Everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you, as always for joining us this week. A lot going on. Impeachment officially certified at least an inquiry by the House of Representatives, terrible abuses of Trump and maybe some significant begin protections for Trump in the offing through the judicial process. I'll update you on that. Hunter, Biden and gang, it looks like with Joe, have gone into or about to go into contempt of Congress and disturbing new records about the death investigation or the emergency response to the death, the drowning death of Obama chef Tafari Campbell. 

Plus, incredible new documents about that spy operation the FBI wanted to launch against the Catholic Church that, frankly, blow out of the water earlier excuses by FBI leadership, including director Ray, about what the FBI was up to. I think first up, though, is the development that we have long sought, which is the official blessing of an impeachment inquiry by the full House of Representatives. It was a largely partisan vote. 

I don't think any Democrats voted against it. So I think it was a completely partisan voted. No Democrat voted for it. I mean, and so the inquiry had been launched by Speaker McCarthy, then Speaker McCarthy a few months ago on his own authority, and now it's been ratified by the full House. So there are three committees who are investigating or inquiring about whether an impeachment of President Biden is warranted. 

The House Oversight Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Wades and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS and would be investigating the financial side of the ledger there. And is it a significant development in terms of getting Biden impeached more quickly? Probably not. I think it was more symbolic than anything else. They tell us they needed it to be ratified by the House to give them stronger legal standing if they had to fight for documents in the courts. 

I don't necessarily buy that, but that's what they say. But it's good that all Republicans and Democrats had a chance to say one way or another whether they supported this. Now the left media and the pro Biden, I call it the Biden regime, media and obviously the Biden people in White House are saying there's no basis for impeachment. There's no crime that they're investigating Biden for. What's the crime? Well, the easiest answer to that is the crime is bribery. 

That's what the evidence suggests happened. And then obviously, you had conspiracy and to obstruct justice and cover up that scandal as well. And, of course, you've also had President Biden himself lying repeatedly about his personal involvement in this. So impeachment is warranted. My view is that they should accelerate the impeachment, expand it to include the border crimes as well. The Biden administration and Joe Biden's aiding and abetting and refusing to abide by his oath of office to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. 

In terms of this Biden border invasion, which has just awful consequences for our nation, millions of people are coming into the country with the assistance of this man and impeachments warranted there. And there's more than enough evidence, and I think the evidence against Obama, excuse me, fraudy and slip. The evidence against Biden is overwhelming in terms of the need for impeachment. There hasn't been a stronger case for impeaching and removing a president in american history, certainly in terms of Biden's personal corruption. 

He's lied time and time again about his family's racketeering operation. And as I call it, that scheme to raise money from abroad, using him in his office. Biden's office, with his full participation, has a benefit of sending in money to the family. And he, it looks like, in various circumstances, did things through his official office, both as vice president and, I would argue, as president, to advance this racketeering operation. 

The other objection is that we can't impeach a president for acts he committed prior to his becoming president or things that he did when he was previously in office for crimes he committed during an office which he no longer holds. Well, I've got two words. Donald Trump. That's exactly what they did to Donald Trump. You can impeach someone for any reason. Now, if it's persuasive or unpersasive reasons, that's up to the House to figure out and the Senate ultimately to figure out during trial. 

Does it mean that Biden is going to be removed from the presidency? Unlikely. I mean, the Senate is comprised of a majority Democrats. They need, I think, two thirds at least to convict him and remove him from office. So that's unlikely to happen. But this is the process of accountability, and he has to go through it. And I don't think the House had any choice, and I almost to put, like, an exclamation point on it on the day they're considering impeaching or officially blessing it. 

Through this inquiry motion that passed on the floor, Hunter Biden was scheduled to appear and required to appear under subpoena in the House of Representatives. And instead he showed up and did a press conference in conspiracy with Eric Swalwell, the compromised and unethical and dishonest member of Congress from California who was thrown off the intelligence committee, as I recall, and pretended that he would testify in person through an open hearing, as opposed through a deposition, which is a more serious inquiry where lawyers and members of Congress involved in the committee can question you at length under oath before a video camera. 

And then, obviously, that transcript and video, in theory, would be releasable to the public, which is exactly the way, for instance, the January 6 committee and most other serious congressional inquiries have operated. So right now, Hunter Biden is thwarting and obstructing Congress and can easily be pounded in contempt of Congress if there was a vote to be held. Of course, there isn't a vote to be held because the House of Representatives is almost always more focused on vacation than doing the work they're supposed to do. 

So this is what happened in the House. They voted on the impeachment inquiry. Then about 170 Republicans or so voted with all Democrats to pass a defense funding bill that funded transgender surgeries, mutilation of our troops and family members, killing unborn babies illegally with defense dollars. They're going to allow that to continue to happen and propagandizing our troops and trying to alienate them from America by force, feeding them racist left wing propaganda that wants to destroy America by dividing it by race and know through CRT and such. 

All of that was not attached to the defense authorization bill. So Biden won again, with the help of many Republicans on the hill and every Democrat in the House, practically speaking. So that's what Congress House did. And now they're away. I haven't checked to see when they're coming back, how long their Christmas break is. My guess is it's significantly longer than you would be able to take if you wanted to take a long break during Christmas. 

But what they could do with Hunter, by the way. So they obviously would have to. I think a referral would require a full vote by the House, a referral for a criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. But of course, it's controlled by Joe Biden's people. So are they going to go after Hunter? I suspect not. But who knows? Maybe they'll enforce the law even handedly, like they are against Bannon and Peter Navarro, who are two members of the former members of the Trump administration who were found in contempt of Congress. 

