of transparency. So very, very interesting development, to put it mildly. Speaking of lawfare against Trump, we’ve got a paddle that is ongoing against Fannie Willis or Fanny Willis.

I’m not sure how the name is pronounced. Now, we had asked for records or sued for records because we got the runaround in Fulton county on her collusion that we saw was happening, it looked like with the Pelosi gang at the January 6 Committee and Jack Smith and the Garland Justice Department on her targeting and prosecutions of Donald Trump and what I believe to be other innocent Americans. And she, her office first told us that they had no records, and it turned out it was a lie. And as a result, she had to pay us money, thanks to a court order.

But so they had to search again. And long story short, they found 212 pages of records that were responsive. So, first of all, first they said there were no records showing collusion. Then they said there were records showing collusion. Then they said there were 212 pages of record showing the collusion. I guess they wouldn’t characterize it the way I’m characterizing it, but I think I’m fairly depicting the issue. And the court said, well, some of this might be covered by attorney client for now, so I’m going to hold onto it now. Since then. And we couldn’t get access to it since then.

The justice, the prosecution, Willis was removed due to her corruption. That is well known. Her boyfriend was on. She hired her boyfriend. It looks like they were using the targeting of Trump as a way to, you know, engage in dating activities and trips together to get the money to do so. So she was removed. And then the Georgia official who next had the case dismissed it. He dismissed it. So the case is over. So there’s a good argument. There are no, there’s no reason to hide the records anymore because the privilege issue essentially has been mooted out by the fact the case has been dropped.

So we’ve been, the court wanted to know, why shouldn’t I release these records? Incredibly, Fanny Willis is still trying to hide the records from us. So we’ve had to file another brief, spend more money to try to get access to what is, I think, our rightful demand under law, which is transparency. We argue that the pages of the still secret records, the 212 pages, should now be released as the controversial criminal case against Trump and others has been dismissed and Williams claims that privileges are without merit. The Fulton county court, as I noted, ordered Willis. I think it was back in January to basically tell him why it is that the record should still be hidden.

Fannie Willis lied to the courts and the people of about her get Trump conspiracy with the Biden and Pelosi operations. These documents can’t be released soon enough. Now, I know the FBI is investigating Fulton County. I hope the Justice Department has a broad investigation. I suspect they don’t. I haven’t seen any evidence of it. Of the lawfare in Fulton and New York and other states against President Trump, Electors, Republican Party officials, innocent, innocent Americans for daring to dispute the 2020 election. You know, everyone pretends to get mad at Trump when he talks about the 2020 election, even as there are people who face prison time still over the 2020 election.

So only President Trump is allowed to talk about it. But the left can abuse the rule of law to try to jail people who objected to the 2020 elections and the way it was handled, the way they were handled. So I suspect the court’s going to rule relatively quickly on this. But this is kind of. This is another example of why you need a group like Judicial Watch, because this case began. Let me see if I can tell. Yeah, it began two years ago. Two years ago. And we still don’t have the darn records, even though the case has been dead at least for a half a year.

We got to get the record, so I hope we get them. But you can be sure that Judicial Watch’s investigation, though, generally is comprehensive. And I’m not going to say, dare I say it, I have good reason to believe, based on all the public evidence out there, more comprehensive than the Justice Department’s investigation into the lawfare by leftists and Democrat politicians to target Trump and try to jail him and other innocents in retaliation. For daring to dispute the controversial 2020 election, simply put, and for daring to try to run for office again in the case of Trump, because they didn’t want him to be in office again.

So they thought, well, maybe if we jail him in time, we can stop it from happening. Heck, they tried to have him killed. They denied him Secret Service protection, And they said if he was put in jail, he would be denied Secret Service protection. So they wanted to guarantee he’d be killed in jail. That’s how dark this conspiracy against Trump went. So forgive me for still being a bit upset about it and thinking it’s important we get the full scope of this conspiracy, because if we don’t do it, no one will. No one’s doing it now, I can tell you that.

And one of the worst abuses of The Biden FBI or examples of abuses is the Biden FBI was the targeting of Catholics by the FBI. The left took control of the Justice Department and FBI under Joe Biden, and they decided to label conservatives as terrorists and even worse, as Christians as terrorists. And specifically, an FBI agent at the time leaked a memo that he was outraged by as a patriot, showing that in Richmond they had a memo essentially authorizing and pretending that traditionalist Catholics, whatever that means, should be targeted for spying by the FBI. Literally going into the parish churches, sitting in the pews.

