Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Judical Watch The Law

Judicial Watch Statement on Special Counsel to Investigate Bidens: Follow up to previous articles

Hits: 20

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Biden family finances:

Attorney General Garland folded today, stopped ignoring DOJ regulations, and finally appointed a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden and (indirectly) President Joe Biden for their corrupt family business dealings.

But appointing U.S. Attorney Weiss as special counsel, a man who tried to unethically slide Hunter’s corrupt plea deal past a federal judge is a sick joke. In fact, Mr. Weiss should be under investigation for his dishonest statements to Congress and his compromised, sweetheart plea deal for Hunter Biden.

Given the powerful and unrefuted testimony before Congress by senior IRS investigators that the criminal investigation of Hunter was obstructed by the Justice Department (when Weiss was nominally running the investigation) in order to protect Joe Biden, Weiss is the last person who should be special counsel.

Congress should speed up and escalate its investigations of Biden’s corruption, as the Justice Department is ethically broken.

In the meantime, Judicial Watch will continue its leadership role in investigating and exposing the worsening Biden corruption crisis through numerous FOIA and other federal and state legal actions.

Think about it. Weiss OBSTRUCTED the IRS criminal investigation to protect the Bidens. And now he’s the Special Council??? — TPR



Judical Watch Child Abuse

Judicial Watch Celebrates Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Hits: 17


The high court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade.

This is a day to celebrate life! The Supreme Court today held that the Constitution of the United States of America does not confer a right to abortion. The high court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade. Credit should be given to President Trump for appointing justices who finally vindicated the rule of law by upholding the Constitution.

“…procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.”

Justice Alito’s opinion is one for the ages and simply holds: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives” and “procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.” The decision affirmed Roe was egregiously wrong and was an abusive exercise of “raw judicial power.” Today’s decision begins to undo Roe’s damage to our nation.

Simply put, abortion ends a human life and is incompatible with a civil, moral society. The lives of unborn human beings must be protected in every state. States should immediately act to protect the lives of unborn human beings. And Congress should also move to protect unborn lives at the federal level. For example, Congress should move to stop, in the least, federal funding for the trafficking of fetal organs harvested from human beings killed by abortion.

The heroic decision comes down shortly after Justice Kavanaugh was almost assassinated as a foreseeable result of this president’s and his leftist allies’ despicable intimidation campaign against the Supreme Court to protect the abortion on demand regime imposed by the Roe court. The criminal leak, illegal protests, and threats didn’t work: Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett held firm for the rule of law and will go down in history for their bravery.

Americans can expect an escalation of the terror campaign by pro-abortionists against the Justices, pro-life centers that help pregnant mothers, and Catholic and other Christian churches that support the right to life. Rather than allowing illegal protests at the homes of Supreme Court Justices and paying little attention to the terror campaign to date, the Biden Justice Department must act to address this crisis now. And state and local law enforcement should also focus on the escalating threats [to] pregnancy centers, pro-life advocates, and churches.

We filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case in support of the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act and overturning Roe v. Wade. The brief argued that the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to protect the federalist system and sovereignty of the states on these matters:

Our Founding Fathers very carefully crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the individual sovereignty of the states. The resulting principles of federalism purposefully guided the jurisprudence of this country for more than 150 years, maintaining fairly clear spheres of federal and state power….

Abortion policy began in the states where the people used the democratic process to voice their moral, religious, and scientific opinions. Roe needlessly wrenched abortion policy from the states and, relying on “penumbras formed by emanations,” seven unelected judges created a brand-new constitutional right to abortion. The response was immediate and lasting and after 48 years, strong opposition to Roe and its progeny remain.


Despite creative judicial legislating, it is crystal clear that abortion does not involve war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce, or taxation. Abortion fits squarely into the states’ sphere of objects that concern the “lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Not being an enumerated power, the Roe Court did not have the authority to overturn the abortion laws of the states.

As a national policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a mess.

