Hi, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you, as always for joining us this week. So much going on. I don't know if I'm going to be able to keep track of it all this hour, but we've got the Hunter Biden indictment. We've got a major election integrity victory here in Washington, DC, local DC. I was going to talk to you about that. 

A major court victory out in Minnesota against the left wing racial discrimination. Big case will be moving forward there. New documents on the censorship targeting you. And what else we got talking about here? There's something else that was important. Oh, I guess Hunter got invited that say Hunter got indicted. I already did. Oh, and the presidential debate, we were at the presidential debate asking questions, so I want to talk about that as well. 

The best news, though, you notice no wrist brace. My arm is feeling better. It's healing. I got to be careful. I don't even think I can do a push up yet, but my arm is feeling better. I know some of you commented on the fact I had that wrist brace on last time, but the tennis elbow surgery, slowly but surely, I'm healing. Thanks. I'm sure in no small measure to your prayers and everything. 

So thank you very much. First up, I don't know if you watched the presidential debate this week among the Republicans there at the Republican National Committee debate in Alabama on News Nation, but Judicial Watch was invited to present questions. So I was able to ask two questions that were pre recorded to the candidates present there. The debate was moderated by Megan Kelly, Alina Johnson of the Free Beacon, and who else? Elizabeth Vargas of News Nation. 

So it appeared on News Nation and Rumble and the CW, which is a television network, and judicial Watch had some awesome questions. I'd like to think they were quite powerful. And we're going to play you the section or the segment in which I was able to present my questions on behalf of you, dear Judicial Watch supporter. Let's play that segment now. By arrangement with the Republican National Committee, we've got two questions for you about the Justice Department and our election system. 

Here's Tom Fiton with Judicial Watch. Governor Christie, this one's for you. President Trump and many of his supporters claim federal law enforcement agencies have abused his civil rights for the last eight years by, among other things, spying on him and now prosecuting him while having treated Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden with kid gloves. A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans think more highly of the US Postal Service than they do the FBI or Justice Department, what would you do as president to restore the faith of the American people in these agencies? Well, first off, I'm the only person on this stage who's actually done a job in the Department of Justice. 

I was the US attorney in New Jersey, in the fifth largest office in this country, appointed by President Bush on September 10, 2001. And it was an extraordinary time in this country to be on the front lines of fighting the greatest attack against our country since Pearl Harbor. And I'm proud of the seven years I spent in the Justice Department. And one of the reasons I am is because I had an attorney general when I came in named John Ashcroft. 

And John Ashcroft stood up and told each and every one of us our job was to do one thing, to make sure justice was done every day, regardless of partisanship, regardless of gender or race or any other consideration. And that's what we did for seven years. And at a time when our country was at its greatest moment of danger in the last 40 years, we did exactly that. 

And there was not another domestic terrorist attack on this soil. So what I would do as president, having had that experience, and the only one who's had that experience, is to pick an attorney general who will absolutely do the same thing that John Ashcroft did, to pick U. S. Attorneys who will only care about making sure that justice is done without regard to any other consideration but the facts that are presented and whether someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the government can prove it. 

We have had attorneys general like Eric Holder and Loretta lynch and Jeff Sessions, and now our current attorney general, who have not met that standard. And the only way you restore people's faith in the justice system is to put someone like that in charge of the Justice Department and then as president, to get at the hell out of the way on anything that involves criminal investigations. If a president's involved in trying to do something and put their thumb on the scales, Donald Trump says he will do that makes people much less likely to believe our justice system can be fair. 

Thank you. Thank you, Governor DeSantis. Next one's for you. Back to Tom Fitton. Many Republicans are concerned about the legitimacy of elections. A federal judge just ruled that Pennsylvania must count undated mail in ballots. And unlike Alabama, many states still don't require any identification to vote. What should states do now to increase election integrity and voter confidence for the 2024 election? Well, Tom, thanks for the question. Thanks for you guys doing Judicial watch. 

It's really, really important. There's a lot of corruption in this government. You guys are doing a great job. What you should do for election integrity is do what we did in Florida 20 years ago. Florida and elections was a joke. Everybody would laugh at it. I came in, I removed a couple of supervisors from South Florida. We require voter ID, universal. No Zuckerbucks, no mass mail balloting, and no ballot harvesting. 

We even have an agency that prosecutes people for violating election laws. The result of that, in both 2000 and 22,022, we counted millions and millions of votes on election night, produced the results. It was transparent and everybody was happy. That is not happening throughout this country. But let me tell you this, as the nominee, I think it's important not every state's where we need it to be. There is ballot harvesting in places like Nevada. 

All these places, I am not going to fight with one hand tied behind my back. I'm going to have organizations and all the swings states. If they're harvesting, we're harvesting. If they're Zuckerbucks, we're Zuckerbucks. We are going to exploit whatever the rules are. I favor changing the rules to be like Florida and some of the other states that have done a good job, but until then, we have to do that. 

And then just on the Justice Department and FBI. I mean, I remember being in Iraq working with FBI on the ground, and then I was a special assistant. I used to have such a high regard for these agencies. What they did to Donald Trump with the Russia collusion was one of the biggest abuses of power in the history of our country. These agencies need to be cleaned out. 

With me, you'll have a new FBI director on Day One. We're going to clear out the DOJ, the IRS, all these places. Buckle your seatbelts. There's going to be a new sheriff in town. There you go. What'd you think? I thought they were great questions, by the way. Of course I asked them. But our team here, Judicial Watch, helped me come up with the questions. Obviously, the issue of the Biden effort to jail Trump is a primary issue to use, I guess, a play on the word primary, and also election integrity. 

And it's not what these guys are going to do. And Gal, Governor Haley's on the list as well. It's what they're going to do as not what they're going to do as president, but what are they going to do before then? What are they going to advocate for? So I thought it was important to try to get them on the record there. And just to give you a little background, the Republican National Committee invited me to speak and to present those questions. 

And we partnered with news Nation in kind of getting to the final questions. So, as you might imagine, my initial questions were a bit longer, a bit more direct, but they came back and they wasn't necessarily to try to undermine the specificity of the question in terms of the issue, but to make them a little punchier and a little briefer. So the editorial process was fine. So those were my questions. 

In the end, with the help of other folks who were looking at it, who were involved in the debate, and obviously, the Republican National Committee had nothing to do with the type of question or what question topic I would ask. I didn't know those questions were only going to be directed at Chris Christie and Governor DeSantis. I was hoping that all the debate participants would be able to answer the question. 