Imagine going to Mass and having an FBI informant sitting next to you. That’s what they wanted. And it was so outrageous. As soon as it was leaked, the FBI retreated, said, oh, that was just one office. Oh, it wasn’t really serious. It didn’t go beyond the Richmond thing. No one really acted on it. Well, there’s all sorts of evidence that was all a lie. And so, of course, Judicial Watch with our friends, Catholic Action, excuse me, Catholic Vote, Civic Action, sued for records about this Richmond FBI memo targeting Catholics, one of the worst examples of government abuse in modern targeting Catholics because of their Christian beliefs.

So we’ve gotten several records showing that the FBI was panicked, showing that senior FBI lawyers look to have reviewed this material. Supposedly was only in Richmond, but it seems like it got the stamp of approval. And so as these litigations continue with documents, what often happens is the government has to give the requester in a FOIA case what is called a Vuon Index v. A U G H N. It’s named after a case, and essentially it’s a list of records that are being withheld. And they’re supposed to be a descriptor of the records and the reasons for the withholdings.

And it’s designed so that the court, without having necessarily look at the records, can ascertain if there’s a lawful basis for withholding them. And it gives enough information to the requester, who obviously can’t see the records, so that they in theory could challenge the withholding as being appropriate or not. And once Vaughn indexes are released, it’s typically difficult to challenge the withholdings because if the Vaughn index has done well, there’s usually good justification or justification not good enough for me, but good enough for the courts. Right. But sometimes the Vaughn indexes are awful or they show that there really is no basis and the courts authorize the rel release of the records nevertheless.

So it’s an important part of the process. So in this case about the Richmond memo from the FBI launching spy efforts against Catholics for being Catholic. They gave us a lengthy Vaughn index that was illegible. The print was so small, none of us could read it. And so we had to go into court and argue about this the other day. Again, exceedingly frustrating, don’t you think, that Judicial Watch lawyers have to go in and work or argue against Justice Department, FBI? I think in this case, the U.S. attorney for D.C. their office was involved because they sometimes represent the agencies like the FBI on FOIA matters.

Just getting a list, a clear list to see what we’re arguing about in terms of what’s being withheld. And, hey, why is it all being withheld anyway? What are the secrets here? And I kind of jokingly say the resting state of the deep state is secrecy. And I think what’s going on in the FBI and Justice Department is that there’s this instinctive reaction to just withhold information. And the FOIA people just do what they do, which is not disclose, which is what I think they’re supposed to do, but think of ways to hide records. And it’s supposed to be a transparency law, not a secrecy law.

And unless the leadership of either the FBI or Justice Department, the FBI or Justice Department are paying attention to these issues, we end up just fighting on these important cases. Why on earth would the FBI hide records about one of the worst abuses? I mean, the Trump people, you know, President Trump, I think, ran on this issue and it raises another issue. And I raised it in this kind of. I use this video a lot because it works a lot. So here’s the video. It’s from an old. It’s in a previous update. So this is what we put out.

I’m going to keep on asking questions about it. I’m sorry, I’m going to keep on asking questions about it. I’m going to keep on asking questions about it, is right. And this is the question I was asking, illustrating the question with that video, why hasn’t there been a criminal inquiry into the FBI’s spying on Catholics? Judicial Watch fighting for the full truth on court on the Biden gang’s targeting with spy ops, Christians in church pews. And I talk about the court hearing that occurred this week. So this is such great work by Judicial Watch, you know, and it’s.

And this, I think, update shows you the broad nature of the work we’re engaged in trying to expose the spying on Christians. The FBI’s targeting Christians for being Christian. Covering the lawfare against Trump with Fanny Willis, going to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. To protect election integrity by making sure late ballots aren’t counted, one of the worst aspects of our election system currently. And then finding out they were hiding 1.9 million records on the lawfare, targeting Trump and Lord knows what else in a secret room in the FBI. We expose that through court.

I’ll hold that up. That work up to Congress, the media, anyone else, anytime. There’s no one doing the heavy lifting the Judicial Watch is doing in terms of being your watchdog in Washington and across the land. And that’s why I encourage you to support our work. If you’re donating to Judicial Watch, thank you. You can see your donations matter. It’s an effective way to get things done. And I encourage you to keep on donating. And if you haven’t donated, if this isn’t reason enough to donate, I don’t know what else to tell you. But do consider making your most generous contribution to Judicial Watch.

Go to judicialwatch.org, click on the donate button. You can, you don’t need to commit. You can just send us a check in the mail, do anything you want in terms of conveying your support, but we rely on it to get this work done. And it’s because of the generous support of American patriots by the hundreds of thousands that were able to do this tremendous work. And so I thank you for that. And let’s all pray that we have a successful Supreme Court argument. And let’s all pray that we get justice for the American people and all the issues that we care about.

With that, 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. Sat.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.