Everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom FitOn here with our weekly update here on social media. Thank you, as always, for joining us this week. Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday. Now I'm going to wish you a merry Christmas. We still say Christmas around here, so Merry Christmas to you all as you prepped for that holiday. Unfortunately, a lot of bad things going on in Washington, DC. These days. 

I got a report there plus significant development. Judicial watch just obtained a key email that blows out of the water joe Biden's falsehoods about his involvement with his son's business dealings and what was going on when he was vice president and his son was over there representing burisma from Ukraine Major to Jack Smith and the Biden justice department spying on potentially tens of millions of Americans. Through Twitter, I'll talk about that. 

New details about the waste of taxpayer money here on our nation's capital to promote Black Lives Matter. And then first up, though, is the fact that George Santos, the congressman from New York that's the news this week, it literally just happened a few hours ago has been expelled by the House of Representatives. 105 Republican Congressmen joined Democrats to achieve the two thirds majority necessary for expulsion, and Santos had been indicted by the Biden Justice Department, if the evidence is to be believed, on rather significant and serious crimes. 

The House Ethics Committee rushed through an investigation in order to generate support for bouncing him out, which they you know, George Santos obviously has significant ethical and criminal liabilities. But this is the first time, as best I understand it, that a House member was knocked out of the house for crimes for which he is yet to be convicted. And I think it's more than a little bit interesting that a lot of those Republicans who voted to knock him out and I think all things being equal, a vote to expel him isn't the end of the world. 

The idea that a House member can only be expelled unless he's convicted, I guess it's a good rule or it might be a useful rule, but I don't know if it should be a set rule given the fact that most politicians are corrupt and will never be convicted. So I don't know if that's the standard, but given everything that's going on in Washington, DC. To have these 105 Republicans, most of whom you will look at and see through reports, have zero interest in impeaching Biden or even investigating Biden or impeaching anyone else just less than two weeks ago, just before Thanksgiving? Yeah, it was about two weeks ago. 

A little over two weeks ago. I guarantee you, if you look at the hundred or so Republicans who voted to expel Santos, you will find almost one for one, a match with those Republicans who work with every single Democrat, practically speaking, to vote for a Continuum resolution which fully funded Biden corruption and abuse. Everything. As I say on Twitter, I will hazard a guess that the Republicans who voted to expel Santos almost all voted to fully fund Biden corruption and abuse two weeks ago. 

And a number of House Republican members reportedly uncomfortable with even investigating Joe Biden or any Biden official for impeachment, voted to expel Santos. That's why you should be following Judicial Watch and me on Twitter, because these are the truths that you won't hear from too many people. And so Santos is now no longer a House member. And not one Democrat who has abused the rights of Americans repeatedly like Adam Schiff has been held accountable. 

He was thrown off one committee, but he still serves on other committees. It was just noted today through just the news from a Republican congressman who alleged that the video depositions, the videotapes of the depositions of witnesses in that pelosi January 6 investigation by that Rump committee that was comprised only of pelosi appointees are disappeared. They're not around. No one knows where they are. The thinking is, if they were destroyed, is the chairman of that committee, Benny Thompson, going to be knocked out or expelled for destroying evidence? Judicial Watch filed two ethics complaints against Adam Schiff. 

Two ethics complaints, one concerning his mishandling and exposure of classified information. Filed an ethics complaint against Maxine Waters, who, you may recall, encourage violence against Trump officials. We filed an ethics complaint against Ilan Omar, who the evidence showed there's significant evidence that she engaged in marriage, immigration, and tax fraud. The House Ethics Committee has yet to act on any of those ethics complaints yet. They did this bumrush of an investigation against Santos. 

Not because they had ethics concerns about Santos, because they didn't want him in there for political reasons. And if I thought this was kind of a good faith analysis of what Santos had done and the Ethics Committee just calls it as they see know, I think the process would be reassuring and a good development if someone like him was held accountable. But for all the things that are going on in this town, the idea that Santos is the first thing that happens, his expulsion is the first thing that happens after. 