But what I liked about the questions are that they're general. I think we should get answers from all candidates on it, not just for the presidency. Everyone running for federal office, I think, should be asked about these abuses at the Justice Department and the FBI should be asked about this attack on election integrity by the left. For instance, voter ID. California doesn't have voter ID. Pennsylvania doesn't have voter ID. 

New York doesn't have voter ID. Illinois doesn't have voter mean. Those are millions of Americans who don't have the protection and election security that voter ID adds to the system. I think that's a big deal. And obviously, as Governor DeSantis mentioned, all these other issues that have popped up under the pretext of COVID initially and then are still around with the mass mailing of ballots and such, continues to be a challenge that, in my view, undermines our election systems. 

And the targeting of Trump continues. We have the crazy trial up in New York, in addition to what's going on down here in Washington, DC, in Georgia, and in Miami from the Justice Department down there, too. There was a big ruling today out of the appeals court here in Washington, DC over that gag order that restricted over the top by Judge Chutkin, the Obama appointee, anti Trump judge, that severely restricted President Trump's First Amendment protected speech. 

And of course, it was instituted at the behest of his opponent, Joe Biden. Oh, they'll say, oh, no, Joe Biden had nothing to do with this. Well, the fact is, it's Joe Biden's Justice Department. He runs the show. Constitutionally, they're all answerable to him. And his political appointees run the operation there. Jack Smith works for the Biden administration, and they're pushing to suppress his number one opponent for the presidency in the days coming up. 

I presume that the trial is going to take place next year, for instance. At least that's what Judge Chuckin wants to do. Well, anyway, this appeals court overturned in large part Judge Chutkin's order as being unconstitutional. And as a result, Judge Chutkin is going to have a much tougher time suppressing President Trump's free speech rights. And the appellate court was a liberal panel. It was all Democrat appointees, I think, including one Biden appointee, if I recall, know all of whom aren't terribly friendly to Trump. 

Now, was I happy completely with the opinion? No, because it still, in my view, unduly restricts the president's speech. But it raises significant hurdles to doing so, much more so than Chutkin, who was preventing, for instance, criticism or wanted to essentially sanction or even potentially jail Trump if he criticized Jack Smith. And the court said, that's too much. So that was a big, I mean, it just highlights the election interference through the judicial process by the Biden regime. 

And sometimes the courts are going to police it a little bit, make them kind of stay a little bit more within the lines, but not sufficiently, in my view. This whole operation should be shut down. Of course, Justice Department is going to do it on its own, and I think it has to be defunded by mean. That's the only remaining option, practically speaking. And, you know, what the Congress wants to do about that, which is just to can down the road and avoid the issue entirely. 

So I was pleased and honored on behalf of Judicial Watch to present those questions. And of course, the left media and online, they were furious that judicial watch was present. And what I thought was important about these questions, in addition to hopefully kickstarting an additional debate or additional debates about the issues that we educated people about through those questions, is that it smashed the monopoly that the media has on these debates. 

You have all these media folks who have various reasons, sometimes partisan, ideological, for asking specific questions. But the debate crew from the last one, the one I was on, they were actually, I didn't agree with all the questions. I didn't think all the questions were great, but they had some pretty good questions. And I think you have better questions and questions that better reflect the concerns of the American people if you have activists like Judicial Watch on and folks who are aware of what the American people are doing, because they're actually out there working for and on behalf, and are in contact with grassroots voters who are concerned about the public policy fights of our time. 

So that was a big victory for Judicial Watch. And I don't mean it in the sense that Judicial watch is great as a result of it. But to the degree judicial Watch seeks to educate the public about issues like this, boy, you can't get much of a better platform than that. And of course, I'm appreciative of Governor DeSantis's nice words about judicial Watch. Governor Christie, I don't know. 

He didn't mention anything about Judicial Watch today. So I'm not going to criticize any of the candidates. Now, you notice I'm not telling you who to vote for, right? And we don't do that here at Judicial Watch. I don't think, I know I'm not supposed to tell you who to vote for or endorse candidates or oppose candidates here through Judicial Watch, but to the degree we can help educate you about their views, that's an important role for us as an educational foundation. 

So great stuff there. Big news out of Washington, DC, or actually out of the Central District of California, which is the federal court district out there. There's been a new indictment of Hunter Biden, and it's great that Hunter Biden was indicted related to tax code violations. But to be clear, it's the result of IRS whistleblowers public pressure, a federal court blowing up that sweetheart plea deal. Remember back in Delaware last, I guess it was the summer now she blew it. 

We've, and of course, this indictment initially wanted to be, they were thinking of bringing and should have brought two years ago at least, and they didn't because the Biden Justice Department obstructed it. And so now, two years later, is it a daylight and a dollar? Sure, I'll let you decide. But I do know there were charges that they could have brought two years ago that they passed on and can't bring because the statute of limitations has lapsed. 

And the case that they've brought is somewhat limited. In a sense, it's significant tax charges, but it's kind of like charging someone for not paying their taxes on their bribes. And the bribes were directed not only at, in my view, Hunter, the evidence shows, but Joe Biden as well. And it blows out of the water. And it has the Justice Department confirming in this indictment that President Biden repeatedly lied when he said that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong and he got no money from China. 

So here it is in black and white. I want you, I guess we can provide a link to the indictment. You should read the indictment. Remember, they're only allegations. They have to prove this in court. But the Biden Justice Department confirms what I see as a racketeering scheme involving Ukraine, Romania, and China to the benefit of Hunter and Joe Biden. And I'm going to read to you a key section related to that. 

This is page three of the indictment. Between 2016 and 2020, the defendant individually received more than $7 million in total gross income. And then they go through and they describe what that income is. Burisma Holdings Limited. Remember, they tried to impeach Trump. Well, I guess they did impeach Trump, but then they tried to remove him unsuccessfully for raising questions about this Burisma deal. And this indictment confirms those questions were well founded and that the impeachment of Trump was a cover up designed to protect Joe and Hunter Biden from being found out for what is now being admitted to by Joe Biden's own Justice Department in around April 2014. 

That was when Joe was president. Vice President Defendant Hunter Biden joined the board of directors of Barisma Holdings Limited, a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate. Barisma agreed to pay the defendant an annual salary of approximately a million dollars to be paid in monthly disbursements in March 2017. Barisma, what happened in 2017? Joe Biden left office. Why would Barisma cut Hunter's salary after Joe stopped being vice president? Why do you think that is? Barisma reduced his compensation to approximately $500,000 a year. 