And now the Biden regime wants the jail. But this is something the House probably doesn't want you to know. The Senate has this power, too. The respective houses of Congress have what is known as inherent contempt authority that means if they are conducting an investigation and issue a subpoena or request someone's presence, and that person doesn't want to show up, doesn't cite privileges or seek relief in the courts from the subpoena, or otherwise lawfully object or just show up and assert their Fifth Amendment privilege, which is their God given rights as referenced in the constitution, they can, under this inherent contempt authority, send the respective sergeant of arms. 

In this case, it would be the sergeant of arms for the house. Go get the witness and haul him in and detain him until he's ready to testify. Now, that used to be the way it was done up until, I don't think it's been done since the 30s. So it's really now dormant, right? That power, it hasn't been exercised. And obviously, he can be prosecuted. Right, for, or someone who's in contempt of Congress can be prosecuted under federal law, which may be good, but it's not going to get you the testimony, and it may not vindicate the congress's desire to get the information as they're able to do under their constitutional powers. 

So as I said, they don't want you to know this because they would have you think that, oh, well, Hunter didn't show up and there's nothing we can do, especially because of the Biden Justice Department. There is something they can do. I don't know if it requires a rule change, but it's easily done. If the majority wants to, in my view, they can find him in contempt and get the sergeant of arms to haul him in and make him testify. 

Otherwise, he sits in the detention facility in the US capitol. Do I know there's a detention facility in the US capitol? No, but I'm sure they can find someplace if there isn't. But I suspect there, this is, I shouldn't say like this is another tool of Congress that they have to ensure compliance with congressional subpoenas that they just don't want to enforce or use because it gets sticky. 

They don't want to have to arrest people and detain people. Now, you may be concerned that Congress has that authority. Well, if you don't like it, you'll have to change the constitution. And it was used repeatedly in the first part of our nation's history up until, as I said, of the 1930s. It was most recently threatened against the Nixon administration. I think Sam Irvin, one of the Watergate investigators on the Hill, used to threaten it every other day to recast witnesses in Nixon's orbit. 

So this is another option. And if they want the testimony of Hunter Biden. There are other ways to get it, as opposed to just waiting around for a court either to enforce the subpoena through civil means or for the federal government to prosecute him, which obviously doesn't get you the testimony. Now, what would he say under oath if he was deposed? Hunter? Probably not much, right? I mean, I would suspect or I would think his lawyers would advise him to take the Fifth Amendment. 

Indeed, at his press conference the other day, he issued yet another in what is a series of ever evolving statements and explanations about the president's involvement in Hunter's and his family's racketeering schemes. Now he's saying that Joe Biden was not financially involved in his businesses. Well, isn't that an interesting little caveat, isn't it? Right, financially involved as opposed to Hunter or Joe saying from the get go almost, I had no involvement in his businesses at all, which has been shown to be absolutely false and impeachable over given he said that as president of the United States. 

So now he had no financial involvement. I think that's false, too, given the bank records that have shown payments that raise questions in that regard. I mean, what's next? He didn't sign a contract. No one buys this. The media wants you to pretend that Joe has nothing to do with Hunter. And I talked about some of these options that we're talking about in our analyses a little bit more succinctly because I have less time on Fox Business and then on Newsmax. 

Excuse me. So let's run that Fox business clip. But we have a little bit of that. I'm just picking up on what Senator Schumer had to say there. He regards the republican pressure for impeachment unserious. What would you say to that, Tom? Well, in my view, what's unserious is to ignore really the powerful evidence of a racketeering operation that involved then Vice President Biden and arguably president Biden and bribery. 

There's been nothing like it in american history where president has been so directly implicated in personal and public related criminal activity. And as the moderates, so called moderates in the republican party admitting in the House is, the evidence is overwhelming. They'd be like nothing more than the void this. But the facts are what they are. And on top of know, you have Hunter showing up and thumbing his nose at the hill yesterday, going into what looks to be contempt of Congress. 

We find out from Politico he talked to his father about, you know, Hunter and Joe are joined at the hip and in my view, Joe Biden and the White House counsel's office that's been in contact with Hunter's lawyers about, frankly, it looks like how to obstruct and divert these investigations should be subject to questioning through this impeachment inquiry as well. Yeah, that's another interesting side of this. According to Politico, Hunter gave his father heads up about his scheme to obstruct Congress. 

So it raises the question, what did Joe say? Did he encourage him to say to obstruct? Did he say you should show up and testify? What did he say? And we also know separately from earlier reporting that Hunter's lawyers are coordinating and communication with the White House lawyers who work for you on these matters that Hunter is facing from Joe Biden's own Justice Department. So these lawyers should be hauled into Congress immediately and the president should be questioned in this impeachment matter. 

Now, would they be able to enforce a subpoena? I don't know. There's a separation of powers issue there. But maybe, I mean, under the way the courts have been treating Trump treated Trump as president, and if the rules were applied similarly to Biden, I think he might have to testify, but I don't know how that would know in terms of what the courts might decide one way or another. 

So I'm glad that the Congress is proceeding with impeachment. They need to accelerate it and get to the bottom of this and get serious on it as quickly as possible because times are wasting. And it's related because one of the ways to protect Joe is by abusing Trump. Right. And distracting from Joe's own serious evidence of criminal activity by making up crimes that President Trump supposedly committed and trying to jail him for it. 

And there's been this desperate move to accelerate that and to ensure that it happens before January 6. And I kind of prepped the discussion here. I think we have a nice clip that nicely preps it here from, as I said, earned friends from Newsmax. Yeah, I mean, there are two issues before the Supreme Court. Now, Devin's referencing this presidential immunity fight. Trump has appealed Chutkin's ruling against them there, that he's immune for being prosecuted for acts as president. 