The same gang, and I mean gang, by Republicans and Democrats fully fund the effort to jail Trump that they know is illegitimate, the efforts to censor Americans, the COVID up of the Biden corruption by the Justice Department. So forgive me for thinking I don't know if the double standard is the right way of thinking about it. Maybe I often say it's a single standard. It's this fear based decision making by too much of our establishment. 

They're afraid to take on the real powerful, but they're happy to take on folks who, know can't fight back. I mean, Santos is probably a crook. I have no doubt he did something pretty awful. But the idea that he's the only one in the dock on this is just as absurd because there are so many other corrupt officials, and there's not going to be any effort to remove anyone else. 

There's not going to be an effort to remove Schiff, for instance, or Swalwell, who similarly engaged in misconduct with that Chinese spy, although he says the FBI exonerated him. Well, isn't that worth an Ethics Committee investigation? I don't know. Even Senator John Fetterman, the liberal Democrat senator from Know, he said, yeah, Santos is terrible, but we've got this guy Mendez in our Senate, too, who's a Democrat, but leftists don't like him too much, though. 

They're not going to expel him. And of course, there's this Go slow, impeachment investigation and as I say, the continued funding of the abuse of Trump. So I'm sorry, if you're going to vote for Santos being expelled while voting to allow Joe Biden to abuse the rule of law to jail American citizens in retaliation for either questioning his election or to make sure they're in a weakened position to stand against them in an election, I'm sorry, there's a disconnect there. 

There's a disconnect there. So I'd like to say here, this is one way to think about it. The Republicans have controlled Congress for almost a year now, right? 2022. Right. That's when they took over. The most significant anticorruption work they've done is to remove a Republican from Congress. Given everything that we know has happened, that's the only thing they've done in terms of accountability and action. They've done nothing similar with any of the bad guys and gals we've talked about earlier. 

So there you go. The other big news this week is actually it's not news because the subpoena came out, I think, back in August, but kind of everyone overlooked this aspect of it. It was a subpoena. The Biden regime, through Jack Smith's special counsel investigation issued to Twitter for Donald Trump's tweets and other material from the platform. It was a secret subpoena that only became public in recent months. 

Now folks have finally gotten around looking at it more carefully. I wish I had seen it more carefully. I don't think I looked at the subpoena when it first came out. So that shows you you got to read some of this stuff. You can't rely on media or even worse, social media descriptions of what documents are. You often have to read them yourself. But it shows the most widespread spying operation that I'm aware of by the Justice Department in American history. 

I shouldn't say the most. Well, 68 million. How many Twitter followers did Trump have? 68 million. Well, maybe it's maybe it is the most. It was a subpoena signed by Judge Barrel Howell, an inveterate anti Trump judge partisan who has consistently ruled against Trump on all matters, basically upended the rule of law to get Trump. In fact, she was just given a speech recently talking about authoritarianism and the big lies, just using Democratic Party talking points as a sitting federal judge incredible example of bias, and she signed on to this sweeping subpoena that Twitter didn't object to. 

Other than that, they didn't think that they should be required not to tell anyone about it. They wanted to tell folks that they were issued this subpoena, and the courts wouldn't let them, the anti Trump courts here in Washington, D. C. But a key portion of the subpoena isn't directed at Trump. It's directed at you. If you were a Trump follower on Twitter. Let me get to that page here. 

It's page it's page two. Section two all content records and other information relating to communication sent from or received by the subject account from October 20, 2020, to January 2021, including, but not limited to the content of all tweets created, drafted, and favorited or liked or retweeted by the subject account, including all such deleted tweets. So if you tried to delete a tweet, they might have it if Trump liked it, and all associated multimedia, metadata and logs. 

Okay, so at least that's directed in theory at Trump. And it might catch up other people, maybe, assuming that the subpoena is credible or in good faith. Within reason. The content of all direct messages sent from, received by, stored or in draft form or otherwise associated with the subject account, including all attachments, multimedia, header, information, metadata and logs. Again, that may be okay. So if you're not a user of Twitter, people can tweet, but they also can communicate privately through a direct messaging application, all other content records, and other information relating to all other interactions between the subject account and other Twitter users. 