They cut his salary in half after Joe left office, but he continued to serve on the board of directors until in or around April 2019. As a result, he received a total of approximately about a million dollars in 2016, $630,000 in 2017, a little under 500 in 2018, and $160,000 in 2019. The Romanian contract. So this is a country you don't hear much about with Hunter Biden, but there was Romanian related corruption and bribery related to Joe and Hunter as well. 

In the fall of 2015, when Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, the defendant entered into an oral agreement with business associate One, purportedly to help a Romanian business person GP contest bribery charges he was facing in his home country. GP paid an entity associated with business associated one through GP's Romanian business. Between November 2015 and May 2017, Business One's entity received approximately $3. 1 million, which was split roughly into thirds between defendant business associate One and business associate two. 

So that was about a million for Hunter to help the Romanian target of a corruption investigation escape scrutiny in Romania. Well, how could Hunter do that other than through the auspices of his father's office? Obviously, it was a shakedown now, here's the biggie. Lupurisma is a biggie too, righT? I mean, there's only a war in Ukraine. Isn't that relevant to this? Of course it is. And then, of course, we face this threat from China that's kind of got kind of. 

That has gotten worse under the Biden administration. And I think because China knows Trump, Biden is weak because of his corruption, he's compromised directly by the Chinese. In the late fall of 2015, this is under a section titled CEFC China Energy Company, Ltd. The defendant, Business Associate One, and business associate two, began to investigate potential infrastructure projects with individuals associated with CEFC, China Energy Company Ltd. A Chinese energy conglomerate. 

In or around December of that year, the defendant met in Washington, DC with individuals associated with CEFC. Now, by the way, this is Chinese Communist government. Not, it's not like or I don't know what the name of energy companies in other parts of the country are. It's not your regular utility, like here in the United States, which, by the way, have too much government control behind them anyway. 

But that's another matter. But they're not wholly owned entities of the government or controlled entities of the government like they are in Communist China. So whenever you hear this company's name mentioned, CEFC just substitute Chairman Xi, the Communist dictator of China. That's who's given the money, practically speaking, to Joe, to Hunter, and obviously indirectly, Joe. In around December of, I guess, let me start over on that section. 

In or around December of that year, the defendant met in Washington, DC with individuals associated with CEFC. During the next two years, as the defendant and his business associates continued to meet with individuals associated with that company, including in February 2017, with the then chairman of the company. The chairman, as the indictment reads, on or about March 1, 2017, State Energy HK, a Hong Kong entity associated with CEFC, paid approximately $3 million to business associate one's entity for sourcing deals and for identifying other potential ventures. 

The defendant had an oral agreement with business associate One to receive one third of those funds. So that's a million bucks from the Chinese Communists, or a million dollars. The defendant, in turn, directed a portion of those million dollars to business associates three, so he split that with his other buddy. After the state energy payment from the Hong Kong front for the Chinese Communists, the defendant, business associate One, and business associate two, began negotiating a joint venture with individuals associated with the Chinese Communist energy company, which they called Sinohawk. 

Over the year, the summer of 2017, the defendant cut out his Sinohawk Business Partners and separately negotiated a venture with individuals associated with the CEFC called Hudson West Three. Now, Sinohawk, was that Tony Babelinsky's group? I think that was. And I think he was the one who was cut out. On or about August 2, 2017, the defendant executed on behalf of OaScO, O-W-A-S-C-O-P-C which is a front, again, for Hunter. 

So that's Hunter's companies, his business associates company. The operating agreement for Hudson West Three. Hudson West Three was founded with an initial $5 million capital contribution from an entity that was not owned or controlled by the defendant. The contract further named the defendant as a manager of Hudson West Three and specified he would receive compensation of $100,000 per month and one time retainer fee of $500,000. OASCO POc paid no capital contribution for its ownership share of HW three. 

So what does that all tell you? The Chinese gave Hunter $5 million, and he drew money from it. In exchange for what? It's not clear. Well, we kind of know what which is influence peddling. Shortly after execution of the contract, Honor, about August 8, 2017, Hudson west transferred approximately $400,000 to OasCO. OaScO, I think is the name. That's, again the Hunter Company. Thereafter, OASCO received monthly transfers of approximately $165,000. 

So they kept on getting money from that pot of gold the Chinese had given them. In total, Hudson west made seven transfers to Oasco totaling approximately 1. 45 million. And that was in 2017. And then he transferred that, some of that $555,000 to his business associate, three. In 2018, Hudson west three made another 15 transfers, totaling approximately 2. 1 million. And of that, Hunter kept the bulk. He only had transferred $843,000 of that to his business associate. 

So all of that the government attributes as Hunters Biden's income that he did not report on. And instead, he was spending money on the following items, allegedly, all sorts of detail, I mean, some of which is, you don't want the IRS digging into you because they can find out every last thing you were doing with your money. And Hunter, rather than paying his taxes, was taking out approximately. 

I'm looking for the chart. Forgive me for. And I didn't tell my colleagues here I was going to look at the chart. You all see the chart? What I'm looking for in the back of the expenses with the pages? Well, anyway, he took out a million plus. I remember the chart. I'm not going to look for it anymore. Oh, page 13. There we are. To the rescue. So rather than paying his taxes, he's giving money to his father. 

In part, it looks like $1. 6 million in cash ATM withdrawals. So you know where that money went. Payments to various women. Again, that's the government's words, not mine. $683,000. So the prostitute trade did well. Clothing, accessories, $397,000. That's a lot of money. I mean, I can't imagine spending. I'm one of these people who would have trouble spending $100 on a piece of clothing at any one time. 

Unbelievable. Tuition, educational activities, 309,000. Retail purchases, 236,000. So all sorts of purchases that are unrelated to the taxes he owed, which I think was well over a million dollars in taxes that he was refusing to pay for years, for a total of $4. 9 million. So of that 4. 9, he should have been paying his taxes, the government says. So, as I said earlier, it's a devastating indictment of what Hunter was up to and the fact, and it confirms that monies were flowing overseas into Hunter's business ventures and they were being used to take care of his personal expenses. 