So he's appealed that to the appellate court. And the Biden Justice Department want the Supreme Court to bypass that and short circuit his due process rights by accelerating the consideration of this. And he's also asked the appellate court to accelerate the consideration of this. What's the emergency? What is the emergency? It's the election they want to convict. They want to try, convict, and if they can incarcerate and jail President Trump before the election, that's what this is about. 

This isn't the rule of law. This is power politics through our Justice Department and FBI. We've been seeing it for the last eight years. I agree with that guy, but that's exactly what's happening. And I want to go a little bit more into that issue because you're not going to hear a fair analysis from much of the media on this because they all hate Trump and want to see him put in jail, too. 

But President Trump had sought immunity from prosecution for his acts as president, and he alleges his acts as president, as it relates to debates about an election, are therefore immune, and he can't be prosecuted, even presuming that the acts were problematic, and I don't presume that at all, but the Biden administration wants to jail him for being a president and exercising his First Amendment rights. So anyway, he had asked the lower court, Judge Chutkin, who's an anti Trump judge, to throw out the case, dismiss the case based on this immunity defense, and she said no, he appealed it, which effectively put the whole case below on hold, and he appeals it to the next level in the court system, at the federal level, which is the court of appeals here for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

And rather than just deal with that in the ordinary course, as I suggested on the newsmax program, the Biden Justice Department and Jack Smith asked the appellate court to accelerate its review because they're desperate to get this process in place of trying and convicting him. And from their perspective, hopefully jailing him before the election. And that would only be able to be achieved if Judge Chutchkin's abusive decision to make him go to trial on March 4, that date holds. 

And obviously, the more appeals that take place, the less likely that date holds because the appellate process takes the time. And on top of, so what they did was they've asked the appellate court to accelerate review. So they're keeping that iron in the fire. And at the same time, they're asking the Supreme Court of the United States say, don't worry about what the appellate court does. You can take this up directly and you need to rush and get this done. 

And of course, as I noted, there's no emergency. The only emergency is a political one, to get Trump convicted, hopefully jailed, to ensure Biden is more easily re elected. And I want to highlight how outrageous this mean. If this doesn't tell you, on top of everything else that's been piling up that this is purely a political operation by the Justice Department and they have some judges on their side, and I'm going to get into that. 

The Trump administration, excuse me, the Trump lawyers filed a brief with the appellate court highlighting this abuse, and they have a brief they're supposed to file with the Supreme Court, which I guess will echo this. But I want to go over that brief with you in part. I posted a section of it on my twitter feed. As I say in the tweet, Trump's legal team filed a powerful brief before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, calling out the Biden DOJ, Jack Smith's desperate politicization of the court process in order to interfere with the election. 

This is election interference, and this is a quote from the introduction. The prosecution has one goal in this case. Unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden. This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump's candidacy while pursuing this partisan goal. 

The president waited over two years. The prosecution waited over two years to bring this lawless case and then sought an extraordinary, expedited trial calendar, demanding that the jury selection begin in December 2023. Under their initial request, by the way, guys, they'd be selecting a jury about now, right? They wanted to do it before the Iowa primary. That's how crazed they were. Notwithstanding nearly 13 million pages of discovery and a litany of important and unresolved legal issues in support, the prosecution made the same argument it makes now, that violating President Trump's due process rights would somehow vindicate the public's interest in a speedy trial. 

Of course, the public doesn't have an interest in a speedy trial. It's the defendant who has an interest in a speedy trial. The speedy trial law, as I recall, it, is designed to protect defendants'rights. The prosecution was wrong then and is wrong now. The appeal presents novel, complex, and sensitive questions of profound importance. Whether a president of the United States may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts as president goes to the core of our system of separated powers and will stand among the most consequential questions ever decided by this court. 

The manifest public interest lies in the court's careful and deliberate consideration of these momentous issues with the utmost care and diligence. Likewise, the public interest lies in ensuring that President Trump, like all citizens, has a full and fair opportunity to develop and present his arguments to this court. A rushed schedule, as the prosecution demands, would vitiate these constitutional rights and irreparably undermine public confidence in the judicial system. 

The court should deny the prosecution's motion to expedite. Normally, I would avoid talking about procedural moves like this, but it highlights in a dramatic fashion, the abuse of the justice system, as I said, in league with the courts to try to interfere in our election. The Trump brief goes on to highlight how application of Biden's DOJ's unprecedented decision to try to jail Trump for official acts as president would have upended american history in the history of the United States. 

Again, this is a quote from the brief. No president has been subject to criminal prosecution for the exercise of official responsibilities until now. The question whether a president is immune from criminal prosecution for his official duties is a novel question of exceptional sensitivity and importance, one that warns careful and deliberate treatment, not a hyperaclerated briefing schedule, and rush to judgment driven by partisan concerns. American history abounds with examples of presidents who are accused by their political opponents of criminal activity in their official acts. 

This goes back to the beginning of the republic, or to the dawn of the republic. Could President George W. Bush face criminal charges of defrauding the United States and obstructing official proceedings for allegedly giving Congress false information about a weapons of mass destruction of Iraq to induce war on false premises? Could President Obama be charged with murder for allegedly authorizing the drone strike that killed Armour Alawaki and his 16 year old son, both us citizens? Could President Nexon have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice for ordering the dismissal of Archibald Cox in the Saturday night massacre? Could President John Quincy Adams have been indicted and imprisoned for the corrupt bargain of appointing Henry Clay as his secretary of state? That was a famous dispute. 

According to President Trump, the answer to these questions is no, an answer that is deeply rooted in a doctrine of separated powers. But the prosecution disagrees. These are questions of historic sensitivity and importance. They warrant the most careful consideration possible, not the breakneck speed demanded by the prosecution. And I say afterwards, you'll see on the tweet there, I would add that any competent federal prosecutor could come up with a number of crimes committed by Joe Biden in the course of his official duties as president. 