In deciding Roe as it did, the court created a legal morass for decades to come. Our brief addresses this fact as another reason for overturning Roe:

Far from creating a national consensus, Roe threw the states into a 48-year contentious legal battle. Even some abortion advocates eschew the injudicious method of federalizing abortion as short-circuiting a naturally evolving jurisprudence under state laws. As federal and state judges attempt to apply this Court’s precedents, a national landscape of inconsistent, inconclusive, and untenable rules have emerged. As a national policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a mess. Stubbornly holding on to unconstitutional precedent will never have a positive outcome. It is time to return abortion policy to the states where it belongs and where the democratic process can effectively work.

Finally, this court completes what its predecessors failed to do in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 874-75 (1992) only 20 years after Roe, fully cast aside that decision. In Casey, the court rejected many of the tenets of Roe, but it failed to take the final step and overturn it. This decision in Dobbs remedies that failure as addressed in our brief:

Less than 20 years after Roe, this Court essentially rejected Roe without overturning Roe and set up a new standard which permitted states to restrict abortion within their borders barring an “undue burden” on women. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 874-75 (1992), another splintered opinion and holding, recognized the states’ interest in protecting prenatal life after viability but fell short of recognizing the preeminence of state power.

The Supreme Court stood strong today in support of the Constitution by overturning Roe. Now states can again extend the protection of law to the precious lives of unborn human beings. Americans will mourn the tens of millions of human beings lost to abortion on demand under the Roe regime. But Americans will soon rejoice for the millions who will live thanks to Roe being thrown into the dustbin of history.

Tell me, people, what riots, protests, and/or attempted assassination or intimation of SCOTUS judges did the conservatives/right stage when Roe was first decided?

I’ll wait. Wake me up if you find anything.


Judical Watch Corruption Crime Politics The Courts

City Under Siege: Staggering New York Crime Wave Roils Politics, Challenges Left

Hits: 26

The NYPD’s new anti-gun units hit the streets last week and not a moment too soon. New York City is in the midst of a staggering crime wave.

Over the past weekend, 29 people were shot in 24 separate incidents, the Daily News reported. According to the latest NYPD statistics, major felonies in the city increased 58% in February 2022, in year over year comparisons to February 2021. Murders rose 10%. Felony assaults rose 22%. Rapes increased 35%. Robberies increased 56%. Hate crimes—largely against Jews and Asian-Americans—surged 189%. Crimes in the transit systems—mainly the subways—were up 73%.

New York is a city under siege. Every day brings a new horror story. A child is assaulted in Times Square. A young woman is stabbed to death in her Chinatown apartment. A senior citizen is hacked to death by a wheelchair-bound transgender two-time convicted murderer. A madman smears feces on a woman’s face in a subway station, is released on bail, and arrested again after hurling a dumbbell through a window. A woman is shoved in front of a subway train and killed. Another woman is attacked with a hammer. A teen is shot to death in front of a Brooklyn high school. A baby is shot in the face in the Bronx. A teenage cashier at a Burger King in Manhattan is shot and killed during a robbery. Two police officers are killed by gunfire in Harlem.

At Judicial Watch, we warned for years that New York was slipping toward a crisis of crime and disorder. The reasons were not difficult to discern. Progressive policy makers were denigrating and defunding the police at every opportunity, dismantling successful policing units, decriminalizing quality-of-life crimes, emptying  jails, and launching a disastrous program of bail reform.

Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York abandoned the successful policing strategy of enforcing quality-of-life laws. This was the “Broken Windows” theory of policing, a key factor in crime reduction during the mayoral tenure of Rudy Giuliani.

“Broken Windows” is a metaphor for urban decline. The building with an unrepaired broken window soon leads to the other windows being broken and more disorderly conduct. A neighborhood where minor offenses go unchallenged soon becomes a breeding ground for more serious criminal activity and, ultimately, violence,” write Giuliani police commissioner William Bratton and George Kelling, the father of Broken Windows theory.

New York decriminalized quality-of-life crimes under de Blasio. Public urination, public drinking, littering, and subway turnstile jumping were no longer illegal. Incidents of harassment, menacing, petty theft, public urination and public intoxication began to increase. That distant tremor in the urban air was the sound of windows breaking.

Meanwhile, progressives rammed through the state legislature in Albany a reform package that eliminated bail for a wide range of offenses—from assault, arson and child abuse to manslaughter, robbery and riot—and removed judicial discretion in holding suspects. The reform legislation took effect January 2020. Many more offenders walked. Some of them were poor first-time offenders on minor crimes who simply could not afford bail and deserved to walk; others were violent personalities or career criminals who did not. Crime rates jumped.