And the purposes of these monies has been alleged with quite serious evidence to be bribery. Specifically, Barisma is alleged to have tried, offered bribes or tried or was talking, giving bribes to hunter and Joe to keep anticorruption investigators off their back in Ukraine. $5 MIllioN each for Them. And China is taking care of Joe Biden's son and Joe Biden, because Joe Biden, the evidence is, was also involved with this CEFC as well, after he was vice president. 

And we know separately from Judicial Watch's investigations that Hunter Biden was traveling all over the world with Secret Service protection while his father was vice president, including on Air Force Two, to China, where Joe had a. I think Joe was involved in a meeting with one of Hunter's business associates, or wannabe Business associates. So this is not. Obviously, Hunter Biden is facing time in jail As a result of this InDictmeNT, which, as I said, doesn't really go to the heart of the Issue, which is this was a bribery scheme. 

This was racKeteering. Joe and Hunter Biden, the evidence demonstrates, should have been registered as foreign agents. Right, foreign agents for China. But this is corruption that goes to the heart of the presidency of Joe Biden. We have more evidence coming out this week from Comer's committee that this Oasco, I think, gave money directly to Joe. So these business entities were paying Joe. Now the defenders of Joe Biden are saying, oh, those were for loans. 

Those were for car payments, providing no evidence and of know loans and car payments and repayments. Are notorious covers for list cash transfers, loan repayment. How many mafiosi have used loan repayment to disguise a transfer of wealth to a capo or something? I mean, let's be clear. The Biden family, their business operations were run like a racketeering operation. And the idea that, and we have demonstrated evidence of money going to Joe, but the idea that the money had to go to Joe in order for it to be a crime, the racketeering is baloney. 

If I come in and say, take care of my family member, or I'm aware my family member is being taken care of, someone with illicit monies because of my position, and they expect favors from me in return, that's bribery is under the law, as sure as I'm getting the money directly. Of course it is. Right? Of course. So I encourage you to read the indictment. I encourage you to encourage your members of Congress to move impeachment along forthwith. 

They can't impeach Joe Biden soon enough. I mean, right now there's a fight over with whether Hunter Biden is going to testify pursuant to a subpoena by the House of Representatives. Now, he may or may not testify. Whether that fight happens or not, I don't think is necessary to the issue of whether or not Joe Biden is impeached. But I keep on going back to they tried to thrive Trump out of office for blowing the whistle on the corruption that has this day been confirmed by the Biden Justice Department. 

Incredible. Incredible. So I'll keep track of this for you. Anything important happens in these cases, I'll try to let you know. And of course, judicial Watch will continue its independent investigations of this Biden corruption. For instance, we exposed just last week. I want to remind you, because it is important, I don't want you to forget it. And if you haven't heard about it, I want you to know that judicial Watch uncovered an email through the National Archives showing that Joe Biden's staff in the vice president's office sent him and copied Hunter Biden an email about a meeting with the Ukrainian president. 

Why was Hunter Biden copied on an email about a meeting with the Ukrainian president? It further shows that when it came to corruption in Ukraine, Hunter and Joe are joined at the hip. And again, that's uncovered by judicial Watch, not by Congress. Wasn't released voluntarily either. We had to sue for it. Federal lawsuit. That tells you something, that it takes a federal lawsuit to get a simple email like that out, right years after the vice president left office. 

Now was it seven years? Well, we just got victory after victory last week. The biggest one. Or I guess Judicial watch victories are like my children, which do I love more, right? I love them all equally. DC removing 130,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls in response to Judicial Watch. And what Judicial Watch has done is second to none in cleaning up America's voting rolls. And this is on top of 4 million names from voter rolls across the nation that have been cleaned up just in the last year or two by Judicial Watch. 

So let me give you the background here. Judicial Watch, after the 2022 elections started analyzing data in the states and mostly states. Much of the data is states. That is data that the states are supposed to provide to the federal government, and the agency is called the Election Assistance Commission. And the data is supposed to include the numbers of names they've removed pursuant to the National Voter Registration act, which requires reasonable steps to clean up the rolls, which means they got to clean up the rolls every now and again, because, as you might imagine, being an American yourself, that people move around a lot in this country or they die or otherwise become ineligible to vote. 

And so you got to track that and clean up the roles, because when you have a bunch of dirty names on the rolls, it increases the opportunities for fraud in elections and certainly undermines confidence in elections. People think everybody and their mother's on a list, including people who haven't been alive for 15 years who are moved. You're in Kansas and they moved to Florida 13 years ago, and they're still on the voting list. 

That ain't good. And that's why the federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up the roles. And that includes, thanks to Judicial Watch, solidifying this process through our litigation. Previously. If you don't show up to vote in a federal election, this is what's supposed to happen. The state worker covered jurisdiction under the NVRA should send you a card or some type of communication. Let's say it's me. 

Hey, Tom Fitton. I live here in the District of Columbia. You didn't vote last election. Are you okay? Not like that. But are you still there? And if you don't respond to that communication or vote within the next two federal elections. So that's upwards of four, maybe even five years, depending on how the calendar runs. Right. They're supposed to take your name off the rolls. Now in the District of Columbia. 

I don't know for sure this happened, but it looks like they sent the notice card saying, hey, are you there? But they never bothered to follow up and take people's names off the roles who weren't there. And so Judicial Watch noticed that they weren't cleaning up their roles based on the CAAC data. And so we sent them a letter saying, what's happening here? This is a nice letter early on, and I don't know, did I get the letter out? I think we were supposed to print it out, but I don't have it here. 

So anyway, the letter was dated in the beginning of last month, November, and they admitted to us, excuse me, that it removed. Oh, there's the letter there. Let me put on my glasses so I can read it. I'm going to come up close and read it to you. I'm writing in response to the notice of violation sent by Judicial Watch on September 22, 2023. So we requested that they correct these issues in their list maintenance program. 

That's the legal or our way for talking about it. So we note the failure to remove voters from the registry from November 2020 to November 2022, pursuant to the law and the number of inactive registrations as a result of its total registration rate. So if people haven't voted in a long time, the states call them inactive, they're still eligible to vote, but they call them inactive to pretend that they should be there and they're being treated appropriately, when in fact, that's not true, especially if they're there for years and years. 

The board has taken several list maintenance actions since we provided our last response to judicial Watch. First, the board removed 65,544 inactive voters on October 30, 2023. This letter is dated November 1. So I think it was the day before or two. How many days? It's October 31 days in October. 65,000 names. That's incredible. And they did. This is the process as I described to you. The voters did not vote in a 2016 general election, did not respond to the address confirmation notices that the board sent, and did not participate in any district elections held between the dates of the notices that were sent and the November 2020 general election. 

So they became eligible for removal, but they didn't do it until Judicial Watch bugged them earlier this year. The board will soon remove an additional 37, 962,000 inactive voters. So you know what that means. It's well over 100,000 voters they're removing. That's 15% of the list, and it goes on. The voters did not vote. Again, they highlight. Second, the board moved 73,000 voters from an active to an inactive status on October 3, 2023 as a result of the 2023 biennial process or canvas process. 

And so those names won't be removed for a few years yet. So a hundred thousand names were removed because Judicial Watch asked the DC Board of Elections, what's going on here? You haven't cleaned up your roles. And they responded by removing immediately 103,000 names. That is 15% of the voter list in Washington DC. Think there are about 700,000 voters. If you do the math, it's about 15%. Incredible. 

Incredible. Now, is that good enough for us? Well, if we could trust that the program was put in place and they were going to regularly follow it other than through this ad hoc fashion, yes. But as I'm describing the process to you, you can see they only do something when we ask them to do it. That's not the way it's supposed to work. So we sent them another or followed up with a notice of violation letter. 

And I guess that one from September is still valid. So that know we may end up suing as soon as this month. But it's not just in DC that this issue has arisen because we've done an analysis nationwide, California and Illinois have dirty voting rolls too, based on their own data that they provided to the federal government. So we sent notice of violation letters to Illinois and California. 

The notice letter to California, which was sent on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California states. California's survey responses to the Election Assistance Commission shows that 27 counties reported removing five or fewer. And in most of these counties, zero voter registrations in the last two year period for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections. 

Another 19 counties simply did not report any data about such removals. And then 21 counties had more voter registrations than citizens over the age of 18 based on census estimates. So what does that last part mean? It means they have more people on the rolls, on the voter rolls than are living there and eligible to vote based on census data. Now, California, we've had litigation before and we settled and part of the settlement resulted in, what was it, one point? What was the number? 1. 

2 million names being removed just since last year. I think the total was 1. 6 is going to be removed. And California generally sent a notice out to all of its counties as a result of this settlement that you got to clean up the rolls as Judicial Watch has suggested. Of course, I don't think they gave us credit like that, but that's more or less what was said. 

Obviously, that hasn't been the case. Same goes in Illinois. Illinois has a similar problem. 23 Illinois counties reported removing fewer than 15. And in almost half of those counties, zero voter registrations in two years between 2000 and 22,022, 34 Illinois jurisdictions simply did not report any data about such removals. So they're not even telling them what they're doing, which in my view means they're not doing anything. And 15 jurisdictions have, again, as I said, more voter registrations than citizens of voting agent. 

And these are some of the counties in California and Illinois that we were talking about. Let me see here. My colleague sent me a note about it. I get a lot of emails. I'm sure you all get lots of emails, but I really get a lot of emails. Let me search for it here. But Orange county is on the list in California. Here it is. So in California, here are some of the problematic counties. 

Orange county, they've got 2. 1 million names in their roles. They haven't cleaned any of them. Data not available. Riverside County, 1. 586 names. 1. 586 million names on their rolls. No information about what names they've cleaned. San Bernardino, 1. 3 million. Santa Clara, 1. 2. Alameda, 1. 1. Ventura, 609,000. San Francisco, 606,000. San Mateo, 555,000. It goes on and on. So when you think and apply the numbers from DC to certainly the numbers in LA county in terms of they're removed about 15% of their roles as well. 

That's a total of, among the counties that we looked at, 14 million names. Right. So we're talking potentially well over a million names that should be removed under this process. I'm guessing here. I'm just guessing because I don't know exactly. I mean, some of these counties may come to us and say, oh, no, we removed all the names. Don't worry, don't worry. But we know these counties have been around long enough that we've been following this long enough. 

And the behavior of these counties generally to know this is what's been going on for too long in California and the same in Illinois. The two big counties are Cook county and Chicago City, which have. Cook county has a 1. 9 million names on their roles. Chicago City has 1. 5. So that's the major Chicago metropolitan area. And those jurisdictions haven't reported removing anyone, anyone for two years from their roles. 

What's going on there? So we sent these notice of violation letters, and as I said, we sent one to DC earlier, and this is what we told DC we're representing. We sent it on behalf of the judicial Watch and the DC Republican Party. There is a Republican Party in Washington, DC. You may not know lot. I don't think they have anyone in public office, certainly in the DC Council, I don't think so. 

DC reported removing zero voter registrations in the last two year reporting period for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote for two consecutive general federal elections. And they flatly admitted to us that it was failing to remove registrations as required by the law. Just doing it in an emergency fashion after Judicial Watch tells you what, you ask you about it. That's not what the law is supposed to be. 

So I don't know if this number includes the number of the voter registrations they removed, but maybe it's beforehand. But we noted in the letter that it was 131%. They had the total registration rate, its total number of registrations divided by the most recent census estimates of citizens voting of its citizen voting age population is greater than 131%. So let's put it this way. Voter registration rates in states range from, of the voting age population. 

It used to be 75%, but now it can get a lot higher than that because it's easier to register to vote in a lot of these places. So it can be upwards of 85, 90% in some jurisdictions. And I'm sure there's always outliers, it's even closer to 100. But obviously anything over 100% is not right. And if it's 131% of your eligible population, there's something really not right. 

So this is the beginning of what might be additional litigation. So if we send the notice of violation and they don't respond as appropriate, and we're not satisfied with the response, we have the right to sue. And this would follow several lawsuits we filed previously over the years to clean up the voter rolls in California, in Illinois, excuse me, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Indiana, in Kentucky, we had a consent decree. 

In Kentucky, they are cleaning thousands, tens of thousands of names. They had been North Carolina. We settled as well. We just settled in Pennsylvania. And as I said at the top of this discussion, 4 million names have been cleaned as a result of judicial watch litigation just in the last few years. And let me put it this way, if we don't do it, no one will. No one. 

I don't think the Republican Party is cleaning up the roles through litigation. Maybe they've started doing it since we've been doing it. There'd be one other two groups that have started moving, have moved around this area as well, certainly on the area of the specific controversy of them not bothering to remove people who die, which is a whole other matter beyond moving away. I mean, if you can't figure out a member of your jurisdiction died, what's going on? Dead people on the rolls is an abomination to election security that really gets people upset. 

It really does. And of course, this is a law that can be enforced also by the Justice Department. But they refuse to do it because they oppose efforts to clean up the roles because the Justice Department is controlled by partisan leftists who want to make it easier to steal elections. They do. That's how I explain it. But they admit it that way. Of course they're not going to admit it, but that's my analysis of their behavior. 

Why else would you oppose voter ID? Why else would you support ballot harvesting? Why else would you oppose efforts to clean up the rolls or not even enforce the law in that regard and all the other efforts to undermine election and security measures? They want to make it easier to steal elections. To steal elections. And that's why people's confidence in our elections are, the confidence tends to, has been plummeting in recent years and will continue to plummet unless our elected officials get serious about election integrity. 

So I'll let you know when we file the federal lawsuits. I'll let you know if other states start removing the names as they should. Like in Illinois and California. There are other states that are on our radar that have also issues with the rolls not being clean. And as I said in our press release, let me read my quote. Dirty voting rolls increase the potential for voter fraud as WASHiNGtON, DC's quick cleanup of tens of thousands of names in response to judicial watch shows, there are potentially hundreds of thousands of names on the voter rolls that should be removed by California and Illinois. 

Indeed, Judicial Watch litigation resulted in the removal of 4 million names from voter rolls in various states recently. So our election law team is led by Bob Popper, who is a former Justice Department senior attorney and he's been at Judicial Watch for, I don't know, I lose track of how long people have been here now, but at least ten years. I think it's ten years plus. And he does some great work. 

I had an interview with him recently. We should repost that interview or at least post a link to the interview with Bob, who can describe these issues to you more fully, or he described them more fully to us through the interview a few months ago. So we should repost that or link it. So great work by Bob Popper, our election integrity team. We're pleased to be working with our various partners in this area as well the DC Republican Party here, the Libertarian Party. 

Who did we work with in Illinois? Did we work with? We worked with a voter in the Illinois Family Action Group, which is an activist group in Illinois. A great group, great conservative bunch of activists out there doing the Lord's work, quite literally, not only through their own work, but with Judicial Watch, another great victory. So court battle after court battle, this is what I love about judicial Watch. 

I get to talk about the presidential debate. I get to talk about cleaning up voter rolls, and I get to talk about this next topic, which is in Minnesota. Minneapolis had a contract with their teachers that essentially required them to fire white people ahead of racial minorities if it came to layoffs and if it came to rehires. RAcial minorities got first dibs on any rehires. It normally is first in, first out. 

The more senior people will get protected from layoffs unless. So if you were a more junior person, you were more subject to a layoff, but unless you were a minority, you got skipped over. Blatant racial discrimination that's anti constitutional, a violation of virtually every civil rights law under the sun, was signed by Minneapolis with the teachers union there. And Judicial Watch sued to try to overturn it under the theory of taxpayer standing. 

We represented a taxpayer who's aggrieved. Taxpayer standing allows taxpayers to challenge the illegal expenditure of tax dollars. Certainly spending money, enforcing and promoting and enabling this contract, this discriminatory contract is outside the law. And unfortunately, the lower court judge initially found that we didn't have taxpayer standing and it seemed to me a widely incorrect decision. So we appealed it, not because it seemed to me an incorrect decision, but it also seemed incorrect to our lawyers. 

So Michael Pikesha, who's leading our team, appealed it on behalf of our taxpayer client. The county district court had dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that judicial watches taxpayer client lacked standing and that her claims were not ripe. I guess the thinking was, unless someone gets fired or victimized, then it becomes ripe. And that was not the law. We appealed, and on December 4, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, ruling that judicial watch's client does not have stand. 

That does have standing, excuse me, does have standing as a taxpayer who helps fund Minneapolis public schools through property taxes. And her claims are ripe because the lawsuit alleges an actual future controversy using public funds. So we filed this lawsuit back in August of 2022, and there was a spate of media around it. And I think we have some media clips talking about the issue, some fairly, some not fairly, but let's play that now. 

Sean, go ahead. In the event of layoffs, white teachers have to be fired first, regardless of seniority or performance. It's kind of like racism, right? The union movement and too much of the left that used to, in my view, support laws that prohibited racial discrimination are now embracing the exact opposite. Already the policy is being challenged in court by a conservative leaning government watchdog group. It was an in your face attack on the rule of law here, especially in the area of racial discrimination. 

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Minnesota taxpayer claiming the contract requires administrators to make hiring and firing decisions based on race. When it comes to layoffs or potential layoffs. In this teachers union contract, if you're black, your name is skipped and the next non minority gets laid off. And while on the back end, if you get rehired and you're a non minority, your name is skipped and the next black senior person gets hired. 

I don't understand why this is even a debate. One of the key words used in the contract is the word underrepresented. The union president did say, though, that white educators could fall under this category under certain circumstances. Does that make a difference? This section of the contract references teachers of color. So if they want to litigate what they mean by that, that's what the courts are for. While the policy does not specifically mention the words race or ethnicity, Fitton argues the title of the heading protections for Educators of Color makes it plain. 

Now I want you to do the mirror image of that. The contract says protecting white teachers, and then they have language that is seemingly neutral in how they're going to affect that. Do you think a court's going to say that's not race discrimination? I don't buy it. So that was my interview on Nightline. That was not a pleasant interview. I have to tell you what goes on behind the scenes that I, and I really didn't even want to do the interview because it was Nightline. 

I didn't think we were going to get a fair shake. But you can see that I did get to at least say a good part of what we needed to say. They ask you the same question a dozen times to get the best response from their perspective and usually the worst response from my perspective. So what happens is I don't know about you, but my guess is most people would, after being asked the same question a dozen times, kind of get a little ticked, right? And that's what they're going for. 

But you can see what the issue is. I can't believe we're having to sue over this. I just can't believe it. I really can't believe it. And this is what our lawsuit states. Among other things, the contract provides preferences, protections, and privileges for the Minneapolis public schools, teachers of certain races and ethnicities under a section entitled, as I noted in the Nightline Piece, Protections for Educators of color. 

There is no similar provision covering educators who are not of color. Under the contract, teachers of color are exempt from defendants seniority based layoffs and reassignments, which means when layoffs or reassignments occur, the next senior teacher who is not of color would be laid off or reassigned. In addition, the contract mandates the defendant reinstate teachers of color over more senior teachers who aren't of color. Upon information and belief. 