Now, for a Trump, or whoever, the successor to Biden's administration, and it will be their successor either next year in 2025, or after his second term ends, if he's reelected, ironically. Oh, I wanted to read this part, too. Excuse me. And finally, the Trump legal team highlights the Biden DOJ Jack Smith's bad faith invocation of a fake emergency to try to ruin Christmas for Trump and his lawyers. 

The proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to work round the clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans. It is as if the special counsel growled with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. Quoting but how? But quoting Dr. Sue Sally Grinch stole Christmas published Random House 1957. I can't believe that book was 1957. So what happened? The appellate court ignored all this. 

A panel controlled by leftists demanded and required Trump to abide by largely the expedited schedule that the government is seeking, the Biden regime is seeking. And so they don't care about this. I mean, it shows you how the system is really compromised by this anti Trump animus, that this fake emergency created by the Justice Department in the middle of an election year is being used, in my view, to try to railroad Trump. 

It's just terrible. Now, ironically, now, as I said, the same type of arguments being considered by the Supreme Court. They want the Supreme Court to not even wait for the appellate court to rule and just move along and deal with this presidential immunity case. So we'll see how the court handles that. And the briefing is due from Trump on that issue next week. So that's the presidential immunity issue. 

Separately, the Supreme Court last week just took up a case, and it's an important case because it impacts at least two of the charges against Trump. And it's the issue of the federal law that is being used to try to jail Trump, which has been used to convict or try to convict. I'm not sure what exact stat or description is, but at least 300 people, I think, have been faced charges under this novel interpretation or application of this statute related to January 6. 

And it's a statute related to the obstruction of an official proceeding. And the law that is from which these prosecutions are being drawn from are part of the Sarbanes Oxley laws that was passed after the 2008 financial crisis. And it's an anti capitalist law. So they're pretending to be concerned that rather than the government causing the crisis, that it was the companies that caused the crisis. And so therefore they're going to try to put more people in jail for it. 

But that's another debate, right? But a January 6 defendant has appealed their interpretation of the law all the way up to the, up to the Supreme Court. And Supreme Court granted certification. So they're going to take the case granted Cert, not certification, certiari and typically, that's four judges or four justices that have to be interested in order for the case to be taken up by the court. So there are at least four justices who have questions about what the Justice Department is doing here. 

As I said, it's a novel application of the law, and this is why the law, and I think we have a section of it, quote, this is the issue, and this is the law that's being used to prosecute everyone, whoever corruptly, alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title in prison, not more than 20 years, or both. 

So what the Justice Department under Joe Biden has done for the first time in history is use this law to prosecute people involved in, well, in this case, the January 6 disturbance, a civil disturbance, and using that to say, well, the law is meant to cover the sort of actions, let's say, rioting or disturbances that cause Congress to have to shut down for a little bit and impede its, quote, official proceeding, meaning the counting of ballots on January 6. 

So the lower court agreed with the defendant that this isn't the right application of the law. The DC appellate court had, I guess it was a two to one decision and it was all over the place. I think even the two judges who were in the majority were at ods about how the law should apply. And obviously the dissenter thought they were all wet. And so now the Supreme Court thinks, well, has decided they're going to figure it out. 

And obviously, if you're the Biden administration and you're Jack Smith, you're worried you're going to lose, because there are at least four justices who are concerned about the way this law has been applied. Does it mean they will lose? No, but it certainly raises questions. But I want to go back to that. I want you to think about what this means. Right. So what the January 6 defendant and his supporters are saying in these briefs and the court thought the question serious enough that they're going to consider it, is that this law is designed to ensure that evidence, like paper material, evidence material in the physical sense, isn't messed with and destroyed and otherwise, otherwise is in keeping with the prior paragraph. 

So bring that up again, the law, if you could, guys. So whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, right? So the January 6 defendant says, well, otherwise means otherwise, like things like altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record or document or other object and using that to impede an official proceeding. Now, the Biden administration is saying, well, otherwise means what the January 6 did. It doesn't have to be tied to an official proceeding related to, or it doesn't have to be tied to documents or things like that that were being sought in the course of an official proceeding. 

So the question is, how is the court going to construct? I guess I'm not a lawyer, so I'm hesitant to use the phrase, but I think it fits. What is going to be their statutory construction and analyzing this, are they going to say otherwise should be read in concert with the destruction of physical evidence? Or should it be, otherwise means that people disrupting an official proceeding in a protest or such or other means like that, that's covered by this law, too. 

I think the defendants have the better the January 6 defendant. It makes more sense because to read it as anything other than that, it means otherwise means all sorts of conduct, including First Amendment conduct. And virtually every communication with Congress could subject you to being put in jail if, like what we're seeing right now, Joe Biden doesn't like what you're telling Congress, right? They don't like what President Trump told Congress. 

So they're using this law to jail him for it because he was obstructing them otherwise by telling them stuff they didn't think was true or accurate or they disagreed with. It's banana republic stuff. And to me, the Biden administration, it's not so much the January sixers, right? Although I think they have a strong case, this law doesn't apply to their conduct. But if there's anyone who highlights the absurdity of the Justice Department's position here, it's the case of Trump where they're saying his making a speech, disagreeing with people around him who say, oh, you really lost, and otherwise advocating as president to make sure the election was done right, or advocating as a candidate to make sure the election was done right, however you slice it makes you a criminal. 

And if that's the case, let's say the Justice Department analysis is right, then I would argue further, and I think the defendants would argue, I was saying the defendants, but the January 6 petitioner would argue, then it's too broad, it would cover too much conduct, and it needs to be redone and is impermissibly vague and such. So that's kind of my understanding of where we are with that Supreme Court case. 

There are two big Supreme Court issues potentially, whether Trump has presidential immunity and whether or not he can be prosecuted. And these hundreds of citizens can be prosecuted for obstructing Congress based on a financial crimes law. So you can imagine where I'm coming down on this, and I think, I try to explain it fairly so you can understand both sides of the argument there. And I think the president has the better argument for presidential immunity, and I think the defendants have the better argument for reading this law commonsensically to apply to what it was intended to apply to, which was impeding investigations of financial matters, not debates before Congress. 

So we'll see what happens. But either way, I think it's going to be almost impossible for the Biden regime to try to try to get Trump tried before the election. Now, is it possible the Supreme Court deals with all of this immediately? Maybe. I mean, there are other ways the Justice Department can get around this. The two charges related to obstructing an official proceeding, maybe they just drop know and say, we'll just go to town on these other issues. 

So I don't know what's going to happen in one way or the other, but I'm guessing the Biden regime's desperate effort to jail Trump is going to face a significant before the election isn't going to happen. I'm just guessing there won't be a trial before the election. But the justice system has been so perverted when it comes to Trump, I can't even, I'd say I'm like 70% certain, right? What are the odds? Right? I think it's 70%, but who knows, right? I'm kind of guessing here. 

So I'm not going to pretend to be all knowing in this regard. So I wanted to explain that to you because you're not going to get a full explanation from the media. And if you want more information on these issues, you can go to the Supreme Court's website, you can look up the docket, you can look at the filings and the arguments. It's all easily, if you're interested in it, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand what's happening and some of the interests, and it's an interesting constitutional argument and issues of how laws are read and such. 

So it's just interesting in and of itself. But it's also important to the future of our country, right. Because many Americans, myself included, or me included, believe that the Justice Department is abusing the rule of law in their crazed prosecution of these January 6 defendants. And on top of that, obviously, they're seeking to blow up our republican form of government with these abusive prosecutions of Trump both in federal courts and by their democratic allies in New York and in Georgia. 

So there you have that. So stay tuned. So we had some big news this week about the death of Obama's personal chef. Now, you may recall previously that Judicial watch had uncovered through open records request and litigation that the news that we didn't know until Judicial watch started poking around that the Secret Service was involved in the rescue operation or the emergency response to the death of Obama's chef last summer in the pond. 

And it's a big body of water pond, makes it seem smaller than it is at Obama's mansion up there in, is it Martha's vineyard? Yeah. And we also uncovered through our investigation and through our litigation that Obama himself was at the scene, the emergency scene, and was there for, it looks like at least two witness interviews. So there was a woman who was with this chef who reportedly worked also for Obama. 

Actually, it's confirmed in these documents I'm going to talk about. And he was there for the witness interviews, which is unusual, or at least I found to be unusual. We had some other details on it, but these new documents are pretty darn disturbing and they're disturbing on a number of levels, but we'll get into that. And this is the headline. Secret Service records disclose agency boats inoperable for Obama chef drowning emergency. 

Did you hear that? The Secret Service is supposed to protect the president of the United States and former presidents of the United States. They have Secret Service protection under law. The Obamas have this gorgeous mansion, thanks to Netflix and big New York publishers and the usual suspects on the water. And so the Secret Service obviously has boats that it uses for its protection as part of its protective services to the former president. 

And they were inoperable. And I'll give you the detail here. And also the agency disclosed. So we had a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for this information. They gave us the last name of the witness who was with Mr. Campbell when he died. Her last name is Taylor. She's described as a white woman who just had then just recently begun working for the Obamas up there in Massachusetts. 

So here's what the document says. Let me get the documents out. This is what we get when we get the documents. You can't see it here. I guess it's too bright. You get a letter, cover letter saying, here are these documents. And we got about. How many documents did we get? We got let's see, 38 pages, I think. Yeah, 31 pages. We filed this lawsuit back in October. 

And after the DHS, which runs the Secret Service, is a sub agency, the Department of Homeland Security, after that agency failed to respond to our August of 220 23 request for secret service video recordings and other records relating to the death of Obama's personal chef. So, by the way, we know there's a video. There's a video the secret Service has of Mr. Campbell and his companion entering the water and then afterwards of the emergency response to news of his drowning. 

And they're refusing to turn that video over to us. We did find that out as well. So I'll talk about what we did find. But they don't want to turn the video over to us because they think it would tell divulge secrets related to the protection of the president and their processes related to the protection of the president. So they don't want to turn it over to us. 

And I think there are other reasons they don't want to turn it over to us. And you'll see, as you see about the craziness with the boat. So here's the document. Let's go to page. So we got about 30 pages. Some of the documents we talk about the Secret Service's response to the media, and they were obviously tracking media coverage of this and didn't strike to me to be relatively normal bureaucratic behavior. 

But we received some more reports about what happened that night. At approximately 1930, 5 hours, I heard radio traffic. And this is from. I don't know who wrote this because they block it out. I heard radio traffic from blank. And when I say blank, it means it's blocked out. You can see those little boxes with numbers on that page. Those are redactions and exemptions. Exemptions are regulations and under law that they assert to withhold information. 

So something is exempt from disclosure under section. Under section five, five, two, b, seven. That's usually law enforcement exemptions. So that's what they mean by that. Okay, let me start over again. At approximately 1930, 5 hours, I heard radio traffic from post blank at special agent Blank advising that a female had approached his post from the water's edge and there had been an incident in the water regarding a possible drowning. 

I immediately secured my post and rapidly moved the post blank location to assess the situation and assist. While moving to the location, I encountered Ron. Agent, special agent Blank in his vehicle. I don't know what Ron means. It looks like it might be an official word. I entered his vehicle, and we continued to move toward the post, so he hitched a ride. As we approached the location, we observed special agent Blank with a white female near the boat launch area. 

Once we arrived, we determined that the female was one of the Obama blankety blank. She was noticeably hysterical, claiming that Tafari had fallen off his water paddle and sank and that he did not come up. She was referring to Tafari Campbell, Obama's head chef. Blank stated that she and Mr. Campbell had gone out in the water earlier this evening, each using a separate paddleboard with paddle. She claimed that Mr. 

Campbell fell off his paddleboard and began struggling in the water. She claimed she tried to help him out of the water onto the paddleboard. That's, I think, a new detail, as I recall. But she was unable to pull him out of the water. She claimed that she witnessed him submerge under the water and not come back up. Blank believes she could not rescue Mr. Campbell and decided to look for assistance. 

She subsequently paddleboarded to the shoreline, which was approximately blank from the point of incident. So we don't know how far the shoreline was from where Mr. Campbell drowned, because they think that's law enforcement sensitive. She then ran across the Obama property and located special agent Blank at post blank. So there's a post. I guess they didn't want us. I guess they have various posts where the Secret Service are on President Obama's property, and they're not going to tell us where those posts are. 

I understand why, Ms. Taylor. So they give us the name here, stated that Mr. Campbell was not wearing a life jacket and no personal flotation devices aboard the paddleboard at the time of the incident. And then he says, blank and I immediately took control of a boat that was anchored at the location. Well, that's interesting, because immediate has an elastic term. Because in the other report, we get this detail, it. 

I'm going to find it. Just wait. Let's see who this report is. So this incident report is sent from someone to John. Well, I don't know if it was who wrote the report? That's not clear. But what matters is what's in the report as opposed to who wrote it at this point. Okay, so this report talks about it. At approximately 1900 hours, special agents blank, Blank saw staffer blank and the chef, Tafari Campbell, come out of the residence on their way down to the water. 

They picked up two stand up paddle boards and proceeded to the water on the Edgartown great pond. So it's a big body of water. So this is news, too. I don't recall learning previously that the secret service agents had. Two secret service agents had seen them enter the water approximately 20 to 30 minutes later, while in blank, I saw blank running toward me from the northwest, waving her arms frantically at me. 

I ran out of the booth and met her midway across the lawn directly in front of the residence. She collapsed on the ground and stated that the fari had drowned. She stated that he fell in the water and struggled for a couple of seconds before giving up and sinking underwater. She had pushed one of the paddleboards toward him, but he was unable to grab it. I communicated to the command post that we had a possible drowning, that we had a possible drowning victim, Tafari, in the water. 

I stated that someone should alert 911 and EMS, emergency medical services. I asked blank if she could come with to show where the incident occurred. She said it was too late, that he had drowned, but she would help. Within less than a minute, special agent Blank and SSA blank, I think that's a supervisory special agent blank, appeared close by, driving SA blank car, and then he asked someone to watch his post and they headed down in the car to the boat. 

So it looks like they all got into a car, went down to the boat. This is the kicker. SSA Blank attempted to start one of the boats, but had difficulties lowering the motor. I headed down with blank, but told her to continue down and yelled to Sa blank and SSAA that I would run to get the keys for our United States Secret Service boat. I sprinted to the CP, the command post, grabbed the keys and sprinted back to the boats. 

A similar issue occurred with the motor. On the second boat, we jumped into a third boat belonging to the groundskeeper, and it worked without issue. So I want you to think about that. They had an emergency. A man's life was on the line, potentially, and they have these two boats presumably there for emergencies to help with the protection of President Obama, his family and other guests and staff at the Obama compound up there. 

And the boats don't work. How do you like them apples? Now, was this delay in getting out onto the water, did it result in Mr. Tafari, Mr. Campbell, dying? I don't know. It's not clear from the timing. I mean, to be fair, it's not clear that he even was in a position to be rescued. He may have already drowned and the woman was correct in her ascertation. But I don't know. 

Maybe she was wrong. I don't know. But I want to know why it is there were two boats available to the secret Service that weren't working. That should have been working. Now, those of you who are boaters, you may know, and I didn't look this up, but I guess I should have what they meant by not being able to put the water, the boat, the engine into the water. 

So my guess is the engine is like, popped out of the water in the back, right. And they have to put the engine into the water and then start it. And I guess they couldn't get it into the water. I don't know what was going on. So you can tell me below, if you're a boater, what you think that means or what you think happened, but inexcusable, right? Inexcusable. 

So if I'm Campbell's family, I'm like, what is going on with this equipment that malfunctions? Safety equipment. And if I'm Obama and his family, I'm like, what's going on? I'm a former president. I've got this nice house on the water, and this equipment designed to help secure my safety isn't working in an emergency. Not one boat, but two boats aren't working. And you got to use the groundkeeper's boat. 

I mean, it's like you're driving down the road and the secret service flags your car. Our car is broken down. Can you take us and the president to this emergency location? It's absurd. Now, other people will draw some more nefarious conclusions from this, but the documents are. Show what they are. Show what they say are what they are is what they are is what they is. This is why we like getting these documents out for you to review and you draw your own conclusions. 

So another aspect of this that I thought was interesting is Obama seemingly interfering in the investigation. No, interfering in the rescue. So I'm not going to read the rest of the report in that regard, but. So they get in the groundskeeper's boat with Miss Taylor and they're looking for the poor guy. So they get called back eventually in the middle of the search because Obama wants to talk to her. 