From October 20 to 21, 2021, including, but not limited to all users, the subject account has followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked, or unblocked, and all users. All users, meaning you likely, who have followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked, or unblocked the subject account. All information from the connect or notifications tab for the account, including all lists of Twitter users, all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted posted tweets posted by the account, as well as all tweets that include the username associated with the account, meaning mentions or replies. 

Then there's other invasive requests about Trump's use of the account. So they want to know, and there's a file on you right now if this subpoena has been fully complied with. If you said Real Donald Trump, which is his, you know, should save America, they took your tweet, and there's a file on you. Now. President Trump interacted with me and promoted Judicial Watch's tweets on Twitter. He retweeted me and such. 

And certainly I often mentioned Trump in my tweets, and as did Judicial Watch. So we're victims of this spy operation. What business is it of the Biden administration other than to compile an enemy's list of tens of millions of Trump's Twitter followers? Indeed, the enemies list includes friends of just I'm sure Nancy Pelosi followed Trump, right? Or interacted through her account somehow, democrats and other opponents of Trump, who knows? So this abuse not only targets Trump world and people who are following him because he was President of the United States. 

If you wanted to interact with your president on Twitter, the Biden administration wants your Twitter information. That's wrong. It's a violation of your First Amendment rights and I would argue, other federal laws. And I tell you what, was the reaction in the House of Representatives to this shocking development, this shocking understanding of this massive violation of our First Amendment rights to expel George Santos? As far as I'm concerned, stuff like this should result in the shutdown of the Justice Department. 

I don't mean literally the complete shutdown of the Justice Department, but you know what I mean. Jack Smith should be called into Congress immediately and be required to testify under oath about this abuse. He should be defunded. And as I've been saying, the idea that this Republican controlled House of Representatives continues to fully fund Jack Smith, especially in light of this Twitter subpoena, is an abomination. And as Trump has often said, that I stand between them and you, they have to get through me to you. 

If this doesn't prove that Trump is right, that they're going through Trump to get to you, I don't know what will. This is an incredible abuse of power by the Biden administration and the Justice Department and Jack Smith. And what are the courts doing about it? They're blessing it. They're telling Twitter they couldn't tell anyone about it, so they could object before it was too late. Now, it helps explain some of the abuse I suffered at the Biden Justice Department. 

When Jack Smith, his attorneys questioned me, his prosecutors, before the grand jury, as a witness, they spent a good deal of time asking me about my darn tweets. Now, I'm always happy to talk about my tweets, because I think they're all great, right, including the tweets they wanted to ask me about. So I got to was this part of this craziness, their focus on my Trump's? They were asking me, for instance, whether Trump approved of my tweets or did he agree with like I don't I don't mean if he retweeted them, I guess he would have agreed with them, right? And that's not always even true. 

I sometimes retweet stuff that I think is interesting. I don't necessarily agree with it word for word. I mean, the whole point is, I face this absurd questioning about my tweets about matters of public policy. I'm the head of the largest government watchdog group in the country. I'm being harassed by this Justice Department over my tweets, and I wish I had known at the time. They had a subpoena out for every tweet that mentioned Trump and every follower of Trump during a key time period. 

So you can be sure our lawyers are looking at this very closely. So this is what's happening in washington, DC. And Speaker Johnson, I mean, the report was the other day that unless they come to an agreement, he's going to fully fund without restriction the Biden administration through the end of the fiscal year, which is essentially through the election, no effort to beyond passing a restriction that's never going to be agreed to by the senate. 

They're not going to shut down an agency or the government over any of this. They're not going to do it. That's what he said. At least that's what the reports are. Maybe he'll change his mind, or maybe the reports are wrong. So this is where we are. And all I say is thank God for judicial watch, because congress isn't going to shut this stuff down and without judicial watch a providing the leadership and the pressure on some of this. 

Because I'm convinced if judicial watch and those of other Americans who are concerned about Biden corruption, for instance, wasn't pressing on impeachment, I'm convinced there'd be no impeachment or impeachment inquiry of Biden. And a lot of these investigations into Biden really are following judicial watch's lead as well. But in the know, judicial watch can't defund this abuse. They can. And I don't think there's any good excuse not to try and make it a red line. 

Maybe just pick one thing that they want to fight over that no, the government can't do this. And if you want to do it, you're not going to have any money for it, and the government's going to shut down until you stop doing it. Just pick something. What would you pick if you had to pick one? Give me ideas below. I mean, you could pick the border, right? No money for sending illegal aliens from the border to the interior of the country. 

We're not going to fund our own invasion. We could pick censorship. We're not going to fund our a. The other day, who was it? It was in Politico, I think, or one of the major newspapers. I don't know. So the Biden administration is frustrated that inflation continues to be the concern of the American people. So they're seeking to censor it online tweets and information and complaints about inflation. 

And the Biden White house is monitoring it and trying to get big media, the big social media companies to censor your complaints on inflation. So it hasn't stopped, guys. It hasn't stopped. And as I said, judicial watch doesn't stop its investigations just because congress seems to be investigating something. Oftentimes congress gets documents different from ours or doesn't get any documents at all. And this is a good example of it, what I'm about to talk about now, which is a major disclosure as a result of judicial watch's heavy lifting, one of our lawsuits uncovered a Joe Biden email showing Hunter Biden was copied on information related to the Ukrainian president at the time. 

It's a 2016 email that was sent to one of Joe Biden's secret email accounts, his alias account. So he had an account that I guess only friends, family and close business associates in government at the time when he was vice president knew. And the name of the account, the email address of the account was let's close that email. What was the email account name? You're probably screaming at the computer monitor right now or wherever you're watching robert lpeters at PCI gov. 

So the email with the subject line Friday schedule cards was sent by John S. Flyn, who was Joe Biden's assistant. And you can see it there, boss, 845 prep for 09:00. A. m. Phone call with Prez Porchenko. Now we're off to Rhode Island for infrastructure event and then Wilmington for Udel, I guess, university of Delaware commencement. Nate will have your draft remarks delivered later tonight with your press clips in the morning. 

Respectfully, John. And that email was Cc'd. Not be Cc'd. Cc'd to hunter biden. You can see him right there, his address. Hunter biden. H biden at Rosemont Seneca. At the time, Hunter was on the board of Barisma. This is in 2016, it's a May email. And why on earth is Hunter Biden getting information about Joe Biden's schedule involving communications with a foreign leader and the preparation for those communications? Now James comer to his credit, was trying to get this email because it was first disclosed, thanks large measure to Judicial Watch by the National Archives. 

They put out what they call a finding aid and they described it without providing the documents. They're saying, we've got this document here, and so they just gave it to us the other day. Also attached is the unusual section, I guess. Joe was given what is called a go up one page or down one page, the daily US troops Update, which described the number of troops who died in Afghanistan at the time as being 6745 US troops wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan, 552, three nine two. 

And then US troop levels, 10,000 in Afghanistan, security assistance, 4000 in Iraq. I don't know if those were public records or not or public document, those numbers were public or not. So this is another smoking gun. As I said earlier, it blows out of the water the notion that there was any distance between Joe and Hunter Biden on the Barisma influence peddling scandal. So you have to remember, this is on top of all the other information that's come out, including information from seemingly credible FBI informant that Barisma gave a bribe to Joe and Hunter, $5 million each to ensure that they'd be safe from prosecution and corruption investigations. 

And it certainly explains in part why Joe Hunter is getting Cc'd on Joe's meeting with a foreign leader. And I'm understanding there aren't a lot of emails like this. So it wasn't like maybe he was, I don't know, getting Cc'd on all scheduling for Joe, which would be raise other issues. But according to the archives, there were only a few emails and I know we only got one, so I don't know where the other one know that we're in litigation about it. 

And of course, this is not voluntarily disclosed. Everyone this is a result of a federal FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch. Judicial watch has probably filed you would think, I'd know how many FOIA lawsuits we filed over the years, but I don't. But it's hundreds. And we had asked for records about Joe Biden's business dealings, including and it would have covered emails to or from him, including emails he was using, but obviously didn't have the Joe Biden handle on, you know, I understand why there was an alias email account. 

As long as records were kept, it's not improper. It we filed this lawsuit in we filed it earlier this year. In August 2023, comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, called on the archives to provide records biden regarding his duties that overlap with the son's activities in Ukraine. Chairman is pursuing comer is also pursuing communications in which Joe Biden used a pseudonym as well as those in which Hunter Biden, eric Sherwin, who is a Biden partner, or Devin Archer are copied. 

So we have nearly a dozen freedom of information act lawsuits regarding the Biden corruption issues, and we hit pay dirt, right? And this is why we do this work, so that we have access to information. And you're educated about what the government's up to. And what the government was up to is that this corrupt influence peddling scandal was being moved along within the Obama White House through Joe Biden's vice president's office. 

Incredible, huh? So we're going to continue I mean, this is a big lawsuit. Lots of documents are going to be responsive. So I suspect we're going to continue to get documents that Congress hasn't gotten yet and we'll share them with you when we get them. And hopefully the public will be further educated about the need for accountability and Congress will continue to feel a little bit of pressure. 

Maybe even the justice department might feel a little bit of pressure. So Black Lives Matter has been in the news a lot recently because they support murderous terrorists in Israel who want to kill every Jew in the land there. Let's be blunt. They're a far left communist organization that hate the police and hate America and responsible countless violent deaths and destruction in 2020 and since, and whose policy prescriptions echo through our major cities as a result of their war in the police. 

And people are dying to this day because of the policies initiated by this movement. And so what did the DC government do? They basically painted a monument to the movement just outside the White House. And you can go back and look at the description as to why they set up what they now call black Lives Matter Plaza. It was to commemorate the violent rioting outside the Trump White House that nearly saw the White House overrun and sent trump into the basement because the secret service thought he was going to get killed if he didn't. 

And DC. Government, the leftists running the DC. Government, used tax dollars to shut down the street. Plainte black lives matter, defund the police was also painted by protesters. They left that up for a bit. They finally took it down, and it's still there to this day. So what we did, in light of black lives matter's support for Hamas, we asked the DC. Government, tell us what's going on there with black lives matter plaza, the taxpayer support for it, hamas, et cetera. 

And we got documents showing back in August, they spent $270,000 repainting the darn sign. They spent $53,000 or more or less for paint and supplies and $217,000 on labor. Now, is it too much money to do what they did? I don't know. People can argue over that. It's the government. They spent a lot of money. It was a big sign. But I can tell you that the black lives matter plaza, they spent at least $7 million well over it, setting it up, and they continue to honor that anti American racist movement here in DC. 

And they spent all that money rather than tearing it apart and opening the street up to the public as it should have been. As crime skyrockets in our nation's capital, you name it, crime is rising. It's out of control, and it's largely due to the policies of the DC. Government inspired by the black lives matter movement. I mean, I just saw the other day there was a person convicted of shooting someone in the back and murdering him with two other people. 

And, you know, he went to jail. You know how long he's going to jail for? Twelve years. Twelve years for murdering someone. And we can go through story after story about young people who are repeat offenders being let out, but you have this ideological it's one thing to have this anti American, communist revolutionary ideology. It's another thing to have government officials promoting it. So that's what's so objectionable about it. 

Now, by way of, I don't know if you remember this, but when they painted black lives matter on the street, we wanted to get equal time. We wanted to paint Judicial Watch's motto, which shouldn't be unobjectionable because no one is above the law, which is our motto of motivation on the street near here in Washington, near to our headquarters here in Washington, D. C. We would have done it anywhere, really, in some respects, and we sued. 

And of course, they didn't want to let us do it. And the court said we couldn't do it because the government had a right to free speech and they didn't have to give us equal time. Some garbage decision like so and of know, the biden administration helped them shut down that, you know, now it's harder to get around the district of Columbia or nation's capital because of that shutdown over. 

So the most prominent signage near the White House for America is a giant sign on the street, black Lives Matter, painted with your tax dollars. And it's local money in the sense that the DC. Government appropriates it. But the DC. Government relies on the federal government for a good bulk of its spending, and so you can be sure your money helped fund it as well. I was talking about a few weeks ago a major court decision in Georgia by a left leaning judge, by all accounts, in the Northern District of Georgia. 

And it was the case filed by citizens or a group concerned about election systems and election compute voting systems and such. And I looked into the plaintiffs. I didn't recognize them, but they looked to be like a mix of folks who are Republican conservative, maybe Democrat liberal. I couldn't really tell. And the decision allowing their case to go forward is an astonishing one in light of really exposing if you want to talk about the big lie the big lie. 

That there are no legitimate concerns about the way our elections are being conducted here in the United States, specifically in Georgia and specifically through the use of these computer voting systems to collect and tabulate votes. In this case, the dispute was about the use of Dominion voting machines in Georgia. Now they're trying to jail people for raising these same concerns. By the way, right now in Fulton County, jack Smith is doing it up here in Washington, D. 

C. Against Trump too. This federal judge says those concerns are at least good enough to go to trial. And I thought because no one is going to tell you about what that judge said. I'm going to tell you what the judge said. I'm going to read it to you if I can find it again, of course. I just give me a second. I got to go do my little search for it was in the Northern District of Georgia. 

So I filed this tweet. I guess I should ask Jack Smith to send me a copy. It was earlier this month a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, which is the Atlanta Division. Now, they're going to allow these plaintiffs to proceed to trial after they presented expert evidence which found seven core vulnerabilities in the Dominion voting systems. They are being used across the state. And this is a quote from the opinion. 

So this is what the expert presented that the court found sufficient to warrant going to trial over because the allegation is if I can't trust my vote to count, my voting rights under the Constitution are harmed, and the judge is going to allow that to go to trial, more or less. Number one, attackers can alter the QR codes on printed ballots to modify voter selections. So what was happening in Georgia, as I understand it, is that you you make your selection. 

On the machine, right, the computer. And you get a written receipt that has what looks to be your selections, but also a QR code which supposedly mimics what you can see as your selections. And the experts said, well, someone can mess with it in a way to make the QR code to incorrectly show your selections. And the QR code is what's used to finally count your ballot. I think I'm describing it correctly. 

Anyone with brief physical access to the BMD, the ballot marking device machines, can install malware onto the machines. Attackers can forge and manipulate the smart cards that a BMD and ballot marking device uses to authenticate technicians, poll workers, and voters, which could then be used by anyone physical access to the machines to install malware onto those ballot marking devices. Attackers can execute arbitrary code with supervisory privileges and then exploit it to spread malware to all BMDs across a county or state. 

Attackers can also alter the BMD's audit logs. I guess that would make it impossible to check if something happened, right? You do the audit, the audit doesn't show anything. Attackers with brief access to a single BMD or a single poll worker card and Pin can obtain the countywide cryptographic keys, which are used for authentication and to protect election results on scanner memory cards. A dishonest election worker with just brief access to the ICP's scanner memory card could determine how individual voters voted. 

There's my tweet there. The main conclusions of the expert analysis on the Georgia computerized Dominion voting systems, as described by the court, are as follows here you see that there? The ICX BMDs, which is essentially Dominion's ballot marking devices, are not sufficiently secured against technical compromise to withstand vote altering attacks by bad actors who are likely to attack future elections in Georgia. Those machines can be compromised to the same extent as or more easily than the AccuVote, TS and TX DREs they replaced. 

So initially these folks came in and they were complaining about the prior machines, and they came up with new machines, and they're not much better. That's kind of what the court's saying there. Despite the addition of a paper trail, ICX malware can still change individual votes in most election outcomes without detection. Although outcome changing fraud conducted in this manner could be detected by risk limiting audit. Georgia requires a risk limiting audit of only one contest every two years, so the vast majority of elections and contests have no such assurance. 

And even the most robust risk limiting audit can only assess an election outcome. It cannot evaluate whether individual votes counted as intended. The vulnerabilities also make it possible for an attacker to compromise the audibility of the ballots by altering both the QR codes. You know what a QR code is? I mentioned it earlier. It's the square, barcode looking things you've seen. You take a picture of them with your phone and it sends you to a website or gives you something, right? If you don't know what it is, you can look it up. 

By altering both the QR codes and the human readable text. Such cheating could not be detected by a risk limiting audit or even a hand count, since all records of the voter's intent would be wrong. See, that's the trouble with these audits. They said the audits didn't find anything. Well, if they're auditing bad data that they don't know is bad or compromised, they're just reconfirming something terrible that happened. 

In terms of potential fraud, I mean, it seems to me an obvious point, but I'm glad a judge is confirming it. Using vulnerable BMDs, the Dominion ballot marking devices for all in person voters, as Georgia does, greatly magnifies the security risk compared to jurisdictions that use handmarked paper ballots to provide BMDs to voters upon request. And I know in a District of Columbia, like for instance, I don't think it's the same now. 

So you had a choice to use a ballot marking device that was completely computerized, right. Or they gave you a sheet and you could fill in the circles with your pencil as to your selections and you bring the sheet over to the ballot official and they'd run it through the scanner. Right? That's probably a lot of the way. A lot of jurisdictions vote that way. And what they're saying here is that a more secure way to vote, according to the expert the judge is citing, approvingly is that ballot marking devices that are kind of available as an option are better with the option, obviously to do paper ballots is more secure. 

And it makes certain amount of sense because you don't know who's going to be using the ballot marking device and it mitigates the risk. I mean, no election is going to be perfect, right? You want reasonable steps to be taken to mitigate the risk of fraud. Okay. And what this judge is concluding that there's enough evidence to suggest those reasonable steps haven't been taken in Georgia statewide. Really significant decision, don't you think? The critical vulnerabilities of the ICX and the wide variety of lesser but still serious security issues indicate it was developed without sufficient attention to security during design, software engineering, and testing, it would be extremely difficult to retrofit security into a system that was not initially produced with such a process. 

Boy, oh boy. And something which I didn't quote is that we've talked about CISA, right? This cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Administration. And they're supposed to be helping, not spying on Americans and getting them censored, helping through best practices and kind of warning people about cybersecurity risks related to elections. That was one of the reasons it was set up. It quickly kind of veered away from that. But they looked at the Georgia election systems and noted some of these same vulnerabilities, right? And this was just recently, and they didn't say that we had evidence that there was fraud that took place, and there's a debate there. 

But they said there are these steps that you should take to mitigate the potential risk that CISA found, some of which echoes here. And the court noted that virtually none of what CISA recommended has been implemented by the state of Georgia. So this is still a major risk, and it's less than a year before the election now or maybe yeah, less than a year. Whoa. So the question is, what can be done if they win at trial? Okay. 

And plaintiffs carry a heavy burden to establish a constitutional violation connected to Georgia's BMD ballot marking devices, electronic voting system. Whether in the manner which the state defendants have implemented the voting system, I e. That it imposes serious security, voting risk and burdens impacting plaintiffs'voting rights or otherwise. If plaintiffs prevail at trial on one or more of their claims, there are pragmatic, sound, remedial policy measures that could be ordered or agreed upon by the parties. 

Such as one providing for the use of printed ballots for vote counting without the use of QR codes, administering a broader scope and number of election audits to address vote count accuracy and other related issues. And three, implementing other essential cybersecurity measures and policies recommended by the nation's leading cybersecurity experts and firms, including Department of Homeland Security. CISA. So I got a question for you. Have you read anything or heard that a federal court in Georgia found that Georgia's there's enough evidence that Georgia's voting system plaintiffs worried about their civil rights should be able to go to trial on it? Have you read anything or heard anything about these details that I just shared with you? Now, knowing a lot of you, you probably have because you're diligent citizens and are interested in these things. 

But even if you are diligent, you might have missed this. This is a significant ruling. And of Know, the left used to be concerned about computer systems related to voting until they thought know, Trump might benefit from it. As I said, the plaintiffs here seem to be an OD mix of left, right, I don't know. And this judge is a liberal. I think she's the judge Totenberg. I think she's the sister of Nina Tottenberg, the notorious NPR reporter. 

Very far left woman. Doesn't mean she's far left. But Tottenberg, I think, is a liberal jurist. So this is an important decision, don't you agree? So the next time someone tells you that your concerns about the security of these voting systems are without basis, you should say, well, look at this decision here. And I think it's fair to ask your local election, know, did you look at this? Are you doing better than Know? Dominion, I think even has a more secure system than this, and I don't think even Georgia's using it. 

I think that was in the decision as well. But this is an important decision, and this is what I love about Judicial Watch and the work we do via this broadcast, because you're never going to hear about this, but for us on Judicial Watch, and I encourage you to share this information widely. Certainly, if you're in Georgia, you should be asking, what's going on here? What are we going to do about this? I mean, you shouldn't have to wait for a trial for the government to address this. 

To me, this is significant enough for honest government officials to begin an immediate audit of their systems to see what they can do to ensure that the election is going to be that you can have better confidence in the election outcome in Georgia, given these security risks that have been outlined in this really powerful court decision. Now, we'll provide a link to the court decision below so you can read it in full, but boy, oh, boy, I read that, and I was floored because I'd been vaguely aware of the debate. 

And then I said, what's going on here? When I saw the decision, and I read it, and I went, Whoa. I had to go back, like, two or three times to the top to make sure it was what I thought it was in terms of being a federal court and the significance of the findings now, will they win at trial? No, but the judge found this is serious enough that Georgia's protestations to the contrary, that there's no there there are wanting. 

So, a big week here at Judicial Watch. But before I go, I got to tell you something. So the fourth presidential debate is coming up in Alabama. It's going to be on the University of Alabama campus. The candidates who will be there I'm not sure which candidates are going to be there, but I do know that Judicial Watch will be represented there because I'm recording questions that will be given to the candidates to respond to. 

So during the debate, I'm going to pop up a few times with a question for them via video. Isn't that great? And it's a great honor for, obviously, me. But more importantly, it's a great honor for you, our Judicial Watch supporters, because, as you know, judicial Watch is America's number one government watchdog group. We're one of the largest grassroots groups in the country, and you betcha candidates for presidency should be answering some of our questions. 

And the questions I can't tell you what the questions are going to be, but they're going to be good, and they probably won't surprise you. But I want to see what you think should be asked. I'd be interested to know what should be asked. I don't think Trump's going to be at the debate. I'm sure Trump would answer the questions, too, if I gave them to him. And I'm happy for the record, I'm happy to ask questions in a Democratic debate, but I don't think the Democrats are having a presidential debate this year, at least as of yet. 

So it's an important educational opportunity for Judicial Watch to ask these questions about issues related to our mission and in the process, educating Americans about these issues not only through the question, but through the responses from the presidential candidates. So a big victory for Judicial Watch in terms of being able to participate. You can watch the event it's being sponsored or put on by News Nation, which is a newer network. 

Megan Kelly, who has a great podcast, now she's hosting it, and I think the free Beacon is participating as well, a conservative publication up here. And you can watch it online. I think it's going to be on Rumble. I'm sure it will be all over the news. But you can watch it online, obviously, and it's also going to be on at least on the East Coast and maybe the Central Coast, central time zones live on the CW, and I don't know what channel locally it is for you, but you can figure that out. 

So it's a great credit to Judicial Watch that we're able to participate in this important debate about the future of our country. And so I'm looking forward to seeing how the presidential candidates answer my questions. And I want to see below what sort of questions you would ask them now. Serious ones. I have some non serious questions I could ask them, but I decided, given how few I'm able to ask, I should probably focus on the big stuff, right? So with that, I wish you the best, and I'll see you here next week on the Judicial Watch weekly update. 

Thanks for watching. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button. And like our video down below. .