The public backlash was swift. In November 2021, New York elected a new mayor, a former police officer who had campaigned on a platform of public safety, Eric Adams. The new mayor’s plans include a refreshed version of the successful but controversial NYPD anti-crime unit, which was disbanded in 2020 in the midst of social justice protests. The new six-person anti-gun units, launched last week, will aggressively tackle gun crime in New York. About 170 police officers have been deployed so far, focusing on high crime areas, with 300 more to follow.

Adams also is advocating for reform of radical bail laws, tougher gun possession charges for youthful offenders, and a crackdown on transit crime with an increased police presence in the subways .

Initially stunned by the Adams electoral victory, New York’s powerful progressive factions have begun to push back hard on the new mayor. Adams’ appeal to Democratic leaders in Albany for bail reform—largely focused on giving judges more discretion to hold potentially violent offenders—was quickly shot down. Progressive politicians in New York argue that there is not a proven connection between the new bail laws and increased crime; conservatives disagree.

Adams, meanwhile, gained an important ally in the bail reform fight: New York Governor Kathy Hochul. The former lieutenant governor took over after Andrew Cuomo resigned. Last week, she sent the state legislature a “confidential” ten-point public safety plan that backed the Adams proposal to give judges more discretion in setting bail. The plan quickly leaked, infuriating the Left. Perhaps not coincidentally, Hochul will be asking the voters for a full term as governor in November.

Back in New York City, the new NYPD anti-gun teams acted quickly, making a first arrest just two hours into the first patrol—an alleged member of the Bloods crime gang with a loaded 9mm handgun. By the end of the first week, the anti-gun units had arrested thirty more suspects and taken ten illegal guns off the streets.


Judical Watch Corruption COVID Politics

DHS: Agency Created after 9/11 to Protect Transport Investigates 3,800 “Non-Masked Passengers”

Hits: 23

Mask up or else!

The Homeland Security agency created after the 2001 terrorist attacks to protect the nation’s transportation system has been quite busy investigating and fining travelers who do not wear masks to supposedly slow the spread of COVID-19. Since February 2021 when the face mask security directive was implemented to March 2022, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has investigated more than 3,800 cases involving “non-masked passengers,” according to a federal audit. The agency charged with preventing another 9/11 issued more than 2,700 warning notices and over 900 civil penalties against passengers who violated the mask mandate, the probe found. The average fine was $699.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, conducted the audit and issued a report this week with the findings. Because the TSA is responsible for securing the nation’s transportation sector, it issues security directives if threat information, events, or significant vulnerabilities indicate that additional security measures are needed. In this case, surface transportation operators within the U.S. were ordered to implement face mask requirements for passengers and employees because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that multi-person transportation modes potentially increase the risk of spreading COVID-19 because travelers are in close proximity to others in enclosed spaces where physical distancing is not possible.

It appears that the TSA, not exactly known for its competence, was more efficient than ever in cracking down on mask violators. Congressional investigators found that the agency issued the COVID-19 directives in less than a week and “expedited coordination with external stakeholders—other federal agencies and industry—to develop and issue these directives, due to the urgent nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Not everyone was happy. “While selected external stakeholders raised several issues with the security directives, they stated that TSA’s expedited coordination was generally effective,” the GAO writes. Some may wonder if health-related issues fall under the security threats that Congress created the TSA to deal with. Not really, but the TSA claims that the introduction or spread of a communicable disease through the transportation sector is a threat that allows it to exercise its authority as needed, including the authority to issue security directives.

Coinciding with the report highlighting the TSA’s mask policing duties, new research conducted by a European consulting and health group shows travel restrictions failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Even when travel restrictions are implemented immediately after the discovery of a new variant, it only delays infection peaks by a maximum of four days, researchers found. By the time restrictions are issued, the new variant has likely been circulating in communities worldwide, according to the study. “Air travel restrictions do not affect the size of the peak,” researchers write, adding that “introducing air passenger testing does not affect the height of the peak of cases, relative to not having any restrictions in place. This holds even when travel volumes are high.” The study has led the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Airports Council International Europe to call for an end to all COVID restrictions, including mask mandates.