We continued our search with flashlights. Shortly thereafter, we were called to Wilson's landing as Fp O-T-U-S-F POTUS. Obama was there, and the local fire department, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Police Department under local agencies, was setting up an incident command post he wanted to talk with. Blank. The first EMS police response we saw may have occurred within an hour. I recall a small police department or fireboat scanning the shoreline just after it was getting dark. 

B six and I, Taylor and I got out at the incident command post, and she gave a quick brief to Obama F POTUS, who was asking questions. After this, we got back in the boat to continue the search. So Obama interrupts the search because he wants to talk to her. They still hadn't found the body. And at this point, the reason the secret Service is there's an emergency response is because they're trying to get her to rescue the guy. 

Right. And I don't know enough about drowning responses, how long they give before a rescue response turns into a recovery operation. But there are other parts of these documents and the secret know they work closely with this mean it's a personal chef of the Obama family. And they probably grew close to him. They're all working close together. So it's like your workmate, really. I mean, you're providing protection to them, but you see them all around the house, the Obamas and such. 

And the secret service agents are being told that after this incident that you should get help if you need it because it's traumatic. And I feel terrible for everyone involved, especially the family of Mr. Campbell. I mean, the poor woman who was with him, I don't know what was going on there, but she was with him and it sounded, it was a nightmare for her. And the secret Service agents, who I'm sure were friendly with him and saw him around and he's dead. 

And they were trying to, and he's reported drowning and they're trying to rescue him. And Obama is wanting to talk to the key witness they're using to help rescue him. So that. Oh, gosh. So that, hold on, I got to get my document here. So this was a big story, as you might imagine. We had a lot of media know, judicial Watch posted this on Twitter. I posted it on my Twitter account. 

Let's show that tweet. That tweet received. You can see I talk about the boat, I think 5. 1 million views. 5. 1 million views. So there's a significant public interest in this. And it helps explain to me why the Secret Service doesn't want to turn over this video. I think it's in the public interest. It has to be weighed, obviously, against security concerns. I don't deny that. But I think the public interest demands that this be released. 

Now, whether a court's going to agree with us, probably, it's probably going to be difficult to get out if they're asserting this law enforcement protective privilege or whatever variation they have on it, but Congress can get it, too. But what was going on? You know, what is the video going to show them? Running down to the water, then running back for the keys. And it's probably not going to be in the interest of the secret service to show that sort of Keystone cop scenario that tragically occurred when they're trying to rescue this poor man. 

So we want the videos the Daily Mail picked up on it. Let's see what the Daily Mail said on it. They've been doing some good reporting on this separately. I think we have a link. Okay, well, we don't have the Daily Mail story. Well, anyway, they focused on the fact that the name was obtained through our FOIA request exclusive. I guess it's exclusive because the Daily Mail was the first publication to fully report on our story. 

Silence over drowning of Obama chef Tafari Campbell sparks conspiracy theories, including his relationship with 26 year old unidentified woman. Well, that's not the story. I guess those are the conspiracy theories that were the story. But anyway, they talked about the fact that the Daily Mail story focused on her name being released. So she's a witness here. And in the ordinary course, her name would have been released. And it was released to us, in my view, properly. 

So let's see what other information arises from this. But the more we know, the more problematic and disturbing that whole incident becomes, don't you agree? So I don't know if there are other documents we're supposed to get from the secret Service after this. Oh, there's the story that popped up from the Daily Mail, Ms. Taylor. They quote, 26 is identified as a staffer who was paddleboarding with Barack Obama's chef, chef Tafari Campbell, and unsealed secret service records, but also described the chaotic scene as agents scrambled to save him. 

So big story. Big story again, uncovered by your judicial watch. The Secret Service is an important agency. I think it's poorly know there's evidence of this in the sense that these two boats weren't. That's, isn't that a problem? Remember, they couldn't find the cocaine, the boats couldn't work, et cetera, et cetera. So another agency that's a problem child these days is the FBI. The FBI has been thoroughly politicized in the age of Obama, which we're still in, in many ways. 

Right? Many people say Biden is the third Obama term, which overstates things a bit. But Obama certainly has influence. But the Obama way certainly has influence in terms of the abuse of power to target his political enemies that he engaged in seemingly from the moment he got into office. We have new documents on that FBI operation to spy on radical traditionalist Catholics, including efforts to go spy on them in the church pews and recruit priests and such. 

And Judicial Watch had sued for records about this outrageous spy operation by the Biden FBI with catholic vote, an organization that, as you might imagine from the name, is committed to increasing the involvement of Catholics in the political process. The new records show that the office of General Counsel reviewed that controversial memo issued by the Richmond office targeting the Catholics. So to back up, there was a leak, and the leak was of this document created by the Richmond office, the field office for the FBI down in Richmond. 

That I think it was initially published by the catholic news agency. No, I don't think it was the catholic news agency. Well, anyway, the intelligence document was leaked that showed the FBI targeting Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on abortion and other cultural issues. The catholic news agency reported the leaked document has been condemned by several federal and state officials, as well as clergy, including the bishop of the Diocese of Richmond, who recently called the memo a threat to religious liberty. 

And the FBI and director Ray has tried to run away from that document by suggesting it was only one office. No other offices had anything to do with it. And as soon as they found out about it, they pulled it. In fact, Christopher Ray told Congress that the memo was a single product by a single field office. But the records by judicial watch on cover show that it was reviewed. 

And this is the big story by the office of general counsel, chief deputy counsel. And the records also indicate coordination with officials from Portland and Milwaukee. So how does that comport with it being a single product by a single field office when, in fact, the product looks to have been reviewed by top lawyers in the FBI's office of general counsel? So here are the documents we got. These are 98 pages of records. 

And I want to show you first what they consider disclosure. Blank record. See all those redactions? Redaction. They're smarter enough not to black it out anymore. The redaction is all in friendly white. It's all white space rather than black space, because they don't like the black marked redactions. It doesn't look good politically anymore. So now they black out stuff using white coverage. There's another redaction. This is all material that's being withheld. 

B five. B five is the bane of judicial watch and all FOIA requests. You know what b five is? B five is the exemption. As I said earlier, the government isn't required to turn over all documents they have to you. There are reasons they can withhold information, and there are exemptions they can apply to documents to. Withhold information in whole or in part. And one of those exemptions is b five, the predecisional, because the documents or the information are predecisional or deliberative process. 

And what they generally say is that certain records or information that evidence predecisional activity by the government doesn't have to be turned over. And as you might imagine, that's the sort of stuff we want. Only documents that talk about a final decision or our final decision need to be turned over. Now, what goes into government decision making, I think, is something the american people have a grave interest in and a great interest in. 

The courts, unfortunately, have said it would chill government decision making if every stupid idea they shared with their colleagues that was not followed up upon or maybe even incorporated and assigned to someone specifically. So we know, let's say there's a final decision and it's terrible. And the worst part of it comes from bureaucrat a, and that bureaucrat is named. They think that that would chill the willingness of bureaucrats to participate in government decision making and in government decision making generally. 

So that's why b five is such a big deal. And of course, it's all just arbitrary because they can release it if they want. There's no requirement. They withhold it. And sometimes, indeed, they do release predecisional materials that makes the government look good. So that's the world in which we live in FOIA land. But we had this new document come out. In fact, it wasn't new. New in the sense that Congress had received a document that was similar, but they hadn't received all the information we received specifically about the involvement of these other field offices. 

So this is the document. Again, it's heavily redacted, and it starts off executive summary. FBI Richmond assesses the increasingly observed interests of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists in radical traditional catholic ideology. Almost certainly presents opportunities for threat mitigation through the exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development, spying. FBI Richmond makes this assessment with high confidence. Okay. And then much of it is just what they're basing it on is redacted, which shouldn't be in my view. 

And then at the last page here or near, the last page says, reviewed by OGCDC. So that name is redacted because that person's name has to be private, which I think is inappropriate given the senior level of the employee. But a lawyer approved this. Now, Ray said, oh, this is just a one off in one office, an important office. Richmond is a big jurisdiction. I mean, Virginia only has two field offices. 

As I recall, the FBI. There are only two field. You know, Virginia is a big state, so it's a big field office, but it was reviewed by the general counsel. So I don't know what else you need to show that someone was not telling the truth or misleading us about this. Our friends over at catholic vote issued the following statement. Since last February, we have worked to expose this unconstitutional targeting of faithful Catholics by the FBI, said our friend former congressman Tim Hillskamp, who's senior advisor to catholic vote. 

And the results are stunning, unprecedented, and should concern all Americans. Contrary to statements under oath by Director Ray and Attorney General Garland, this flagrantly anti catholic program by the FBI was widespread, fully supported by senior officials, authorized undercover agents to infiltrate catholic parishes, attempted to influence elections, and may be ongoing. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has stood odly by as catholic churches have been attacked since more than 200 times since May of 2022. 

Of course, the pro abortion left has been targeting churches. It looks like, and as I say, these documents disprove the FBI's narrative that the spy operation against Catholics and churches were limited to one field office. In fact, the operation seems to have been approved by top lawyers in the FBI. These documents should trigger a criminal inquiry into this Biden FBI scandal. I'll say it again, these documents should trigger a criminal inquiry into this Biden administration scandal. 

The FBI's plan to target church going Catholics because of their views on abortion and other cultural issues. Traditional christian catholic views on these issues should be the subject of a criminal inquiry. And when they're misleading and lying that this was like a one off, isolated to Richmond when in fact it was approved or reviewed, to use the word they use by senior lawyers in the FBI's headquarters. Now, I've said it once and I'll say it again, I don't understand why this agency continues to be fully funded by the Congress. 

The Republican Congress just before Thanksgiving, fully funded the FBI. They're likely to do so again when the issue comes up again next month in January and or February. They're trying to jail Trump. They've been abused six ways to Sunday by the left and the deep state to target their enemies and protect the friends of the deep state like Hillary and Joe and such. So the FBI needs a thorough review and in a sense, where they're violating the civil rights of Americans and plan to, and conspired to violate civil rights that ought to be the subject of criminal investigation. 

So today you learned that judicial watch through federal FOIA lawsuits about issues Americans care greatly about was able to get information that Congress hasn't gotten, the media hasn't gotten about the worst type of misconduct. And in the case of the Secret Service, a real security issue has been uncovered by judicial Watch. And we do that thanks to the voluntary support of Americans like you. And you may be already a supporter of judicial Watch. 

And once again, I call on you, dear patriot, dear viewer, to support judicial Watch's work with your most generous financial contribution. I know it is the season of giving, so I would remind you that Judicial Watch accepts donations. You can go to our website@judicialwatch. org, to show your support and make a donation. If you're already supported us, I encourage you to support us. Again, it vindicates your support, this great work, and we can do more of it with your continued support. 

And secondly, I encourage you to share this information. The people want to know about the Secret Service in the Obama chef scandal, the abuse of the FBI, and the other issues we've talked about with respect to the abusive targeting of Trump in an effort to help rig the 2024 elections. All those issues will continue to pursue, but we got to get the word out about what we're covering to date. 

And I encourage you to share this video, like, and support it. And you're watching me online, you're probably at this point, you should know how things on social media work. So the more you share this video, the more you like it, the more you approve it and like it and interact with it and comment on it, even if it just says a great work or I watched it, it increases its reach. 

So I encourage you to do that as well. And with that, I wish you the best. I hope to 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. .