Prior to the contract, teachers were laid off or reassigned in order of seniority, with the least senior teacher laid off or reassigned first without regard to race or ethnicity. Similarly, teachers were not were reinstated in order of seniority, with the more senior teachers reinstated first without regard to race or ethnicity. Article 15s, which is the contract section, preferences, protections, and privileges for certain public school teachers on the basis of race and ethnicity, violates Minnesota's equal protection guarantee. 

This is a state claim, so we're bringing it under state law, which states that no member of this State shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any rights, any of the rights or privileges secured to any other citizen, to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. And that quotes the Constitution of Minnesota. Article One, section Two, the Equal Protection Guarantee, is analyzed under the same principles and mandate as the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

So here you have this teachers union. They went on strike in part for this provision, by the way. So this was something that was central to their settling the strike, this contract position, and it's still in effect. And now this case proceeds to discovery. What does discovery mean? It means that we'll be able to gather evidence and testimony. It's a big court victory for taxpayers who are outraged that Minneapolis school system, they would engage in blatant race discrimination in employing teachers. 

And of course, we're going to move with all due speed to get to that discovery, get that evidence. We want to shut down through this lawsuit the extreme leftist attack on the bedrock constitutional principle that no one can be denied equal protection under the law on account of race. So there you have it. I shouldn't say it's a great lawsuit. It's an important lawsuit that's smart and effective in terms of getting this policy overturned if the law and the facts prevail, in my view, and the court, in response to Hit's decision being vacated and remanded back, he set a hearing. 

I think it's next week, if I recall correctly. So the court's moving quickly. But this contract is an abomination unto law. It's racially divisive, viciously so. And it highlights how this critical race theory, this embrace of racialism, has resulted in a complete rejection of our constitutional principles. The idea that the Constitution protects you from being punished based on your race is in the 14th Amendment. And obviously, we have federal civil rights laws and similar state laws that protect you as well. 

And the left is rejecting all that they want, racism. They're embracing this racialism. I sometimes call it racialism, and I hesitate to use it because I think it minimizes some of what they support. Race conscious, that's another way of talking about it. And so we hope to succeed here, get more information of how this came to be and end it. That's the goal here, to stop it. Now, we previously stopped similar activity in California. 

They had regulations that they were imposing on California. Private boards, corporate boards requiring quotas based on gender, race, ethnicity, LGBTQ status. And the court said that's violation of California Constitution. I mean, these were two separate California judges and liberal California who agreed with judicial watches lawsuits in that regard. And we won. And of course, the other side's appealed it. But in the know, you can't discriminate, as California wants you to do, to advance their radical leftist agenda. 

I mean, this is why, when I say judicial watch is one of the country's most important civil rights institutions and organizations, I mean it. The left has abandoned civil rights to the degree they seriously supported it in the past. And I could bend your ear for another 20 minutes on that, but I won't. But a great victory in Minnesota. Congratulations to our lawyer. I appreciate our taxpayers standing with us in this regard. 

Another important lawsuit and historic lawsuit against the radical left that wants to destroy America through racial division and strife. So we got more documents. We're always getting more documents. I guess you can really set your clock. Every week, Judicial Watch has more documents. We have new records that show that the Department of Homeland Security was involved in a scheme with these third party, private, private groups that were really fronts for the government to engage in real time narrative tracking to take down social media posts during the 2020 election. 

Again, this is under the Trump administration. Remember, these deep staters were out of control at the Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity infrastructure, Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, I think, is the name. CISA. And SISA was the front. They were supposedly making sure the Russians weren't going to come in again. Right? So that was the overreaction to the left's fake news about Russia. Russia. Russia in 2016 was the creation of this subagency within the Department of Homeland Security. 

And that subagency immediately started targeting and focusing on Americans who were concerned about election integrity as opposed to what they supposedly were supposed to be interested in, which is making sure the Russians didn't interfere in our elections, which, of course, they didn't really have anything to do there since the Russians didn't have any material impact in our elections one way or another anyway. And we've got the record showing that this censorship was serious. 

We had sued back in, I guess we sued back in the latter part of 2022. So this case is about a year old for records about this group, this Department of Homeland Security Subagency, CISA, and this election integrity Partnership, which was a group of outsiders, leftist groups that were working to censor American citizens on election issues. You have to remember, they think that the reason Trump won in 2016 was because of, quote, misinformation, right? And so that meant, from their perspective, Americans heard things the left didn't want them to hear and voted for Trump. 

So the whole goal of the deep state and their allied left wing groups on the outside, and the Democratic National Committee, which was also involved in this entity, by the way, was to suppress misinformation so Trump wouldn't win again in 2020. And that all led, in part, to, for instance, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop. Naked election interference. So do you think the government should be in any way tracking narratives on the Internet of First Amendment protected speech for what purpose, other than to take it down? Which is what was going on through this election integrity partnership. 

Now we got what we call what is called. I don't know what it's called. I don't know, a PowerPoint presentation. Maybe we can show the COVID of it. And they had all these charts about how it would work, which were misleading because it actually worked. It was even more collusive than the charts show. And this is the sort of stuff they were targeting for, quote, takedowns. This was an example of what would be problematic and should be taken down either by, there's their charts, there's your censorship chart. 

That's how the censorship they thought would be able to work. They're pretending that the platforms weren't in cahoots with them in that chart, and we know that latter. That turned out not to be the case. The arrow should be going back and forth between the platforms and their front groups. But this is an example of one of the types of information they wanted to take down, which shows you the outrage of it days after eleven three Faceback. 

Facebook notifies EMP, which is the shorthand for this group before it became this. Oh, the election misinformation Partnership, that's what they called it, of an impending takedown of a group of pages exhibiting coordinated inauthentic behavior. Inauthentic behavior. Doesn't that sound communist and Marxist and Orwellian all at once? Since the election, these pages have consistently pushed a narrative encouraging Americans in key states to call for an invalidation of election results. 

How dare they if the results are compromised. Why can't you say that? Don't you have a right to say it? Dare I say it? Can't you coordinate with other Americans under the First Amendment, under the rights of Freedom of association to say it? Even if some bureaucrat in the government or their front or some Facebook know it all thinks it's, quote, inauthentic, Facebook will take these pages down in 1 hour and is already briefing relevant state and local officials. 

So coordination, this is what they propose. Coordination on the censorship of Americans with state and local officials with the help of CISA, this federal agency. And of course, they don't want you to know about it because they admit it. They admit it here in the documents. Let me show you. Best way to collaborate. What is the best way to collaborate? One of the notes say CISA can't create their own stack channels or slack channels. 

I don't know what a Slack channel is. What is a Slack channel? It's like a DM program, I guess. Yeah, internal DM programs for companies, right? But can participate in others. But can participate in others. Now, Slack channels tend to be in the air, right? They tend not to be. My understanding is you can make them disappear more easily, right? So that's why they want to participate in others, that the government won't run the Slack channel, but they can play and listen to this. 

Listservs are bad. You all know what a listserv is, and they write public records requirements. So they didn't want Judicial watch to be able to figure out what was going on because they knew FOIA applied. So they no, no, we can't have a listserv. Now if it was truly a public, I mean, a private operation, a listserv wouldn't be subject to FOIA, but they knew the government was involved at the federal level, the state level, and the local level. 

And again, they talk about Stanford. I don't know if you all, any of you would go to Stanford, went to Stanford, have family in Stanford, support Stanford. Ask them why they're obsessed with censoring Americans. This Stanford Internet Observatory, it's Big Brother Central there in Stanford. 24/7 monitoring and shifts. Heightened monitoring during voting times. Emphasis on voter suppression tactics. Now. Voter suppression tactics. They think anyone who complains about voter integrity, by the way, election November 3, 2020. 

December. Hold on December. Full time. Full time monitoring continues, but not 24/7 this is after the election. Emphasis on narratives around election legitimacy. Example, mail in ballot theories. I'm going to come up here and look at it more closely. Oh, okay. It makes more sense on the chart than it does in the press releaSe. So in November, you see what they plan to do during the election. In December, it continues. 

And they want to focus on people like Tom Fitton who don't like mail in ballots because we think they undermine election security. Unsupervised voting is an abomination for those of us concerned about secure and safe elections. And then in January, the inauguration continue and they're going to issue a report. And then later in the documents, they talk about how CISA is happy to introduce SIO to them, meaning election officials and do outrage. 

And now CISA again, Department of Homeland Security, literally, the feds, just keep the feds in the info sharing pipeline. These are great documents. I mean, again, not great, but it's great we got these documents because it again exposes the outrageous censorship operation that was designed to suppress election related material, not because Russians were behind it, but was because Americans were behind it. And we know that the censorship was real. 

I described the censorship of Hunter's laptop. I talked about, for instance, we've talked about previously here we have litigation that's ongoing. It's on appeal. Now, the California election operation. The Secretary of State got YouTube to take down a judicial watch video. One of my updates here for Judicial Watch, where I talked about some of these election issues just before the election. And the secretary of State's office was working with Joe Biden's PR firm and figuring out who to censor. 

And they took down our video. And then more recently, the feds put me on a list for watching. I mean, these Communists love lists. I'm on so many lists that the communists have about who to censor. I'm always on the list. And of course, Judicial Watch has been on these lists as well. And I know I'm not on the list because they like me. I'm on the list because I'm the president of Judicial Watch, an effective, the largest government watchdog group in the country. 

And our voice is effective. It drives them crazy. And so they want to censor me and you. So documents will continue to come to Judicial Watch. We are accelerating our information gathering here, and we're not going to slow down. Let me see what I said in this release. These records show the lengths to which a Homeland Security deep state agency went in its effort to censor and suppress Americans during and after the 2020 election. 

That it took a federal lawsuit to extract these disturbing records should raise additional worries about what else this Biden administration is up to now. The Biden administration has embraced censorship. They believe that there should be censorship. And we've had documents showing it's been organized out of the Biden White House directly. A federal court has detailed activities including, and we have more recently with the Homeland Security Department, the Department of the Home Health and Human Services, HHS. 

I'm getting my acronyms confused. The State Department's involved in it. Some of the Twitter files showed that the CIA was involved in all of this suppression. And more recently, Judicial Watch uncovered how the CIA was involved in suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop in an improper way, as if there could be a proper way. Right. And I encourage you also to watch Judicial Watch's documentary about this censorship. 

It's a great documentary. It's in four parts, more or less. You can watch it in parts. We have it on our YouTube channel and our other social media channels in parts. And then in its entirety, we'll provide a link to the full video below. And just watch it and share it and share this video. Now, I'm trying to think if I said anything to trigger the YouTube vandalism of our pages now, you'll notice another part. 

There's another way of censoring you and suppressing you, which is labeling your content, in my view, in a malicious way, in a way that suggests what I'm saying or what the content is presenting is false or misleading or otherwise can't be trusted. And YouTube's been doing that repeatedly. And I'm not going to use the words that I know has triggered the labeling before, but Will say something about a controversy everyone's talking about in a straightforward way. 

And they push a. Oh. For more information on this topic, go to the Communist controlled Wikipedia or the left wing controlled whatever, outrageous. And it suggests that I'm saying something wrong. I call it vandalization. So maybe I said something to, you'll see that below on YouTube now. Judicial Watch, just so you know, has their own Internet site@judicialwatch. org. So if we're ever censored again, and it's likely to happen again, knowing Big tech, it's happened repeatedly to us over the years. 

You can go to our website@Judicialwatch. org, and we're on all the social media platforms. Nevertheless, despite it being a chore sometimes to get around their ever changing censorship rules, Facebook Rumble, YouTube X, which used to be Twitter, Instagram, Trump's true social getter, I guess. Is anyone still on getter? I don't know. We're on Telegram, which is much more independent. And we're on Rumble, too, for video. So Rumble is a pro free speech group as well. 

So if you think YouTube is throttling us, go over to Rumble. But we're not leaving YouTube, we're not leaving Facebook, we're not leaving Instagram, but we're constantly under the gun there. And I guess that's just the price we pay for being an effective watchdog group, right? And the reason we're able to do this work again, get the word out despite the censorship spread this information is because of your support, either by watching this video, sharing this information, this video plus the information below that I'm sharing with you and talking about here the documents, the information about the lawsuits, and of course, as importantly, supporting our work directly with a generous financial support, financial contribution. 

So I encourage you to donate to Judicial Watch. I know this is the season of given right as we come up on Christmas. Go to Judicialwatch. org and you can support us there directly. And I encourage you, again, support our work in all the ways I'm talking about. Share the wealth in terms of education and please share your wealth with us directly so we to do more of this great work. 

I'll see you here next time on the Judicial Watch Weekly update. God bless you. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .