Speaker 1: I mean, what a time to be alive. We've got
Speaker 1: former president of the United States getting raided the left
Speaker 1: or putting political opponents in jail or trying to people
Speaker 1: like Steve Bannon. We've got the d o J targ
Speaker 1: getting parents lies about COVID, people trying to cover up
Speaker 1: US involvement in the development of the coronavirus. What do
Speaker 1: we know? When do we know it? So a lot
Speaker 1: of government corruption that's been happening throughout the Biden administration
Speaker 1: before that too. I mean we saw with the Obama
Speaker 1: administration as well, the I R. S scandal, Fast and Furious,
Speaker 1: you know, among other things. So we're going to talk
Speaker 1: to a man who does this for a living, who
Speaker 1: uncovers government corruption for a living. You guys know Tom
Speaker 1: Fitton of Judicial Watch. You se him a lot on Fox.
Speaker 1: But he is one of those guys leading the charge
Speaker 1: as president of Judicial Watch. And what they do is
Speaker 1: they file Freedom of Information Act lawsuits otherwise known as
Speaker 1: request to try to uncover information about misconduct by our
Speaker 1: own government and by these government officials. And I don't
Speaker 1: have to tell you, but there's a lot right now.
Speaker 1: Right there's a lot going on in terms of government corruption.
Speaker 1: So I want to talk to him about his read
Speaker 1: on all these different things that are happening in the country,
Speaker 1: what they're digging up, what they're trying to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom up, and just get a little perspective from
Speaker 1: someone who has covered different administrations and who has been
Speaker 1: in this looking under the hood of how corrupt or
Speaker 1: government is. So stay tuned for Tom Fitton Judicial Ledge.
Speaker 1: So we've got a lot of government corruption right now.
Speaker 1: So it's a good thing we've got Tom Fitton of
Speaker 1: Judicial Watch. Tom, you guys are doing great work and
Speaker 1: just uncovering some of the stuff we're saying. So I
Speaker 1: really appreciate you taking the time to join the show.
Speaker 1: Oh you're welcomely, so good to be with you. Yes,
Speaker 1: you've been doing this for a long time. What concerns
Speaker 1: you the most about where we are today as a society. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, as you know, Judicial Watch does the kind
Speaker 1: of government corruption watchdog work, not kind of it's uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we're a nation's were the nation's leader on
Speaker 1: it in many ways, and things have metastasized, and at
Speaker 1: least on the government side in terms of a willingness
Speaker 1: by those in power but to misuse federal law enforcement
Speaker 1: and in the case of Trump, state law enforcement too,
Speaker 1: to target their political opponents. We saw that with Trump
Speaker 1: and Russia. We're seeing it in many ways with January
Speaker 1: six and we're seeing it, but most recently with the raid.
Speaker 1: On the top of that, you have Democrat district attorneys
Speaker 1: in New York and Georgia, you know, also using the
Speaker 1: powers and trusted to them by the American people or
Speaker 1: their local voters to you know, target Trump and and
Speaker 1: people who support them. So you know, that's you know,
Speaker 1: when when when law enforcement is explicitly turned over, you know,
Speaker 1: brazenly turned over um to political ends. Um, you know
Speaker 1: that way lies the end of the republic. Is it
Speaker 1: worse now than it than it was before? I mean,
Speaker 1: you've covered different administrations. What strikes you about the Biden administration. Well,
Speaker 1: we didn't know what was going on during the abam administration,
Speaker 1: so a lot of the illegal spying, um, you know,
Speaker 1: we secret. And here there's kind of this public embrace
Speaker 1: of politicized law enforcement that I don't think we even
Speaker 1: had in the In the Obama administration, they kind of
Speaker 1: knew it was bad and so they were in public
Speaker 1: about it. And remember the I r S scandal, for instance,
Speaker 1: We didn't know about that until you know, Biden was
Speaker 1: almost to the Obama was almost out of office. The
Speaker 1: same goes during the Trump administration. Uh, you had abuse
Speaker 1: internally by the bureaucracy to target and harass Trump, but
Speaker 1: you're here, you have this endorsement at the highest levels
Speaker 1: of manipulating and abusing the law to target the president's
Speaker 1: putitive campaign opponent. We haven't seen anything like that in
Speaker 1: American history. For instance, the raid on the President's home,
Speaker 1: which was a while abuse of power, and there's simply
Speaker 1: nothing to compare to in terms of frankly, any time
Speaker 1: in American history where you've had a candidate so terribly
Speaker 1: targeted by we're former presidents, so horribly targeted by law
Speaker 1: enforcement um for political ends. Why do you think the
Speaker 1: Biden administration feels so emboldened to to use government as
Speaker 1: a weapon in a way that we haven't seen before.
Speaker 1: You know, what do you think is behind that? Because
Speaker 1: I don't think there's been sufficient accountability for the prior
Speaker 1: abuses of power. So we talked about how the FBI
Speaker 1: was abused, the Justice Department and these other agencies were
Speaker 1: abused to target Trump and no one's been held accountable,
Speaker 1: and to degree anyone's been held accountable by Durham, it's
Speaker 1: you know, basically tertiary figures. And so it was at
Speaker 1: best Durham's investigation and accountability efforts were helpless. So so
Speaker 1: there's no there's no recrimination, there's no accountability. Those who
Speaker 1: get fired even for doing something wrong, you know, are
Speaker 1: fitted by the media, get big contracts and get to
Speaker 1: appear on cable television. So what's so no consequences, they're
Speaker 1: going to just escalate it, and they've escalated it well,
Speaker 1: and I think what's sort of wild about the place
Speaker 1: we are now is we have this you know, sort
Speaker 1: of unholy alliance between big tech and these corporations and government,
Speaker 1: and we've seen that come to had with censorship on
Speaker 1: social media. You know, what kind of stuff have you uncovered?
Speaker 1: And and sort of looking at that unholy alliance and
Speaker 1: how they worked together, Well, we know we've been targeted
Speaker 1: and victimized um and by big tech and our suspicions
Speaker 1: where the government was behind it. There's little doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Uh and now in in recent months, you know, we've
Speaker 1: proven it. We know, for instance, the California Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: I told YouTube they should take down flagged one of
Speaker 1: our videos on election integrity just before election, and YouTube
Speaker 1: took it down. So we just sued the California Secretary
Speaker 1: of States office for that violation our First Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: And you know, you may have seen the just the
Speaker 1: news reports highlighting this left wing consortium of allegedly private entities,
Speaker 1: some of which our government funded, that was working with
Speaker 1: the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department to
Speaker 1: target for censorship and American citizens and and groups and
Speaker 1: media organizations. I was tied for number four on the
Speaker 1: target list and judicial watchers targeted as well. So, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, on top of that, you have Biden, the
Speaker 1: Biden White House explicitly encouraging big tech to quote a
Speaker 1: curtailed disinformation, which means censorship. I've we haven't seen anything
Speaker 1: like this in terms of targeting the First Amendment. You
Speaker 1: have to go back probably just before World War One
Speaker 1: and Woodrow Wilson and company when they were jailing h
Speaker 1: individuals who were criticizing the government's entering into World War
Speaker 1: One and other and other issues. Uh here, uh, this
Speaker 1: is this is a modern day um as. I call
Speaker 1: it the great suppression of speech on the Internet with
Speaker 1: the encouragement of the government, our government, well, you know,
Speaker 1: and and a lot of times these things that they're
Speaker 1: censoring end up being true. I mean, we saw this
Speaker 1: repeatedly during COVID. It you know, people raising and ringing
Speaker 1: the alarm about the coronavirus coming from the Huhan lab,
Speaker 1: which you know, you'd have to be an idiot to
Speaker 1: think it didn't, or raising questions about vaccines, and now
Speaker 1: people are slowly admitting that they might not be as
Speaker 1: safe as we were originally told, and they certainly don't
Speaker 1: stop the spread of COVID. And so, you know, repeatedly
Speaker 1: or lockdowns don't work, masks, you know, it's like repeatedly
Speaker 1: people were censored, you know, for things that we know
Speaker 1: to be true today. But you know, I know that
Speaker 1: you guys have been trying to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of some stuff regarding COVID and vaccines. You know, what
Speaker 1: kind of stuff have you guys been able to uncover
Speaker 1: in that regard? Yeah, you know, I've been doing this
Speaker 1: work for you know, longer than I care to admit
Speaker 1: to a judicial watch, almost coming on twenty five years
Speaker 1: at this point, and you know, I know what it's
Speaker 1: quote allowed and what's not allowed even under this censorship regime,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't matter. If it's inconvenient or it goes
Speaker 1: against the specific political narrative or policy agenda they have,
Speaker 1: they will delete you, they will cancel you, they will
Speaker 1: suppress you, they will vandalize you. Which is I really
Speaker 1: when they label your tweets or your or your statements,
Speaker 1: you know, with warning labels or you know, clarifying links
Speaker 1: to me, is so egregious and um so, so truth
Speaker 1: is no bar for censorship, and uh, this is this
Speaker 1: is the danger we're facing and its justn't you know,
Speaker 1: if you get censorship least or I get censorship, excuse me,
Speaker 1: if you get censorshipped? Is that even a word? What
Speaker 1: if you get it is today? It is today at
Speaker 1: that time, you're good. You're good at is today? So
Speaker 1: I mean, if you were I get censored, obviously it's
Speaker 1: it's terrible for us. But you know, we have a
Speaker 1: lot of followers. People watch what we say and they
Speaker 1: rely on individuals like us to help them figure out
Speaker 1: what's going on and provide them information. So they're censoring
Speaker 1: all of our followers too, and they're censoring all of
Speaker 1: those who view and watch us. So this is a
Speaker 1: this is an egregious violation not only of our rights individually,
Speaker 1: but the rights of countless millions of Americans well. And
Speaker 1: to point what we see is not only the censorship,
Speaker 1: but the smearing as well, which I know you've been
Speaker 1: on the receiving end of this. I have as well.
Speaker 1: You know, you oppose or you have questions about vaccines,
Speaker 1: you're an anti vaxx, or you raise questions about you know,
Speaker 1: maybe Russia didn't sabotage its own pipelines, and you get
Speaker 1: called Pearl Russia, and so you know, it's not just
Speaker 1: the censorship, but it's just the smearing of anyone who
Speaker 1: dares question things. Yeah, it's the swarming you know. Recently
Speaker 1: on Twitter, the uh you know, some media have gone
Speaker 1: after me for defending the rule of law and Trump
Speaker 1: and suggesting that I may have talked to him about
Speaker 1: records that are in dispute now and the left has
Speaker 1: just gone crazy. So, um, it's the swarming attack which
Speaker 1: is designed to try to keep me from continuing to
Speaker 1: post and making it difficult to continue to tell the
Speaker 1: truth on social media. My view is, you know, if
Speaker 1: they were winning on social media, they wouldn't be trying
Speaker 1: to censor us. And that's kind of what the I
Speaker 1: guess the positive side of this is they're losing. And
Speaker 1: when when someone's losing, um, and when the left loses,
Speaker 1: they break the rules. So you know, if they were
Speaker 1: winning the fight for to persuade Americans, they wouldn't be cheating. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, they wouldn't be seeking a suppress parents, questioning,
Speaker 1: you know, curricula at schools. They wouldn't be seeking to
Speaker 1: kick people off of social media platforms. That's because they're losing,
Speaker 1: and so you know, we shouldn't be you know, upset
Speaker 1: in the sense that, oh my gosh, we're gonna lose. No,
Speaker 1: they're they're losing, and these are desperate measures by them,
Speaker 1: but they're dangerous in the sense that you know, they
Speaker 1: couldn't they could end. You know, the American way in
Speaker 1: many ways is whether it be our Constitution or republic
Speaker 1: or just the core idea that people have a right
Speaker 1: to free free expression. Uh and and and it should
Speaker 1: be respected. Click commercial break back with Tom Fitton on
Speaker 1: the other side, you know, now it looks like Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is in fact buying Twitter. What do you make
Speaker 1: of this and what how do you think that will
Speaker 1: reshape some of the conversations we're having in the country. Well,
Speaker 1: it depends if Musk is willing to stand up, and
Speaker 1: I suspect he, you know, his his comments recently have
Speaker 1: suggested he is and demand the right or or protect
Speaker 1: the right for to free expression on his social media
Speaker 1: platform or what soon could be as social media platform. Uh.
Speaker 1: You can bet now though, the Biden administration and the
Speaker 1: left will just attack him. You know, they kind of
Speaker 1: backed off after he came to blows with Twitter over
Speaker 1: the deal. But now that he's about to take over Twitter,
Speaker 1: or so it's been report, did, you can expect them
Speaker 1: to ramp up the attacks. He'll be subject to retaliatory
Speaker 1: investigations by the Biden administration and you know Twitter will well,
Speaker 1: the left will come up with other reasons and excuses, uh,
Speaker 1: to try to tarnish his reputation and punish him for
Speaker 1: defending First Amendment freedoms. No, I think that's probably to
Speaker 1: be expected. You're right, you know, I wanted to kind
Speaker 1: of take through some of the big issues. Obviously, you
Speaker 1: guys worked to sort of uncover information through FO your
Speaker 1: requests and and the whole government accountable. What are you
Speaker 1: guys looking to get to the bottom of with the
Speaker 1: marrow lago raid on President Trump? You know, so this
Speaker 1: is a story on the raid. You know, we had
Speaker 1: sued ten twelve years ago at this point for Clinton records,
Speaker 1: and these were tape recordings that an author had made
Speaker 1: of Clinton being president talking foreign leaders, members of Congress,
Speaker 1: and we found out he kept those tape recordings in
Speaker 1: his soft war that we see the National Archives. We
Speaker 1: took the position that Justice Department's taken, well, these are
Speaker 1: presidential records, shouldn't take go get them? And the Justice
Speaker 1: Department told us no, The Archives told us no, and
Speaker 1: a court told us no. He said that no one
Speaker 1: can second guess the presidential decision to keep records as
Speaker 1: a personal versus presidential And in fact, the Justice Department said,
Speaker 1: by the way, the fact that he has in the
Speaker 1: mafter Heley's office, suggests that their president the presumption is
Speaker 1: that they're personal saloon. Behold we hear you know back
Speaker 1: in February of this year that there was this dispute.
Speaker 1: There was this dispute where the Archives one of these
Speaker 1: records and the president gave him back to him, and like,
Speaker 1: what's going on? This is a hundred and eighty degrees
Speaker 1: the opposite position that the law and the Justice Department
Speaker 1: had taken on these issues. So it was one rule
Speaker 1: for Clinton, another rule for Trump. And so my view,
Speaker 1: they used this as a pretext to go raid his home.
Speaker 1: You know, we can argue about what the reasons were,
Speaker 1: you know, or speculate, you know. I suspect they wanted
Speaker 1: to know what the had, what he had for sure,
Speaker 1: but more so what he had on them. And so
Speaker 1: we've been suing to get access to the records about
Speaker 1: the raid getting and the reason we're in court is
Speaker 1: because the National Archives, which defends the public's right to
Speaker 1: know right and it's trying to vindicate it, doesn't want
Speaker 1: to give us the documents. The same thing goes for
Speaker 1: the Justice Department in the FBI. They're ignoring the request.
Speaker 1: They don't want to give us the documents. And uh
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department I think needs to be held
Speaker 1: accountable here. Why why is it they changed their mind
Speaker 1: to target Trump while protecting Bill Clinton? And why are
Speaker 1: they changing and why were they lying in my view
Speaker 1: to the courts and misleading the courts about what the
Speaker 1: rules were you know, this is this is a straightforward
Speaker 1: analysis of law that we were on the wrong end
Speaker 1: of right that the Justice Department said the president has
Speaker 1: these prerogatives to keep records on of you know, to
Speaker 1: keep records personal. And the course that there's no will
Speaker 1: rate will will RD a second guess this and you know,
Speaker 1: except for Trump, and I'm just tired of the double standards,
Speaker 1: I think we all are, you know, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what we've repeatedly seen as a totally different standard
Speaker 1: for Republicans than Democrats, and and it's infuriating, and so
Speaker 1: I appreciate you getting to the bottom of it. You know,
Speaker 1: I was, I was reading on your site that you
Speaker 1: guys uncovered documents and regard to UM, the Biden administration
Speaker 1: and the Department of Health and Human Services, their media
Speaker 1: plans and the propaganda push surrounding vaccines. Can you talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about what you guys have found out
Speaker 1: with that and then any other things that you guys
Speaker 1: are working on UM in regard to the COVID vaccines,
Speaker 1: We're we have a pretty comprehensive UM investigation and several
Speaker 1: four OHIL lawsuits on that. You know, pretty much everything
Speaker 1: we know about gain of function came out because of
Speaker 1: Judicial Watch litigation. You know, we know FAUCCI knew early
Speaker 1: on that there was a gain of function issue with
Speaker 1: this eco health alliance and the Luhan instant going back years.
Speaker 1: They were worried about it, and to shoot and as
Speaker 1: soon as the vaccine or excuse me, as as soon
Speaker 1: as the COVID the virus hit and and and the
Speaker 1: public health crisis hit, they got worried because they knew
Speaker 1: they had dirty hands with this gain of function research.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that, uh, you know, there's
Speaker 1: there are the concerns about the vaccines and how they
Speaker 1: were how they were approved. We've been investigating that. And
Speaker 1: then you know, we were talking earlier about the censorship
Speaker 1: of anyone who was critical of all of this, including
Speaker 1: the way the vaccines were being pushed. So sure enough,
Speaker 1: we just got this this plan, this propaganda plan. There's
Speaker 1: no other way to describe it, describing a unbelievably comprehensive
Speaker 1: effort to enlist every facet of society to push these vaccines, entertainment, cultural,
Speaker 1: you name it. It's a star wishing. When you look
Speaker 1: through the documents, and I mean my conclusion after reading
Speaker 1: you know, everything they wanted to do, you know, talking
Speaker 1: to producers to target you know, for instance, young people
Speaker 1: on in in TV and get scriptwriters in as unbelievable.
Speaker 1: You have to wonder who wasn't working for the government
Speaker 1: practically as an agent in the entertainment industry after going
Speaker 1: through this, I mean, who who wasn't working with the
Speaker 1: government on this? And why didn't we know about it? Well,
Speaker 1: I say, you know, we weren't because they've targeted us. Uh.
Speaker 1: And you know it also was reading that the COVID
Speaker 1: vaccine had testing facilities in China. Yeah, isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1: Why would they do doing some of these vaccine related
Speaker 1: tests in China? And we had asked for the documents
Speaker 1: initially gave them to us, and they were acted where
Speaker 1: the doc testing was where the testing was being done?
Speaker 1: And we pushed back and they admitted it was in China, Shanghai.
Speaker 1: I wasn't that curious? And you know, the American people
Speaker 1: have a right to know. I mean, the vaccine is
Speaker 1: a big deal, and let's you know that this is
Speaker 1: for people who are supporting the vaccine and people who
Speaker 1: are skeptical about it. No matter how you slice it,
Speaker 1: it's one of the most important medical treatments in the
Speaker 1: history of modern man. And so forgive me if I
Speaker 1: think we have a right to each and every document
Speaker 1: about its safety, efficacy and basically how it came to be.
Speaker 1: And the fact that the government is fighting us tooth
Speaker 1: and nail on it speaks volumes. Well, we've also seen,
Speaker 1: you know, the big Pharma and I think even I
Speaker 1: think it was like the f d A of not
Speaker 1: wanting to really not wanting to be transparent with people
Speaker 1: about wanting to release critical information about safety and a
Speaker 1: variety of other things, and really trying to fight people
Speaker 1: and some of these Foyer requests and information coming to light.
Speaker 1: But but it really does boggle the mind. So you're
Speaker 1: gonna have testing facilities in China, the country that is
Speaker 1: responsible for unleashing COVID on the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: whether intentionally or unintentionally, Well, that's that's true. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know, when you look at what they were doing
Speaker 1: in China, they were doing gain a function research. Frankly,
Speaker 1: all the biological research in China, or much of it
Speaker 1: um was funded by our government. So we were partners
Speaker 1: with them, We knew what they were up to. In fact,
Speaker 1: we were worried about the documents we have. We were
Speaker 1: worried about what they were up to. It was crazy.
Speaker 1: We were essentially spying on them while funding the same
Speaker 1: programs we were spying on. I mean, that's how insane
Speaker 1: it was in China. Of course, all of this is
Speaker 1: out of factory's agencies and I H and I A
Speaker 1: I D. I didn't know this till we received the documents.
Speaker 1: But did you know that the faunci's agency and a
Speaker 1: full time employee working out of the embassy kind of
Speaker 1: trying to monitor all of this, you know, and where
Speaker 1: is she hm? You know, she's providing all these reports
Speaker 1: and they're being told, oh, you know, be careful, be
Speaker 1: sure to send these to us before you share them widely,
Speaker 1: because there's gonna be a lot of people interested in this.
Speaker 1: And this is and I'm talking about the Wuhan Institute.
Speaker 1: I mean, other documents show that the Wuhan Institute's top guy,
Speaker 1: one of the top guys, was asking for disinfectant advice
Speaker 1: from the N I A I D people, how to
Speaker 1: keep the how to keep the lamp get disinfected, you know,
Speaker 1: talk about hair raising requests for help, And how do
Speaker 1: I know this? Went up the chain because he saved
Speaker 1: the email. You know, as you send an old email,
Speaker 1: you use it to kind of follow up on a
Speaker 1: different topic years later. So he said, oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm horrified about COVID. No listen, now, there anything we
Speaker 1: can do for help, And in the email chain he
Speaker 1: attached all of his prior requests for help on keeping
Speaker 1: Wuhan this in effective because they didn't know how to
Speaker 1: do it. It was also it was sent to Faucci
Speaker 1: and company. Crazy stuff. And of course the media isn't
Speaker 1: interested in this. I mean, for all their interest in COVID,
Speaker 1: I mean, they have zero interest in where it came
Speaker 1: from and how it happened and who was involved. And
Speaker 1: you know, my concern is what else is going on
Speaker 1: that we don't know about in this gain of function
Speaker 1: regime That's not only going on here in China. I mean,
Speaker 1: when you find out the documents that we have about
Speaker 1: what's the craziness here in the United States, you'd be like, well,
Speaker 1: forget about wu Ham, what's going on down to Texas?
Speaker 1: What is going down to Texas? Well? You know, this
Speaker 1: gate of function approach is something that has been pushed
Speaker 1: throughout the United States and we have the documents showing
Speaker 1: that that it was happening and people were screwing up,
Speaker 1: you know, because it's you know, labs are run by
Speaker 1: human beings and people drop stuff, you know, prick themselves
Speaker 1: and do things like that. So oh my gosh, it's
Speaker 1: for the grace of God, nothing more serious. Well, I
Speaker 1: couldn't get any more serious than what COVID did to us,
Speaker 1: but it can get worse. Although I don't think we're
Speaker 1: entirely getting the truth of from COVID verse with COVID
Speaker 1: in terms of deaths in the country, I think that
Speaker 1: you know a lot of people who are incentivized to,
Speaker 1: you know, calculate deaths that were with COVID versus from
Speaker 1: COVID for financial um reasons. But but to your point,
Speaker 1: you know, and what I think odd to you know,
Speaker 1: to go back you do. One can one can understand
Speaker 1: that COVID was the impact was My view is the
Speaker 1: impact could have been lessened, although it was significant and severe.
Speaker 1: But of course we had our act together and we
Speaker 1: weren't funding this type of dangerous research. It might have
Speaker 1: been awarded entirely completely, you know. To say that it's
Speaker 1: to say that it's it was it was bad news.
Speaker 1: Wasn't to suggest that, you know that some people were
Speaker 1: ramping it up or hyping it. I see the purposes
Speaker 1: beyond that was that was outrageously inappropriate too, and and
Speaker 1: also dangerous well, and you know to the censorship. I
Speaker 1: had Dr Harvey Rish on for the last episode and
Speaker 1: he was just talking about how I ever met in
Speaker 1: hydros and instead because of financial reasons because their cheap
Speaker 1: generic drugs that was shot down, and Dr Fauci light
Speaker 1: about it, the media light about it, and they all
Speaker 1: clevered up and it could have saved you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of lies. And what I think thought about China
Speaker 1: too is you know, I don't know if we'll ever
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of if it was intentional or
Speaker 1: an unintentional release with someone just making a mistake in
Speaker 1: a lab, which has happened in the past. But what
Speaker 1: is weird is happy or happy accident. Yeah, But like,
Speaker 1: do you remember all those videos that were going around
Speaker 1: on Twitter of like people dropping dead in China? I mean,
Speaker 1: when did that happen elsewhere in the world of people
Speaker 1: just dropping dead in the middle of the streets from
Speaker 1: it and where did those videos come from? I don't
Speaker 1: know we've got to take a real quick break. Stay
Speaker 1: with us. You know, I wanted to ask you too.
Speaker 1: I know that you've worked really hard and uncovering videos
Speaker 1: with January six, you know, and and they tried to
Speaker 1: shield as much information from us as they can and
Speaker 1: as they could. What if you won't cover about January six?
Speaker 1: What should people know that maybe they don't know already? Well,
Speaker 1: the government was well aware that tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: people were likely to send on the capital, and obviously
Speaker 1: the security was lacking. Uh, the government, UMU. We have
Speaker 1: documents about the shooting death of Ashley Dabbitt, the only
Speaker 1: homicide that day, that shows, in my view, there was
Speaker 1: no good reason to shoot her. Uh. The officer, Lieutenant Bird,
Speaker 1: just shot into the crowd. It was completely crazed that
Speaker 1: he did that with no accountability and consequence. And then,
Speaker 1: you know, much of much of what we're doing also
Speaker 1: is out figure out what we don't know and challenging
Speaker 1: Congress to release these records. We've sued in court and
Speaker 1: sued to get access to these congressional records about what
Speaker 1: went on. You know, we know about the fourteen thousand
Speaker 1: hours of videotape, none of which has been released, you know,
Speaker 1: publicly by Congress, at least in the process that we
Speaker 1: think it ought to be held. You know, the process
Speaker 1: that we think about to reply, which is tell us
Speaker 1: what you're turning over, tell us what you're withholding, and
Speaker 1: you know, stop editing stuff. But also there's and people
Speaker 1: don't know this widely, is there's there there's at least
Speaker 1: two d and seventy emails from a January six from
Speaker 1: within the police department there the US Capital. And also
Speaker 1: what we don't know about January six is important because
Speaker 1: it's Congress is hiding the information. We sued Congress to
Speaker 1: get access to those fourteen hours of videos that the
Speaker 1: policy Congress doesn't want to release any of them, you know,
Speaker 1: under the process that we think is appropriate, which is
Speaker 1: give us the videos, don't don't selectively edit them, don't
Speaker 1: hide other videos, and if you hide them, you need
Speaker 1: to justify while you're hiding. The same thing goes for
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy plus emails. They're hiding emails about
Speaker 1: January six. So Pelosi is coming into court, the Commerce
Speaker 1: is coming into court saying we have no right to
Speaker 1: sue their sovereign immunity, and even if we had a
Speaker 1: right because who the records aren't aren't of sufficient public
Speaker 1: interest is to require their release. It's really outrageous. They're
Speaker 1: going out taking the phone records and text messages of
Speaker 1: Americans and leaking them while hiding virtually everything they have
Speaker 1: about January six. That would be very educational, I would
Speaker 1: think for the American people well. And then also just
Speaker 1: using it as a way to target their enemies, you know,
Speaker 1: going after Steve Bannon, going after Jenny Thomas, just you know,
Speaker 1: adding anyone to the list that they can, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: to target. You know, I wanted to ask you, I
Speaker 1: saw someone flew with the idea. I don't remember who
Speaker 1: it was, so I apologiz us for not giving them credit.
Speaker 1: It wasn't me, so I'm not going to take credit
Speaker 1: for someone else's But I saw I saw someone float
Speaker 1: the idea of if when Republicans win back the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate. In the House, they should uh overtake
Speaker 1: the January six investigation and continue it, but start investigating
Speaker 1: the things that Democrats don't want answered. What did Pelosi? No?
Speaker 1: What are they not telling us? What do we need
Speaker 1: to know about what happened to Ashley Babbitt, Why do
Speaker 1: they withhold the video? What video do we not? You know,
Speaker 1: and and try to get into some of those questions
Speaker 1: that you've been raising in this conversation. What do you
Speaker 1: what do you think about that idea? If they're brave
Speaker 1: enough to do that. You know, my experience with the
Speaker 1: Republican leadership, which largely hasn't changed in the last several
Speaker 1: years since they don't like to really do investigations and
Speaker 1: push too hard. But who knows, maybe the public will
Speaker 1: demand it, maybe their voters will demand it. Certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: we would encourage full disclosure. Um, you know, right now
Speaker 1: my understanding is the Republican leadership can release these videos
Speaker 1: what they haven't, so we'll see what their legal position is.
Speaker 1: You know, if I were them, I would recognize there's
Speaker 1: a lot of work to be done in terms of oversight,
Speaker 1: but there has to be demands to get some prosecutions
Speaker 1: and accountability here and um, you know, for instance, fully
Speaker 1: funding the Justice Department and the FBI given their wild
Speaker 1: abuses of power. I mean, how how does that work?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't understand how it would. And certainly
Speaker 1: members of the House who are involved in this one
Speaker 1: six committee. Why should they be trusted to serve on
Speaker 1: any other committee given the abuses they've engaged in currently.
Speaker 1: You know, so there's a lot of opportunity for accountability
Speaker 1: here that you know. I think Speaker McCarthy needs to
Speaker 1: be strongly encouraged to pursue, presuming that he's the speaker
Speaker 1: and the Republicans win. As someone who's covered this stuff
Speaker 1: probably more than anyone, and uncovered more information than probably anyone,
Speaker 1: what kind of oversight would you like to see from
Speaker 1: a Republican led Congress? What areas would you like them
Speaker 1: to tackle, and sort of what advice would you give
Speaker 1: them on on what they should be looking at? Well, ay,
Speaker 1: they should be you know, I know I don't mean
Speaker 1: to be tried here, but they should really be investigating everything.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are so many problems with uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the way COVID was handled. Uh, who was doing what
Speaker 1: in terms of suppressing information about COVID? You know, for instance,
Speaker 1: the vaccines, And you raise the issue about these alternative treatments,
Speaker 1: but who who is making the decision to attacks fellow
Speaker 1: scientists and such who are promoting alternative treatments and refusing
Speaker 1: to even even countenance discussions of them and and seeking
Speaker 1: a suppressed debate with the targeting of Trump and the
Speaker 1: Justice Department mistake, you know, misapplying the law to suggest
Speaker 1: that anyone who disputed the election should be subject to
Speaker 1: criminal grand jury investigations. What's going on there? Uh? You know,
Speaker 1: frankly going back to talk about the intervention of private
Speaker 1: parties in the and the and the elections and what
Speaker 1: the plans were. I mean, you know, the left tries
Speaker 1: tries to pretend that the Republicans we're seeking to overturn democracy,
Speaker 1: when in fact their plans were actually quite specific that
Speaker 1: they were. For instance, John Podesta, who now I believe
Speaker 1: as a Biden White House official, and he was he
Speaker 1: did war gaming and he was playing Joe Biden. This
Speaker 1: was the big left war game because they thought Trump
Speaker 1: was going to try to oppose you know, the elections,
Speaker 1: and their their war game was that if the electors
Speaker 1: were going the wrong way, they should have states threatened succession.
Speaker 1: M boy, I'd like to be I'd like to figure
Speaker 1: out who was who was thinking about that. I mean,
Speaker 1: if that's the new rule, let's do a broad, comprehensive
Speaker 1: investigation of how elections are to be disputed and who
Speaker 1: was planning what in right now it's only been a
Speaker 1: one sided invest instigation, but what's what was the other
Speaker 1: side planning? And of course you have these internal investigations.
Speaker 1: You know what was Adam Schiff up to? Well, they
Speaker 1: dare start investigating members of Congress who are abusing their authority.
Speaker 1: We'll see those are all X. I mean, I'd love
Speaker 1: to find out on all those and also obviously what's
Speaker 1: going on at the southern border um as well, which
Speaker 1: is yes, and plus the invasion. It's just I think
Speaker 1: they can spend ten minutes on that, I would hope. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of problems in front of us. Tom,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you joining the show. Is there anything else
Speaker 1: you'd like to leave us with before we go? You
Speaker 1: guys did such great work. Well, you know, I think
Speaker 1: one thing we need to be looking forward to is
Speaker 1: the attack on election integrity, this debate about January six.
Speaker 1: They don't really care about that anymore. They're in power,
Speaker 1: you know, They're they're just doing what they can in
Speaker 1: my view, not to kind of, you know, make any
Speaker 1: public arguments about January six. It's more to keep people
Speaker 1: from exercising the First Amendment rights to raise to advocate
Speaker 1: for election integrity and suppress political involvement. Generally, that you'll
Speaker 1: be punished if you come out and talk and advocate
Speaker 1: for candidates. I mean, they're suggesting anyone who supports Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't deserve the protection of the law. So you know,
Speaker 1: we have a right to participate in our democracy despite
Speaker 1: what Biden says, and we have to be vigilant and
Speaker 1: protecting that right. Well said, Tom, and I know that
Speaker 1: you are, and we're all going to continue doing that.
Speaker 1: We know there's a lot at stake. In November, Tom
Speaker 1: Fitton Judicial Watch, thanks so much for joining the show.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. Thank you Tomphitton of Judicial Watch.
Speaker 1: They do the great work just covering government corruption through
Speaker 1: FUIA request and really just digging in, so I appreciate
Speaker 1: his time. I appreciate you guys for listening every Monday
Speaker 1: and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. Feel
Speaker 1: free to leave us a review, rate us five stars
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcast. I always like reading those. It means
Speaker 1: a lot when you guys leave me comments. What do
Speaker 1: you think? John Cassio, my producer, for putting the show together.
Speaker 1: Until next time,