The TSA’s “security directive” for mask use on public transportation and transportation hubs has been extended through April 18. The agency will continue to crack down on violators, issuing warning notices and civil penalty fines against passengers. First-time offenders typically get warning notices and “repeat offenders” get slapped with civil penalties of up to $1,500. Because so many passengers refused to comply with the face mask requirement, last fall the TSA expanded the list of aggravating factors that qualify a violator for a monetary civil penalty to include instances of defiant behavior while refusing to wear a face mask and repeated removal or improper use of a face mask after being instructed to wear one. The agency also increased the penalties, with first-time offenders receiving $500 to $1,000 fines and repeat offenders fines of up to $3,000. The overwhelming majority of mask incidents investigated occurred onboard aircrafts.

As the TSA does an impeccable job chasing non-masked passengers, its lapses in more serious areas come to mind. They include missing guns and bombs during covert exercises known as “red team tests,” TSA agents literally sleeping on the job and STEALING FROM PASSENGERS, the failure to properly screen luggage and a number of other violations that have risked national security. Records obtained by Judicial Watch a few years ago show hundreds of badges that allow agents to access secure areas of airports went missing along with uniforms and other devices used to control entry. Last year a federal audit disclosed that nearly 2 million workers with unescorted access to security restricted areas at airports throughout the U.S. could pose an “insider threat” as the TSA studies how to curb the risk. The agency is supposed to submit a plan to Congress examining the cost and feasibility of enhanced worker screening measures at American airports.



Corruption Crime Judical Watch Politics

What a Surprise: Secret Service Unable to Locate Multiple Years of Hunter Biden Travel Records

Hits: 36

Hunter Biden attends his father Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th President of the United States on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/Pool
By Zachary Stieber for Epoch Times February 26, 2022 Updated: February 27, 2022

The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) says it can’t locate years of records on communications regarding agents guarding Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.

Hunter Biden was a Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009, to July 8, 2014, and traveled extensively during that time, including to Russia, China, and India, a congressional investigation found.

As part of the probe, which is ongoing, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have sought records from the Secret Service in the lawmakers’ roles as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, respectively.

The Secret Service provided 261 heavily redacted pages (pdf) concerning Hunter Biden’s travel, but didn’t provide any records from 2010, 2011, or 2013.

“The USSS’s lack of communications during these years raises questions given that USSS travel records show that Hunter Biden made trips to China and other destinations around the world, including, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Mexico,” Grassley and Johnson wrote in a letter to USSS Director James Murray in January.

Murray responded in a letter dated Feb. 14 that was obtained by The Epoch Times.

He said a search for the records “did not yield communications for the years 2010, 2011, or 2013.”

The USSS and an attorney for Hunter Biden didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Murray said the Secret Service and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, “remain committed to working with Congress to meet its oversight responsibilities and be responsive to requests for information.”

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, told The Epoch Times that it’s “highly improbable” that the USSS lost the records in question.

“I would not be surprised if there was political pressure on the service to withhold the records because it would be politically damaging to President Biden,” Farrell said.

Judicial Watch, one of the most prolific record-seeking nonprofits, has also sought Hunter Biden’s travel records from the Secret Service and obtained some of them through a Freedom of Information Act request. Those records showed the countries and territories that he visited while under the agency’s protection.

The records the senators and Judicial Watch are now seeking would likely shed more light on the younger Biden’s actions during that period of time, according to Farrell.

Both Judicial Watch and Sens. Grassley and Johnson say that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position as vice president to benefit himself personally, even conducting business while on trips with his father.

“Past performance doesn’t always guarantee exact reproduction or the same details, but I think it’s reasonable, given the pattern and practice, that we would see more of the same—lots of instances where Hunter was traveling with his father and essentially leveraging his father’s position as vice president for his own personal business benefit,” Farrell said.

Judicial Watch could file a lawsuit over the records.

Hunter Biden, who’s currently being investigated by a U.S. prosecutor, and Joe Biden have denied any wrongdoing.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in late 2021 that she wouldn’t answer questions about Hunter Biden because he’s “not an employee of the federal government.”


Judical Watch Corruption Crime The Courts

Another Secret Postal Service Program Spies on Citizens by Hacking Cell Phones

Hits: 43

Months after Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for information about a secret program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, more of the agency’s controversial spy mechanisms are being exposed. The newly uncovered tools are sophisticated hacking devices that can breach cell phones and the USPS’s law enforcement arm, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), has utilized them hundreds of times in the last few years, according to a news story that cites USPIS data buried in a lengthy agency report. The questionable surveillance schemes appear to indicate that the government is weaponizing the nation’s postal service to improperly spy on the citizens who fund it.

The social media surveillance program was uncovered early last year by an online news outlet that revealed the USPS has been quietly tracking and collecting the social media posts of Americans, including notes about planned protests. It is known as Internet Covert Operations Program (ICOP). Analysts dig through social media sites searching for “inflammatory” postings, which are shared across government agencies. Civil liberties experts quoted in the story questioned the legal authority of the USPS to monitor social media activity and one asked a logical question: Why would the government depend on the postal service to examine the internet for security reasons? “If the individuals they’re monitoring are carrying out or planning criminal activity that should be the purview of the FBI,” said one civil liberties authority in the piece, adding “if they’re simply engaging in lawfully protected speech, even if it’s odious or objectionable, then monitoring them on that basis raises serious constitutional concerns.”

Judicial Watch quickly launched an investigation, filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the USPS for information relating to ICOP. As the government often does with FOIA requests, it failed to meet the federally mandated deadline for providing the records and Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit in early July. Among the things Judicial Watch asks for in the federal complaint is all records from January 1, 2020 to the present identifying criteria for flagging social media posts as “inflammatory” or otherwise worthy of further scrutiny by other government agencies. It also asks for records relating to ICOP’s database of social media posts, communications between USPIS and FBI or Homeland Security regarding the program and an analysis outlining the authority of the USPIS to monitor, track and collect Americans’ social media posts. Judicial Watch will provide updates as the case evolves.

In the meantime, Judicial Watch is filing a FOIA request with the USPS for information on the devices used by the agency to hack cell phones. The news agency that exposed the alarming operation this week discovered its existence in the USPIS’s 2019 and 2020 annual reports. “Altogether, the records suggest that the USPIS has cracked hundreds of iPhones—generally thought to be one of the most secure commercial phones on the market—as well as other devices,” the article states. The hacking tools are known as Cellebrite and GrayKey and they were used by the agency to extract previously unattainable information from seized mobile devices. In fiscal year 2020, 331 devices were processed and 242 were unlocked and/or extracted, according to information obtained from the USPIS reports. The 2020 document discloses an increase in phone cracking from the previous year.

These clandestine operations within the nation’s postal service should create concern, especially for a troubled agency that has failed miserably to fulfill its mission. The USPS has long been a bastion of mismanagement and frivolous spending that has fleeced American taxpayers out of billions in the last few years alone. In 2021, the USPS reported a net loss of $4.9 billion and in 2020 a net loss of $9.2 billion. One federal audit slammed the USPS for blowing the opportunity to save nearly $22 million had it bothered to maintain its fleet of vehicles more efficiently.

A few years before that the USPS blew hundreds of thousands of dollars on professional sports tickets, booze and fancy meals while it claimed to be crippled by an $8.3 billion deficit. The items were purchased by USPS managers and employees with special charge cards issued to U.S. government agencies. The USPS’s top executives have also been found to receive illegally high salary and compensation packages that should outrage the public. Several years ago, a federal audit found that at least three USPS officers made more than the legal compensation limit for their respective work category while the agency was billions in the red.


Judical Watch Corruption Elections Politics

Pelosi Congress Claims Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court to Keep Secret January 6 Videos and Emails

Hits: 35

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents citizens from suing for their release.

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common law right of access after the Capitol Police refused to provide any records in response to a January 21, 2021, request (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Judicial Watch asks for:

  • Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Executive Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.
  • Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.
  • All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedent that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”

“In ‘the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’” … “[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.”

The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government….” “Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.”

“The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.”

In November 2021, Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.  The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd.

In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.

Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland, and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield “improper activity.”


The laws are for thee, not for me!


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights