Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 19, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:30:22

Live with Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, people, we're live.
	Short notice is not the word for this.
	It's so short, I don't have a video queued up to do the intro.
	I reached out to Tom earlier today.
	I said, Barnes was not available for tonight's stream.
	Just a shot in the dark.
	And then he said yes, but I was not ready for him to say yes, actually.
	And he said yes.
	So we're going to do this because, for those of you who don't know, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
	For those of you who don't know Judicial Watch.
	They've been responsible for making many FOIA requests that get much information that the powers that be don't want to get out to the general public.
	Now, Tom was expecting a Twitter space.
	Me, no likey Twitter.
	I like Twitter spaces, but I like video and I like stream better.
	But all that to say, you're going to see an avatar, a pulsating avatar of Tom for the evening and not Tom's physical face.
	Although, I guess it is his physical face.
	Tom, how you doing?
	You want me to do an avatar of my avatar?
	It'll be meta-avatar.
	Avatar Inception.
	Tom, first of all, thank you very much.
	Sorry for the confusion.
	Sorry for the...
	Oh, you're welcome.
	This is going to be amazing.
	I've been listening to you on Twitter Spaces.
	It's been like a few weeks now.
	As the Earth seems to be, I don't know, imploding on itself, collapsing, or perhaps being reborn.
	We won't do much of the intro, but Tom, for those who don't know who you are, 30,000-foot overview.
	Well, I'm president of Judicial Watch, which is a nonprofit educational foundation based in Washington, D.C. We use the law as best as we're able to uncover what the government's up to.
	We represent whistleblowers.
	We challenge in court government misconduct and abuse.
	You know, and as an educational foundation, we tell people about it every which way we can.
	Judicial Watch, if you could give, like, it's been highly demonized.
	It's quite amazing how it's demonized on the major, you know, the major platforms.
	But how did Judicial Watch get its start?
	And what are you guys working on these days before we get into it?
	Well, you know, it was founded now in 1994, so nearly was that 30 years ago.
	And it was during the Clinton administration where government corruption was a big deal.
	And we started using what is known as the Freedom of Information Act early on and thinking of other interesting legal challenges.
	And FOIA had traditionally been used by the left really to challenge the, I would say, the efforts by the national security establishment to investigate the left.
	So it was usually a tool of the left to try to expose what the deep state was up to under their definition back then.
	And Judicial Watch began to use it on behalf of conservative values.
	We understood that with big government came big corruption and what was promoted as government programs often were just ways of getting someone paid off or interest paid off in a way I don't think most people would enjoy or support.
	So we started during the heat.
	You know, I began working at Judicial Watch during the Clinton impeachment.
	And things haven't really slowed down since.
	So you've been in, I mean, that's a long time.
	The Clinton impeachment is like one of the earliest political memories I have.
	I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
	So you've been in Judicial Watch for darn near the better part of my life.
	And it hasn't slowed down.
	24 years, yeah.
	That's amazing, but crazy.
	It's outrageous.
	It's half of my life, and you've spent half of my life being aware of and digging up the corruption that I have now only, say, discovered within the last six years.
	In the early days, it's gotten worse now, I presume, but what were the biggest scandalous stories that you guys discovered broke through FOIA requests back in the day?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Chinese efforts to take over the government and influence our government through money, personal salacious activity by folks like the sitting president, lies about that activity and the Chinese and foreign influence in our government.
	I mean, there's literal, in terms of the type of corruption, it hasn't changed.
	That's for sure.
	Has it gotten more brazen?
	Has it gotten more prolific?
	Or are we just able to discover it more easily for those who are trying to look for it?
	Well, there's been little check on it or not enough check on it.
	So it's increased.
	I mean, obviously, the Chinese influence operations have not decreased since 1996.
	They've only increased.
	And the money involved is much more significant than it was during the...
	Clinton years.
	So it's gotten worse because even though people are more sensitive about it, but because law enforcement and our federal bureaucracy has really refused to confront it, people go, it's like water flowing downhill.
	There's no impediment.
	It's just going to keep on going.
	And now we sort of...
	Because we're going to get into some of the Chinese influence, the Chinese involvement in modern times, specifically.
	I think it's prevalent in the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, what some are calling the crime syndicate in the White House.
	But historically, what have been the examples, what have been the illustrations of Chinese involvement, Chinese influence, Chinese infiltration?
	We know, you know, Fang Fang and spies infiltrating the government.
	But what were some of the older examples and how they materialized compared to today, actually?
	There's little difference.
	The Chinese, or fronts for the Chinese, started supporting Bill Clinton's candidacies.
	I mean, even prior to his being president, you know, back in the early, you know, late 80s, right?
	And when did he first run?
	96?
	No, yeah, 92. Excuse me.
	So, you had that going on.
	You also had, contemporaneous with that, the Chinese infiltrating, by all accounts, our nuclear labs through partnerships and benefiting from technology as a result.
	You've had folks who were donating to the Clintons.
	Essentially getting money in order to get licenses that they probably shouldn't have had, which resulted in significant missile technology transfers.
	We had Congress being targeted with financial manipulation, and so much so, especially it was in California, they were warning, the FBI was warning members of Congress about this, which has echoes of Fang Fang.
	It's really remarkable how it's, you know, how am I not describing today in some large measure?
	Well, it's actually, have you heard the latest news coming out of Canada as relates to the liberal government being influenced by Chinese money in the 2021 federal elections?
	I hadn't.
	Okay, it's relatively new.
	CSIS, which is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, something along those lines.
	There's basically a report that came out in the Globe and Mail to the effect that Chinese influences were literally either importing dark money into the Canadian federal election, giving money to Chinese Canadians to make donations that they would have otherwise not been able to make.
	In order to influence the election to ensure that Justin Trudeau obtain a minority government and remain in power.
	It's breaking information, but it's scandalous.
	But it's in the wake of Justin Trudeau's massive victory with this commission.
	I'm not sure if you heard about that.
	China obviously has more of an outside influence in Canada because there's a smaller economy.
	Less money goes a longer way.
	In the Canadian political system, and they have a bigger economic footprint there, certainly in the western part of the country.
	So, you know, none of that's surprising.
	If you're not on watch for it, and you're not aware of it, and kind of, you take steps to guard against it, it's hard to explain away as, well, we were just fooled.
	There's really little reason, especially if you're doing foreign nationals, not to put your radar on to make sure the money coming in is legitimate.
	Had you heard about the other element, that Canadian government was training Chinese soldiers on Canadian soil for wintertime combat or wintertime training?
	Well, I hadn't heard that, but that wouldn't surprise me.
	There's a certain logic in all of that.
	You know, the Western approach to China is to ingratiate and integrate ourselves with them in order to protect, you know, to kind of try to ensure that they take Western approaches to national security issues and international issues.
	And I would suspect that would be the least of the objectionable activities places like the U.S. and Canada have engaged in with respect to.
	Being in bed with the Chinese Communist Party and their defense establishment.
	Okay, so Judicial Watch is known for making FOIA requests.
	Just explain the process for those who don't know.
	How do you pick a subject?
	How do you know when there's something to request a FOIA request for?
	And what's the typical procedure, wait time?
	And what do you do when you don't get answers following your requests?
	I was talking about this on my weekly update.
	uh the other day and people would be surprised well how how is it we figure out how to do all this important work well nine times out of ten we read about it in the newspaper now i know no one reads actual newspapers anymore that's my old-fashioned way for saying it but you read something in the newspaper and you say there's got to be more there or it's an obvious corruption scandal and you just have to follow up on it and i can't tell you how often no one follows up on stories that are self-evidently quite And
	under the U.S. law, federal law, I'll just warn you, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my layman's understanding of it.
	There's the Freedom of Information Act.
	It's an open records law that allows individuals to, corporations for virtually anyone, including foreign nationals, I think, to ask for government records about government decisions.
	And the FOIA applies to executive branch agencies.
	Presidential cabinet agencies and such, not the White House proper.
	And if they don't respond within a certain amount of time, you know, those deadlines kind of vary internally, they're not important.
	But the point is, if you don't get an answer, you can sue in federal court.
	And usually that's the only way to kind of get the documents you're looking for.
	Not in a timely way, but at least you get them.
	And the government has to then explain.
	Why it will take as long as it will, and then justify any redactions or exemptions it claims in whole or in part in the documents they produce.
	So, you know, for instance, they can keep out someone's social security number or private home address, or there's national security exemptions.
	But the exemption that they drive a truck through, which is, in my view, often objectionable, is the pre-decisional.
	The deliberative process exemption, which allows them to hold back information that's traded and ideas that are traded back and forth before a final decision is made, because they're afraid it would chill government deliberations.
	Obviously, it's that sort of material that many people would find most interesting.
	Speaking of which, if it's not the biggest, it's one of the most recent, but I think it's arguably the biggest as well as What Judicial Watch has found out about COVID, about all of the documents the government didn't disclose knowledge it had and did not disclose about boosters, about Fauci.
	I mean, this is going to be like the big question, but can you tell us the latest revelations that some people might not be aware of or they want to know what to present to friends and family when friends and family say, you know, go line up for their...
	Fourth or fifth shot.
	What's the latest in terms of what you've gotten from the FOIA requests as relates to Fauci, as relates to COVID pandemic and the government response as a whole?
	Well, you know, this is a perfect example of something that's so important, right?
	COVID and the vaccines that we've been virtually alone in doing FOIA work on.
	It's not to say others haven't tried to get information and aren't getting information.
	But certainly we've been in front of the line and have the most comprehensive investigation.
	And the short answer to that is everything you're worried about is more or less true.
	We were funding gain-of-function research.
	We uncovered that.
	They knew about it going back to 2016.
	They were very nervous, and I mean the Fauci gang.
	They were very nervous about what the Chinese were doing with So much so that Fauci had a woman in China who was his liaison kind of spying on them.
	So they were kind of spying on them while funding them at the same time.
	And on top of that, when it came time to start investigating it, the Chinese dictated the terms of confidentiality in our investigation.
	And then as the process began with the vaccines and such, We uncovered that the vaccines were tested or parts of the vaccine process were tested in China, that a lot of the,
	at least the booster side of it, was a political push, the approvals were the result of political pushes by the White House, and that the science or the data supporting booster maintenance or booster Pushing the boosters wasn't backed up by the data.
	So a lot of big issues out there.
	And it's just extraordinary how little the media has covered this.
	Well, let's start with number one, which was Anthony Fauci got in front of Congress once upon a time and said, we do not engage in gain-of-function research.
	And the demonstrable contradiction of that affirmation was, and you'll explain to me if I'm getting the mechanism right, is that they in fact did participate in gain-of-function research, but it wasn't them.
	It was funded through this third-party NGO.
	Oh yeah, but that was a distinction the media would like to give you, but the NGO EcoHealth Alliance was a creature of...
	NIAID, NIH.
	The monies were spent by the taxpayer through that nonprofit.
	And as I said, back in 2016, they were upset with EcoHealth because it looked like they were engaging in gain-of-function research.
	And as soon as the coronavirus hit and COVID hit, as we know separately, They internally began to investigate gain-of-function's ties to it.
	Because if this virus was man-made, it was the result of U.S. funding.
	I mean, that's what gain-of-function's about.
	Because that technique was funded, and the expertise came through a partnership with the United States, not only in that Wuhan lab.
	But when you look at the documents, you'll see that the funding of Chinese biological research was comprehensive throughout China, not just at secure weapons, you know, level four labs, but less secure labs as well.
	And, you know, the other angle of that is it's going on here in the United States.
	So I fear when it comes to gain of function, you know, the rules aren't being enforced.
	It's being...
	It's described so narrowly as to allow gain-of-function research to go on outside the alleged prohibition and structures to keep it from getting out of control.
	It's a terribly risky thing that's happening, this type of scientific research, because the consequence of it, for instance, COVID, if it's indeed an engineered virus, you can see what the consequences are.
	Well, it's an if.
	If indeed it's a man-made or man-tinkered with virus, it comes from U.S. taxpayer dollars, do we not know enough to pretty much definitively conclude that it had man intervention in it, it came from the lab in China, partially funded through this third-party NGO, which is nothing but a disguised branch of the NIH or NAID, whatever the acronym is, and that after all that was discovered, Then Fauci recoils on the fact that it wasn't gain-of-function.
	I've got a paper here signed by 12 other people that say what that was was not gain-of-function.
	Are we not able to definitively say now that this was the result of American taxpayer dollars contributing to gain-of-function research that unleashed a pandemic from China that devastated the world?
	Well, I don't profess to be aware of all the signs that would help us ascertain that.
	I do know it's enormously difficult to ascertain that without the full cooperation of the Chinese communists, which have simply refused to cooperate.
	So, you know, how do we analyze the refusal to cooperate?
	Well, you assume they have something to hide.
	And something to hide is that there was an engineered virus that got out.
	And I don't know whether it got out on purpose or not.
	Because once you start hiding things, there's no reason to presume innocence on any aspect of this.
	And we knew the Chinese weren't cooperating, yet we downplayed that.
	I know some of our earlier documents showed that WHO was working with Fauci and company to put out a big press release praising all the...
	All the efforts of the various countries in combating this issue.
	And they said, you know, and they went out of their way and they noted that Fauci, please pay particular attention to the special praise we're heaping on China here.
	And he said, noted.
	You know, so this was about protecting China, but also about protecting the reputations of people like Fauci who funded this research that...
	Whether or not it was tied to COVID is something that no one would ever prove, in my view, knowingly, given the risk involved.
	And for those who just don't understand what gate of function is, it's essentially taking a virus that isn't terribly harmful to humans, or maybe harmful to humans, and making it even more harmful and more contagious, potentially.
	Or a virus that's not communicable to humans and animals, and then finding a way to tinker to make it communicable from...
	Non-mammals or non-humans to humans.
	Okay, the question that I was just about to ask was, oh yeah, The Lancet, early on saying, even asking the question if it comes from a lab in China is racist, hinders our ability to respond to this crisis and only causes problems.
	When you get a slew of these documents coming from a request, first of all, how many people at Judicial Watch are there to look through this?
	Because I presume You, as an individual, cannot possibly go through the documentation that you ultimately receive in any given issue.
	So what's the team like at Judicial Watch?
	Well, we have a big team.
	You know, as documents come in, they come in in batches, so they're usually pretty manageable.
	The government told us they could only give us 500 pages a month because Fauci personally and his team had to sign off on the records to make sure they wouldn't interfere with the superheroic efforts to save the country from COVID.
	So they were only going through 500 pages a month, and of that, only portions were released to Judicial Watch.
	So it's manageable.
	So a few people would look at them, and I could look at most of them as well as we put them out there.
	And the nice thing about what we do is, unlike the media who get document leaks and they say, well, according to people who saw the documents, this is what they say.
	You know, you can take my analysis for what it's worth, but, you know, in the end, you can go and look at the documents directly.
	So we put out all the documents as we get them.
	You know, we try to highlight for folks what we think are important about them, but in the end, individuals can look at them themselves and sometimes find additional information that we may have overlooked or they think is important too.
	And I'm not going to ignore the other issues which Judicial Watch is doing amazing work in, but I think the pandemic, and we're going to move into Hunter Biden and the Twitter files in a second, but from what you've gotten, so whether or not it's definitively tied to gain-of-function research, that connection has been made as a result of your work.
	Well, you know, it wasn't just us concerned about it.
	You know, we uncovered documents.
	I thought this would be a big headline, but evidently the media doesn't care when the FBI does certain things like they'd rather avoid talking about, which is the FBI began looking into this issue in March of 2020.
	And I don't know what happened with that investigation.
	So isn't that big news to you, that the FBI was investigating Game of Fun Church?
	Fauci's agency?
	Well, you know, it's massive.
	And someone has a touch the riot, has a question which says, you know, Viva question for Fitton, what can be done to hold Fauci and Pfizer accountable?
	They did it for the data, like Mengele re-Nuremberg code.
	I mean, Tom, I know you're not a lawyer, so I won't ask you that question, and Barnes and I will talk.
	Yeah, it's interesting.
	It's interesting how there hasn't been any form of meaningful, as far above and beyond congressional hearings.
	Don't go very far.
	Criminal hearings.
	So what was the revelation about the FBI looking into Fauci, but not internationally?
	Or were they looking internationally as well into the origin?
	Well, who knows?
	You know, and that kind of leads to, I think, an answer to the question, which is that I think there's fraud involved here.
	So they're telling us there's no gain of function, and their own regulations and the agencies prohibited funding for gain of function.
	Yet it was happening, and folks didn't want to talk about it or covered it up.
	And that's where crimes potentially may have occurred, in addition to, you know, potential perjury by Fauci in denying that gate of function was funded.
	So, you know, that's one way to get accountability.
	The other way to get accountability is through what Judicial Watch does, which is just get the information out so that history at least will record what went on.
	You know, unless there's punishment, and to be clear, for those who engaged in this, you know, this dangerous type of, I would say, this reckless behavior that shows contempt for the people's right to govern themselves, because these are bureaucrats just doing this on their own with virtually little oversight from elected representatives.
	You know, and frankly...
	I would decimate those agencies in terms of their ability to give money out like this and add more political appointees to them to the degree they're still around to make them more responsive to Congress and to the president.
	Because right now, the one thing we should at least all agree upon, no more Fauci's.
	No one with that type of power and influence in a Republican form of government.
	That's for sure.
	And people don't really appreciate the extent of Fauci, because even those who know that they hate him and think he's potentially a criminal against humanity for COVID, a lot of people don't know about his role in the AIDS epidemic 40 years ago.
	And the exact same tactics, methods, and pressure tactics and discrediting of dissenting scientists was done then.
	It's like the HIV epidemic 2.0, and Fauci was there then.
	Doing the same thing, controlling the purse strings of funding money, discrediting scientists who would dare question the science that is Fauci.
	And nothing has changed over 40 years, and he did it again here.
	So gain-of-function research funding indirectly, but directly through third-party NGOs, but branches of the NIH.
	What was the latest that Judicial Watch uncovered about the boosters?
	The insanity or the arbitrariness of the timelines.
	I'm not sure if it was Judicial Watch that broke the Moderna withholding data, but what's the latest that Judicial Watch has uncovered on boosters?
	Oh, yeah.
	So some of the folks thought the vaccines as originally created were okay enough to continue providing some level of protection.
	So these weren't folks who were anti-vax in the agencies.
	These were folks who thought the boosters weren't needed.
	And they had these deadlines that, according to the documents we uncovered, I'd have to spend too much time finding it online before, but your listeners can pull them up as I'm talking, that the White House was imposing deadlines that made no sense.
	And sure enough, the White House deadlines were the ones that seemed to govern, as opposed to the deadlines that arise as a result of a careful evaluation of the data and guidance.
	So, you know, and more recently, we uncovered that, you know, there was a secret agreement, evidently, because it's still secret since we don't know what it is, about something having to do with adverse events related to the vaccines between the United Kingdom and the United States.
	There were these emails we just uncovered showing they were trading information, the UK and the US was, our agency here and the UK's, you know, counterpart.
	About anaphylaxis, which is a...
	Systemic allergic reaction.
	A really bad allergic reaction.
	You know, potentially deadly one.
	And they were talking about trading the information and both of them said, now we have to be very careful about the confidentiality agreement we have.
	So what does that mean?
	What the heck does that mean?
	I mean, A, they've got this...
	Secret concern that we're only finding out about as a result of a federal lawsuit.
	And then secondly, you know, details about some of the adverse events are being governed by a confidentiality agreement.
	You know, what's being kept secret?
	Is it just personal data about patients?
	Is it something more substantial?
	You know, that's what we're going to want the answers to.
	All right.
	I think people are going to get very angry listening to this because it's just one thing after another.
	The scope of these scandals are mind-blowing.
	That's the latest on COVID.
	I guess that's the latest that you guys are involved with on the Judicial Watch and on COVID.
	What are the other big projects you're working on?
	Are you working on...
	Sorry, I'm blanking.
	Are you working on the Hunter Biden laptop stuff?
	Are there any requests for information there?
	Because that I imagine...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	I would say that there might be the Chinese infiltration connection there as well, where when some people had accused Trump of foreign nations having dirt on their families so they could extort or coerce...
	policy or other political decisions.
	It seems that if anybody had such dirt on any political family, it would be Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, which might explain some of the political decisions as of late.
	Oh, sure.
	I mean, Biden, as I say, is the worst, is the most corrupt president since he was vice president.
	He is involved, in my view, the evidence is, in a racketeering operation with his family.
	It certainly was going on during his vice presidency, and then he tried to hide his involvement during his post-vose vice presidency during the Trump administration.
	And, you know, we're asking everything that can be asked about this.
	He sued the State Department for records about Hunter Biden.
	What are they talking about?
	What I think is very interesting, I'll tell you this, David, because we had gotten documents, I guess it's almost two years ago, showing the Obama State Department was very much concerned about Hunter and what he was doing in Burisma and how it was impacting policy.
	In fact, Biden went to Ukraine again just shortly before Trump came into office.
	And two of the folks who were involved in trying to...
	Attack and impeach Trump.
	Ambassador Yovanovitch and I forget the name of the other official.
	They all were monitoring.
	The ambassador was getting an email from her colleague saying the Russians are trolling us in their media about their anti-corruption stance in Ukraine because of Biden's Burisma connections.
	And this is the quote, Burisma is a gift that keeps on giving.
	So here we got evidence that our work on anti-corruption in Ukraine was being hampered by Biden's corruption, and the Russians knew it, what he was up to.
	But what I think is interesting is we don't have much in the way of documents about what they were doing in China.
	And I know that Judicial Watch had separately uncovered that Biden took his son on Air Force Two at least five times to China.
	We know at least one of those times a business was discussed with Joe and Hunter's business partners, Chinese business partners.
	There's at least one meeting.
	But we haven't got much in the way of documents otherwise about State Department reactions to that activity and the sort of things that would normally pop up.
	And we've been suing and they've been fighting us on terms of disclosures for quite some time now.
	What would be any rational explanation, trying to steal many, you know, I think it was Nancy Pelosi who took her son on an international trip and she said he was chaperoning her.
	What would be any rational explanation for which Hunter Biden, setting aside all of the personal issues, but maybe we have to factor those in, what would be any rational explanation for which he would be traveling with Joe Biden?
	To go to China.
	On Air Force 2, which I guess means he's there as some government personnel.
	Well, we know what the answer to that is.
	The rational explanation is he was there for business interests.
	He wasn't a governmental.
	He wasn't traveling as a spouse.
	Sometimes you have a family member that travels.
	As a spouse, you know, takes the role as the spouse in such a political event.
	So it wasn't like he was representing the United States, you know, working with his father.
	He was there to do business.
	And it's, you know, and to me, you know, it has to inform our analysis of what went on over the last three weeks.
	All of this has to inform.
	Our analysis of the Ukraine war.
	Biden being compromised as a result of what Hunter and his brothers and what he was doing, not only in Russia, but in Ukraine and in China.
	And that isn't everywhere that they were involved in either.
	It's almost like so old as far as news goes that people have forgotten about it.
	The infamous...
	This video of Joe on stage bragging about how he ordered aid to be withheld unless a certain special prosecutor were fired.
	And six hours later, that guy's fired, they get the aid.
	Can you recontextualize that for everybody so that we can then contextualize that with the current war in Ukraine?
	And when you say, like, we have to understand what the U.S. and the Bidens are up to in Ukraine so we can understand that?
	I mean, can you...
	Recreate that original situation so people can understand if they've forgotten that statement?
	Well, there are two things, I think, that arise from what happened there and kind of the Ukraine issue.
	Remember, Joe Biden, his son, is alleged to receive money from the Russians directly through the widow of an oligarch, the former mayor of Moscow.
	Burisma was a Russia-leaning company.
	And as I noted earlier, the Russians knew that we were on the take because they literally were part of that operation.
	So when they look at Ukraine, what do they see?
	And if Putin's making his calculations, what are the calculations he would make?
	Does it mean he invaded Ukraine because Biden's been on the take from the Russians?
	No.
	Is it a contributing factor?
	I dare say yes.
	And when he looks at the Ukrainian government acting as a pawn of the United States, He probably thinks he's probably even more motivated to do whatever he wants to do because he doesn't take the country as seriously as he ought to.
	So those are the factors, I think, that cause our national security to be harmed and helped create the conditions for a war.
	When it comes to Ukraine and the money laundering, what some people just consider a money laundering scheme, the latest revelations or the latest scandal was that apparently there's, above and beyond the NBC, CBS, whichever report it was that said something like 30% of all aid, which includes weapons, makes this way to the end line.
	Apparently there was so much corruption within the Zelensky government that they had to recently expel or take care of corruption within their own government.
	I mean, that literally means that The Ukrainian government, in its corruption, are finding ways to siphon off or appropriate funds that are being sent to Ukraine to finance this proxy war.
	Yeah, I mean, that should not be surprising anyone.
	We can't control corruption in our own country when you look at the numbers and the billions of dollars that were misspent in COVID-19.
	Why would we think that a country getting direct payments to, quote, pay their government workers?
	Is a country like Ukraine going to be any more reliable vehicle for spending our money?
	At least with guns and bullets, they're a little easier to track since they're things you can put your hands on.
	But the distribution of cash is something that should be avoided whenever we can.
	Okay, so we all know it.
	We say the words.
	Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma.
	No expertise in energy companies, no linguistic expertise, being paid $50,000 a month.
	Burisma, as you're explaining, is a Russian-leaning...
	What does that mean exactly, a Russian-leaning company?
	It means they're open to doing business with Russia, so Russia has...
	Yeah, they were friendly with the Russians.
	I mean, in Ukraine, you were on the Ukraine side of the ledger, or you were on the Russia side of the ledger.
	Burisma...
	Probably tried to play it both ways, but they were known, my understanding is, as being on the Russia side of the ledger.
	And they were essentially a vehicle for the Russians to get energy into Ukraine and further.
	So, you know, without overstating it, the point is, it doesn't matter.
	Hunter was put on the board of directors of a foreign company to, you know, leverage that position.
	It looks like, as you highlight, to keep...
	The government off their backs with the help of the U.S. government.
	And the rationale is then...
	And Trump threw the whistle on it and they tried to impeach for it.
	The amazing thing, it's just the...
	I think it's James Lindsay who has the iron law of woke projection.
	They accuse you of doing what they're doing.
	What they attempted to impeach Trump for was literally and verbatim.
	What Biden actually did, although he wasn't president when he did it.
	And so it's an interesting idea that your thought and the idea is that Russia feels empowered to engage in aggression because they have the dirt effectively on the Biden regime, which is corruptly engaging in activities in Ukraine.
	And what are they going to do about it?
	We have the dirt on them.
	Where do things stand now for outstanding FOIA requests that you might be making?
	We have thousands of FOIA requests.
	Everything your listeners are interested in investigating, we're investigating.
	Generally, topic-wise, it's elections, it's immigration, it's Biden corruption, it's critical race theory of both investigating FOIAs, defending those being victimized by it.
	Challenging racist and segregationist activities by the government, which the left has embraced recently.
	The issue of the Biden corruption is still a big one.
	And the targeting of Trump hasn't stopped.
	So we've got many lawsuits on that as well.
	At the risk of asking the question that's going to get me in trouble on YouTube because we're still there now.
	Wikipedia, Mr. Fitton, regards you as...
	I think there's a whole section dedicated to you having...
	The number three spreader of election disinformation.
	What did Judicial Watch uncover as relates to the elections?
	I'll just ask the broad question.
	What's your opinion on the elections of 2020 in particular?
	Yeah, well, Wikipedia is a tool of the left.
	It's a joke, by the way.
	The communists write my bios.
	It's funny.
	And they're obsessed with the fact that I'm skeptical of their climate scams as well.
	That's the one that pisses them off the most, from what I can tell.
	And by the way, I don't quote Wikipedia as an authority.
	I quote it as something to laugh at.
	I hear you.
	I hear you.
	Well, so Judicial Watch has been doing elections since, you know, I was in...
	Florida, my colleagues, counting ballots and examining what was going on in Florida in 2000, during that election.
	And we saw that there was something sketchy going on.
	Bush ultimately won, but I think there were challenges to the rule of law there in terms of potential fraud.
	2020 happened, and many, many Americans are suspicious about the way it happened.
	I'm trying to avoid you getting taken down from YouTube here.
	But the fact is that President Trump had the votes to win on Election Day, and he ultimately lost as the result of unprecedented counting of ballots that took place for days and weeks afterwards.
	And that's the controversy.
	In my view, in a nutshell, whether that was appropriate or not, it doesn't mean that Biden isn't the president and all of that.
	But on top of that, even beyond the election, the controversy of the process, we now have evidence that there was attempted election interference, and people will argue about whether it was successful,
	but there's no doubt it was election interference, with the With the FBI and virtually every agency of government at the time, and even though it was the Trump administration, they were all anti-Trump in terms of what their goal was, to suppress information about a candidate, Joe Biden, and to suppress the account of another candidate, President Trump.
	And that's just about as blatant interference as you can get.
	And it's all been exposed in the Twitter files.
	You know, people say, well, that's just your opinion.
	I was like, well, that's actually an admission by Twitter.
	You know, Musk agrees with that analysis.
	And so, you know, that's the truth about what happened in 2020.
	It's an amazing thing that people have already forgotten about that Time article magazine, which described a secret cabal of well-funded people who worked behind the scenes to change the laws, change the rules, control the flow of information.
	Time magazine, as far as I'm concerned, described the very fraud that we all agree with.
	So they described it eloquently, and they described it in an attempt to normalize it and legalize it.
	So we're seeing that because it comes full circle right back to the latest Twitter files, which is FBI and intelligence engaging with social media or even compelling, coercing, pressuring social media to interfere with elections by suppressing true information that they knew was true, hence the controlling the free flow of information as described in the Time article magazine.
	Tom, is that not the most insidious?
	Oh, well, you know, it's the worst corruption scandal since the last corruption scandal, right?
	It just seems to just increase in size and scope each time we hear about it.
	And is it worse than the targeting of Trump by the deep state and the seditious attacks on Trump's administration?
	Using fake stories about Russia?
	I don't know, you know.
	But there's no doubt that there was this effort by the left to suppress criticism of the changes to the law.
	And it was, you know, I saw it real time on Twitter.
	I mean, Judicial Watch has been doing this work for well over 20 years.
	We've testified to Congress.
	I've testified to Congress.
	We've had groundbreaking election litigation in the courts to clean up the rolls.
	We have former attorneys from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department who worked on election integrity cases.
	So it's not like we don't know what we're talking about, yet the bureaucrats at Twitter were censoring us at the behest of the left, and it looks like now the government.
	And we know it happened, for instance, in...
	California, I mean, California, the Secretary of State's office got them to take down a YouTube video featuring me for Judicial Watch talking about election issues.
	And we sued.
	We filed a civil rights lawsuit, a federal civil rights lawsuit, over that state agency's interference and suppression of our First Amendment free owners.
	Dare I ask the naive question, where did it go or did it go nowhere?
	It's still litigation.
	I don't think it's been...
	I don't even think it's gotten...
	I mean, I think it's motions to dismiss probably are still pending.
	I'm just guessing the way this litigation order really goes.
	So nothing's happened dramatically to either move it forward or end it.
	And not to be cynical, I'm just...
	Not only would I not hold my breath, I'd bet against you even though I think...
	I think you're right.
	We're looking at the Twitter files now, and people who don't stop to think for a second are saying, it's a private enterprise.
	They said it before.
	It's a private company.
	They can do what they want.
	And they said it then.
	They had already made up their minds.
	Now the information comes out that this private company has ex-counsel from the FBI now working as executives on the company.
	Tom, how many agents did they have working with Twitter in the Twitter file?
	Oh, countless, countless.
	Yeah, 80, at least two offices worth, and the involvement of the leadership.
	And weekly meetings, backdoor portals, but the same people who said before this information came out, it's a private company, they can do what they want, have to reaffirm that conclusion to preserve their ego and sense of intelligence.
	They say, okay, so they're meeting with them.
	The FBI wasn't coercing them to do anything.
	They just sit down with Zuckerberg and say, This is a nice social media platform you have here.
	Watch out for some Russia misinformation.
	But I need to refresh everybody's memory because you brought it back.
	You're like, yeah, the biggest scandal.
	Is it bigger than the FBI falsifying information to obtain secret spy warrants, secret FISA warrants, to spy on Carter Page so they can one step to Trump?
	While, you know, in his first year of office, to concoct a fabricated story of Russia collusion to undermine the first three years of his presidency, I may have thought it at the time, but I certainly didn't say it.
	This was a non-violent, but it's still pretty violent coup.
	And how much more corrupt can anything get than that?
	You're right.
	Hunter Biden, FBI now coming in again and saying, Russia disinformation, this Hunter Biden laptop story bears all the hallmarks of Russia disinformation.
	Don't publish it.
	They don't publish it.
	They censor it.
	Nobody forced them to do it.
	It interfered with an election.
	Tom, how do you keep going without thinking it's never going to change?
	People are too stupid.
	People are too lazy.
	People think so long as they remain friends with the corruption, it will never come back to get them.
	How do you motivate yourself to keep pushing forward with this?
	Well, you know, the thing is, are we doing what we can do to combat these issues?
	A, are we going to expose them?
	You know, suing to get some accountability where we can?
	And the answer is yes.
	So it's not like, you know, you give up and move away.
	There's nowhere you can go.
	You know, you've got to defend the rule of law.
	You know, and the challenge is for, you know, other government officials who know better and don't want to do much about it is, are they doing everything they can do?
	That's the challenge for the new Republican Congress, right?
	Are they going to do everything they can do?
	It's a challenge for the Justice Department and the FBI.
	Frankly, they ought to be the target of criminal investigations rather than conducting them.
	And if they're not doing what they can do, that's where the problem is.
	And I go to sleep easy at night knowing that Judicial Watch is really second to none in trying to get some accountability for this attack on our Republican form of government.
	And we're, in my view, this goes beyond even the issues we're talking about.
	We're in a revolutionary period where the left is, you know, the veil has been lifted by the left.
	The hardcore left has taken over the, I would say, the key structures of government and we're attacking them, trying to destroy them.
	And so this is a question about whether our country is going to survive this as we know it, or are we going to lose the republic?
	I don't want to ask the cataclysmic question, but I ask myself this question as well.
	I'm from Canada.
	I see Canada going past the point of no return.
	The U.S. looks like the last bastion of freedom, at least in certain states.
	If it goes cataclysmic in the states, what does that future look like to you?
	What does the breakdown of the republic as we now know it look like post-breakdown?
	You'll see increasing jailing and targeting of people based on their political beliefs.
	I mean, that's usually the difference between us and the bad guys, right?
	You go to jail if you're a dissenter.
	And we're seeing that that's the case these days, that they're using the Justice Department and state agencies where they can to jail those involved in First Amendment protected speech, not because they're doing anything illegal.
	But because they were doing things that were politically inconvenient to those in power.
	And we see that.
	That's what's happening with virtually everything tied to the elections.
	And all the talk about the elections is about ensuring people don't react or don't fight back when they see election issues in the future.
	Okay, so look, the big issues, you got COVID.
	COVID funded through third parties, geez, I forgot the word now, gain-of-function, lying to the public about the need for boosters, about the efficacy that we now know.
	You got Hunter Biden laptop, you got Russiagate, and you've got the CRT issues, but the biggest issue...
	Being the incident in Loudoun County about potentially hiding sexual assault committed by a transgender student that nobody wanted to go public, make public because it would be too politically toxic and compromising.
	Are you involved in any FOIA requests as relates to the Loudoun incident in particular?
	But where are you standing now with CRT at large and what are the biggest targets for your FOIA requests as relates to CRT?
	Oh, yes.
	So we've been tracking the Loudoun very closely, the Loudoun County, Virginia case, closely working with parents out there as well.
	And so sometimes we do the work directly.
	Other times we just work with parents who need some of our expertise or informal advice.
	But CRT is the pandemic we need to be concerned about.
	It's repackaged Marxism.
	It's the guiding force, the guiding policy for everything the Biden administration.
	And I say critical race theory.
	Generally speaking, it's just critical theory.
	It's this idea that you use individual characteristics as a way to segregate and separate and use as a basis to attack those that the Marxists typically would attack in order to get their revolution.
	And it's going on in our schools.
	It's going on in our military.
	As I said, the Biden administration is obsessed with it.
	And, for instance, I've got two examples of some of the work we've been doing to kind of show you just how far off the left has gotten off of, you know, what used to be their respect for anti-discrimination laws and adherence to it was in California.
	They had mandates for boards of directors.
	Requiring certain numbers of women and ethnicities and, you know, based on race and then, you know, LGBT status and things like that, those quotas be mandated for private boards of directors.
	And we sued, saying that's an outright violation of the California state constitution, obviously the federal constitution, and we won two cases in California.
	In Michigan, there's a union contract law.
	A union contract they signed in Minneapolis with the union.
	And normally in contracts like that, if there are layoffs, there's usually a seniority, right?
	As long as you've been there, the least likely you are to be laid off.
	Well, they put an exception there in that contract, which is if you're a minority, you get protected from layoffs.
	So a white person who's more senior, Is more likely to be fired than a less junior minority.
	Brazing violation of federal and state and constitutional law.
	And so we've sued that, and the judge initially said, well, that may actually save us some money, so I'm going to let it slide for now.
	That's the craziness in which we're in right now, where you have this, in one case, a judicial embrace, but certainly the government's You know, left-wing control governments have completely jettisoned any support for laws against racial discrimination.
	I was actually going to ask you the definition of CRT because one of the biggest talking points from the side that said CRT doesn't exist.
	Okay, but it does exist, but we're not teaching it.
	Okay, we're teaching it, but it's not CRT.
	And you can't define what CRT is.
	If I ask for a quick definition so I can snip and clip it to the social medias, Tom, you may have already touched on it, but define CRT for the world once and for all.
	Critical race theory essentially presumes that Western civilization has been compromised by racism in all of its structures, in all of its...
	You know, all of its architecture, whether it be government, culture, education, and nothing's been protected.
	And whether or not you're black or white, you participate in that supremacy.
	Unless, of course, you've been blessed with special knowledge about critical race theory that allows you to see through this veil and understand for those of us who are stupid.
	That, oh, no, you're all part of this racist conspiracy, and only we can lead you out of it.
	And that means, and people laugh and mocked when the left said that those officers in Tennessee, you know, those black officers who beat up that black suspect.
	They said that that was part of white supremacy.
	And, you know, people laugh at that, but not for the Marxist left.
	I mean, that's perfectly logical.
	Because you can be part of the system, despite the system, you know, despite seemingly being someone who would be antagonistic or supportive of the critical race theory approach.
	Unless you've had your consciousness raised, right?
	You've gone through the struggle sessions or the re-education camps or training.
	No matter your race, you are part of the system.
	Under critical race theory.
	And of course, you've got the queer theory cousin of that and other Marxist variations of it.
	But it's all part of the same.
	It's just mechanism.
	I don't know if that's a brief summary, but that's my general understanding of it.
	And they're teaching it.
	You know, we just came up with some materials.
	Again, this is something I read in the Washington Post.
	The D.C. public schools are revamping their social studies curriculum to impose critical and queer studies theory, queer theory, on everyone from kindergartners to high schoolers.
	That's in kindergarten.
	And in Florida, when the objection is to certain queer theory being taught as part of Black History Month, it then allows the absolute disingenuous and dishonest purveyors of disinformation and the adherence to it to say, you know, the bill said don't say gay when it had nothing to do with not saying gay.
	They say this one is about blocking Black History Month from Florida schools.
	And I remember seeing a flowchart at one point which said that something happens.
	It basically was like all roads lead to racism.
	And Larry Elder being the black face of white supremacy.
	Thomas Sowell.
	There was someone who was also a black woman who on Twitter said, you know, other than being black, what are Sowell's credentials for having opinions on certain issues?
	Which was the most classic confession through projection I can imagine.
	Loudon, this was the incident for those who don't know of the transgender student who sexually assaulted a student at one school, was transferred to another school where he sexually assaulted another student, and the school overtly lied about the incident, demonized the father of the assaulted girl, had him arrested at one of the meetings, and now it's come out that they knew.
	They hid it on purpose because it would have been too politically Compromising to their side, you know, it's ideology and party above facts and above all else.
	What's the latest on that, Tom, from what you guys are working on?
	Well, there was a special report that they all refused to release, the school board.
	So we'll have to ask for and sue for that if necessary.
	You know, that would have exposed a lot of the corruption that you've highlighted there.
	But this is going on in school districts throughout the country.
	We represent...
	Parents and teachers who have been punished for raising questions about this, they're policing speech in a way we really have never seen before in American history.
	And these are all civil rights violations.
	And it's ironic that it's groups like Judicial Watch who are kind of doing all the civil rights work that needs to be done, and the left is on the other side.
	Including too often groups like the ACLU that purported to be on the side of civil rights.
	Or the ADL.
	They want to outlaw hand gestures that they fabricate as being raised as gestures.
	And the ADL has gone full woke in that regard.
	And it's not just like, I got censored, Judicial Watch got censored.
	We all get censored online.
	Big influencers and such.
	But those who want to see the content of Judicial Watch...
	Those who are denied and want to see the content of me or whoever gets censored or live to TikTok or folks like that, they're also having their civil rights violated.
	So we're all victims of this government, big tech, media censorship operation.
	And it's not just those who are specifically censored, it's those who are denied access to content as a result of that censorship.
	This was actually one of the questions that was asked during one of the Twitter spaces where someone says, how do you make the left realize that they shouldn't support the censorship?
	Someone in the chat or someone in the Twitter space said, they have to appreciate that at the time these posts about Trump were being taken down, their attacks on Trump were also being caught up in the censorship and being taken down.
	That should piss them off.
	But the more I sit here and listen to it...
	I'm convinced that they would say, well, I don't mind if I'm a victim because that's for the greater good.
	There was another analogy that I had.
	Oh, the people who were being deprived of being able to be with loved ones while they died during COVID because of all of the rules.
	Well, they'll say, that's a sacrifice we had to make for the greater good.
	So we don't mind being victimized and being abused in that sense.
	Tom, I genuinely think this now.
	That even those on the left who would wake up and say, holy crap, I'm being victimized, I'm being abused, they would say it's for the greater good, party over country, and those who dare say it's a problem, well, they immediately become right-wing.
	I don't know what the solution is.
	It seems that a lot of people are willing to put up with the dehumanizing censorship abuse because they feel somewhere down in their soul that that suffering has a quasi-religious or cultic value to it.
	And they're prepared to suffer.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, the left has long been victims of leftism.
	As you point out there, that's why they rely on brainwashing to punish you and make you pretend that it's something that's good that's happening to you, as opposed to a violation of your rights.
	Classic abusive talk.
	Now, Tom, sorry, I got a lot of questions in the Rumble Rant sections and in our locals community.
	Someone in our locals community asked, let me see, it's USA Now.
	Quick question, Tom.
	Should we still use Google, aka Gulag?
	I don't know if you have an opinion on this, if there's any, because we know that DuckDuckGo has been compromised.
	The war in Ukraine was their tipping point.
	Do you have an opinion on that?
	Do we use Google?
	Do we go to DuckDuck?
	Oh, I think you should use everything you want to use.
	I mean, my view is that...
	I mean, do you not use YouTube?
	You know, at least from Judicial Watch's perspective, we're going to be everywhere.
	And we're not going to be put into a ghetto by big tech censors.
	Now, it sometimes means that we can't get all the truth out we'd like to.
	But we're going to go...
	Wherever we can.
	And as you're using these other platforms, just be aware of the restrictions and the potential invasions of privacy and other things that happen on those platforms.
	But I wouldn't, you know, I just wouldn't leave them because if you leave them, they win.
	You know, they're embracing censorship, right?
	And they want us to stay off these platforms, so why could we do what they want us to do?
	That was one of my arguments when people say, dump YouTube.
	That would be the best thing for them.
	You would lose your biggest bullhorn to getting, even if it's a code-worded message out, the Jibby Jab, the Rona, whatever, you still get the message out to the biggest amount of people out there.
	And I use Google just knowing that the results are going to be tainted.
	I use Wikipedia knowing.
	That what they say is exactly where I should be looking because I'm probably being misled.
	You know, just picking on your profile in particular.
	I know where I'm being misled.
	And I know that when they complain about you denying climate change, that's my red flag to say, hmm, now I'm going to question climate change even more than I did before.
	Same thing with the election results.
	I'll just read a couple of rants here.
	I can't agree.
	Adriana Valentina, Australia says, to be honest, FBI, CIA need to be permanently dismantled.
	Tom, any chance of...
	That happening under any government, defunding the FBI, defunding the CIA, making these entities contract to useful sizes and sizes that were more in line with their original raison d 'etre and not permanent deep state administrative bodies that actually pull the strings.
	No chance of it.
	Oh, I think in order for that to happen, we would need a significant change in leadership.
	And so that's the challenge.
	And we don't have that leadership now to make it happen.
	You know, I just tweeted out something earlier today that, you know, they should at least be talking about cutting the budget of most agencies by 50%.
	I mean, the FBI and Justice Department can't be trusted to prosecute jaywalking, so I don't know why we would let them prosecute more sensitive cases.
	Well, I think there needs to be significant reform.
	You know, if not elimination of some of these agencies because, you know, the damage they've done has been too great and there's no redeeming them.
	Someone in our Locals community at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, John McGarvey says, I want to know if the federal government had any hand in prosecuting George Kelly for defending his property.
	I have to Google George Kelly because I can't remember which situation that is offhand.
	I don't know either.
	No results are coming up quickly enough.
	What is next on the horizon?
	What are you most looking forward to attacking, dealing with in the immediate future?
	Well, we've got these immigration issues.
	We only have 5 million people crossing the border illegally, so I don't know.
	I think that might be a big deal.
	Is the new Congress going to impeach Biden?
	What are they going to do in terms of investigation?
	Are they going to do anything other than argue about documents for two years?
	Are they going to do something more substantial?
	I think that's something that patriotic Americans should be focused on.
	And then, of course, you've got the continued critical race theory, insanity, the abuse of Trump, which continues.
	I think the left sees the best way.
	To beat Trump is not at the ballot box, but by abusing law enforcement powers to try to jail him.
	And so what we're seeing is slow motion election interference with these various investigations of Trump.
	So those are all significant challenges.
	And, you know, in the past, it was only Judicial Watch who was highlighting this back when Trump was first being abused in the beginning of his term.
	But now I think everyone understands what's going on here.
	So we'll see if there's any pushback on this with targeting him over the documents, which is beyond silly and outrageous given our prior experience, knowing that they took the completely opposite position when it came to Bill Clinton in litigation we had,
	and then trying to jail him for disputing the election as he's allowed to under Um, state constitutional federal law and what he's arguably, um, obligated to do as president being the chief law enforcement officer of the country.
	Um, all right, Alex Davey Duke.
	Just a few, just some small issues there.
	Well, no, it's, it's, it's, it's almost, it's, it's, it's almost, uh, it feels insurmountable and it feels like it's, it's reached.
	It's something of a point of no return.
	But do you get the impression?
	I mean, you're on social media.
	You see the tide.
	Do you see a tide turning at all?
	Or do you see this getting worse before it gets better, if that's even conceivable?
	Oh, I think, you know, I think leadership, what's most heartening and disheartening at the same time is that it doesn't take a lot to get things done in D.C., despite what you hear.
	Just one leader in the right place can really change the direction of the country.
	And politically, it's not inevitable.
	The left says politics and history and what they want is inevitable.
	No, it's not.
	For instance, there's a fight here in Congress just now.
	The local D.C. government has some radical bill they passed to essentially help.
	Criminals.
	And they want to let aliens vote in local elections.
	And Republicans and Democrats voted to overturn that rule under the law in the House.
	And they're worried they're going to get a majority in the Senate under a Democrat-controlled Senate.
	So the politics isn't always as crazed because there's always an opposition.
	And half the country rejects, in the least, the rising communist revolution that I've been talking about.
	I'm going to read this one.
	Alex David Duke asks, Hi, Tom.
	Has anyone subpoenaed Dr. Ralph Barak to testify under oath for creating the SARS virus?
	Has been supporting JW Judicial Watch for years.
	Great job with FOIA.
	Do you know who Dr. Ralph Barak is offhand, Tom?
	I do.
	He was...
	Someone involved in promoting gain-of-function, if I recall, in North Carolina.
	And I don't know if anyone subpoenaed him or whether Congress is going to subpoena him.
	But we'll see.
	I've got to read this one because it's a first-time supporter.
	Macromental says, Viva, love what you've done.
	Like forever, your name and mine fry are the same, and your hair is epic.
	Thank you very much.
	Tom, okay.
	I don't know how much time you have left, and I don't want to be discourteous.
	Go ahead.
	I've got some time.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, the Twitter files.
	So, Elon Musk has been blowing the lid off this, left, right, and center.
	These Twitter spaces have been covering the scandals from Hunter Biden laptop, FBI, COVID, etc.
	Look, it's an open question and it's an obvious question, but what's your take on what Elon has done with Twitter?
	And what's your take on what has been disclosed in the Twitter files?
	None of it comes as a surprise to you, I presume.
	Well, taking a step back, the left has billions of assets deployed to advance their censorship agenda.
	It's in the academy.
	They're working, funded by the government to get it done.
	You have the media involved, and obviously big tech is happy to move with them.
	And what Musk has done is he's thrown a monkey wrench into all of that.
	And it's a central battle in the efforts for free speech in the First Amendment, at least here in America.
	And if we lose it, I think it will significantly set back First Amendment freedoms in the United States for...
	You know, in a way that may be potentially irretrievable.
	So it's important.
	I think we support Elon Musk.
	And, you know, I don't know all of Elon Musk's political positions.
	You know, I do know he's doing the right thing or seems to be doing much of the right thing on Twitter.
	And I do know the left has deployed its assets to target him for doing so and retaliate against him.
	The Justice Department, I mean, the Biden administration is targeting him.
	Media is targeting him.
	The left board generally is targeting him.
	So if you're concerned about these issues, I think you really need to be swarming around and trying to protect Musk and Twitter from these assaults.
	And the Twitter files are damning.
	And what we should recognize about what the Twitter files show is not only this interference, but they knew that those who they were censoring, like Trump, They weren't doing anything wrong, but they did it anyway, and they banned him anyway.
	And they were doing it before the election, too, censoring him.
	But, you know, we have to remember Twitter's small potatoes when it comes to the size of Facebook and Google and YouTube.
	And everything that we see exposed by Twitter, that presumably Twitter has largely stopped, not entirely, though, just continues unabated on Facebook and YouTube, which is owned by Google.
	So that's the real challenge.
	Twitter's been exposed, but we have to recognize that the censorship we saw on Twitter pales into comparison to what's going on right now on Facebook and YouTube.
	We're talking around YouTube's partisan ideological policing of speech about elections.
	I'm going to use the word COVID.
	We use the word vaccine.
	Well, that's going to result in your post being vandalized on both Facebook and YouTube with a comment about, Oh, if you want the truth about COVID, which suggests that what you're saying isn't the truth, and then if you go to share it, at least on Facebook, there's a box that pops up, and it says, are you sure you want to share this crap?
	Now, it doesn't say that literally, but that's the purpose of the box, to suppress the content.
	And obviously, then there are backdoor algorithms that further suppress the content if it covers these wrong topics.
	It's not so much about Twitter, but about what's happening now.
	So Twitter stopped it, but what's happening now at Facebook and Google and other places is what we should be concerned about.
	Yeah, Facebook has been dead to me since I moved to Florida because I haven't been able to get into my account because the two-tier verification is going to a cell number that I no longer have.
	I have never been happier without Facebook, but I do forget that people actually rely on Facebook.
	To share information.
	Those of us on Twitter are lunatics, right?
	And I say that jokingly.
	I mean, we're very active.
	Twitter is kind of like, you don't go on that lightly and engage lightly because it's generally not pleasant, right?
	If you're talking politics and public policy.
	But Facebook is where organic conversations about politics pop up.
	The way they would a normal family and And, you know, that circle type of relationship discussions.
	And so the policing of that is particularly onerous and nasty because these are just regular folks trying to talk politics and they're just being targeted by the government and Facebook to suppress their content for no good reason other than to advance this leftist-statist agenda.
	Actually, one thing that I haven't mentioned or haven't asked about, Tom.
	Seymour Hersh, recent massive expose, and it becomes exponentially more massive based on the media silence around it about the Nord Stream alleged purported obvious sabotage apparently at the hand of the U.S. Are you guys involved?
	Is Judicial Watch involved in that yet?
	And if so, any news?
	Oh, I'm sure we have foies about it.
	I can't imagine they've responded to it.
	I'm skeptical of Hirsch's analysis.
	That being said, I haven't looked at it that carefully.
	He tends to be wildly off base on his thinking and such.
	I don't know.
	Is it possible we did it?
	Sure.
	I believe everything.
	Is it likely?
	I don't think so.
	I think the simplest explanation, which isn't a good one, It's the Russians blew it up, or folks associated with them.
	Oh, really?
	Tom, I wasn't expecting this.
	There might be starting of an internet beef between you and Seymour Hersh.
	So you believe that Russia, the more likely culprit is Russia as opposed to the U.S.?
	Yeah, I mean, we just denied it again.
	I mean, I know the denials don't mean much these days, but, you know, I just can't check my brain at the door.
	My instinct is the Russians did it.
	And I haven't seen anything persuasive we have yet.
	That's interesting.
	I'm of that new breed where as much as I disagree with you on this, it's not going to sour any of my respect for everything you do.
	I'm on the exact polar opposite.
	I say the most obvious are those who openly said they wanted to do it, the U.S., Newland and Biden.
	You know, Hirsch's detailed analysis is that they wanted to do it before the summer, got cold feet.
	Biden's plan was to put explosives on it that could be detonated later if they so chose to do it.
	They employed this fantastic technology of triggering the detonation with sonar pulses so they could install it when they were down there for training and then trigger it at a later date with sonar pulses.
	I like Hirsch's approach.
	I like his independence tree.
	But he has a habit of putting these stories out that are pretty extraordinary, if true, and they don't pan out in the sense that you can never figure out if they were true or not.
	So it's a nice place to be.
	I suspect that's what we're going to have with this story.
	It will never be proven true.
	Or, you know, or the history will turn out to be quite different.
	Well, I'll be, I will, I know it's too early for a FOIA request anyhow because of the delays that are involved.
	Oh, it's never too early.
	I mean, it's now months since that, you know, it's just a matter of whether we sue on the FOIA requests that are pending because at this point, what is it, it's been at least six months since it's been blown up, right?
	Has it been six months?
	My good God.
	It's been a little less than six months, but give or take.
	It's been a long time, so the FOIAs could be ripe.
	Who knows?
	But that all being said, I don't know what the answer is, which is why it's good to get documents about what the internal analyses were about the explosion.
	And who knows?
	Maybe the documents will tell us from way or another.
	And if they don't want to turn them over, that tells you something else, doesn't it?
	I'll eagerly be, I mean, I'm following you and Judicial Watch now, so I'd love to see what does or does not come out of that.
	Tom, I'm just looking at the, because I was going to ask, you know, what do you guys do for revenue and support?
	Is your annual total revenue actually $109 million, give or take?
	Yeah, that's what we raised, I think, last year in 2021.
	And I said...
	We haven't done the analysis for this last year, but it was about a little over $100 million.
	One of the biggest and most widely supported conservative groups in the country, if not the world.
	And all we do is do this work.
	I mean, isn't it wonderful?
	It's amazing.
	I mean, it's not like we're out there, you know, spinning for some major corporations or, you know, the top of Washington.
	The stuff that usually gets you money in Washington.
	All we do is sue the bad guys and try to get documents and help little people who have been abused by the government.
	And the American people are very enthusiastic about it.
	We have at least three quarters of a million active supporters.
	And just so it's clear, I wasn't asking that as if to say you should.
	That's impressive.
	And it's...
	It's phenomenal.
	I think it's just great.
	I encourage everyone else, if you're not supporting us, you should be.
	It's not just a group, it's a movement in many ways.
	There's a lot of people who might be recently turned off of Project Veritas because of what they've done with James O 'Keefe.
	You might have a whole new market of disenfranchised individuals who want to support investigative journalism.
	If I may ask, what's your take on that?
	I don't know if you know anything.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what to make of it.
	It's very unusual what's happening.
	We've been working with James for as long as he's been around, more or less.
	I'm hoping it's resolved in a way that allows Project Veritas and James to continue to work together, but we'll see.
	Incredible.
	Tom, before we leave, you've written a few books.
	Remind the crowd, and after this, I'm going to blast out some Amazon affiliate links.
	Tongue in cheek, I'm going to.
	Your books, for those who may not know.
	Oh yeah, they're all great books.
	There are three books.
	The Corruption Trilogy, maybe.
	The most recent one is, I think it's Attack on the Republic.
	I always confuse it with a Star Wars movie name.
	Anyway, three Judicial Watch books.
	Clean House, The District of...
	Let me see what they are.
	I'm looking to got Clean House.
	A Republic Under Assault and The Corruption Chronicles.
	That's right.
	And they tell you the story of corruption up through virtually the end of the Obama administration.
	From Clinton, actually the Bush years too, and then Obama.
	And if you want to know how we got there, how we got here, you really need to read those books.
	And they're just great books.
	They get put in all one place, a lot of what we've been able to uncover.
	In those 20 plus years I've been here at Judicial Watch.
	Fantastic.
	Tom, did I forget to ask you anything?
	Or is there anything that you absolutely want to say?
	I want to talk also about the election issue.
	I mean, we've been second to none in getting these election rolls cleaned up.
	And we've been mailing these ballots to everybody and their mother without ensuring that the rolls are clean in Judicial Watch.
	Has been in the forefront of enforcing the law that requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls.
	We just settled with New York City, of all places, and they will have removed, as a result of our lawsuit and litigation, nearly 450,000 names, I think.
	So we're making some remarkable progress through our litigation, and sometimes even a letter gets...
	Tens of thousands of names removed.
	It's extremely important because, in my view, the left opposes elections and everything we're hearing about isn't about voter ID and all of that.
	Attacking voter ID and things like that is just a tool to an end, which is to end elections as we know it.
	Yeah, well, they want to make voting so easy that you don't even have to leave your home to do it.
	Right, and you can do it over the course of months.
	Does that sound like an election to you or a rolling survey?
	To me, it just sounds like, what's that show?
	American Idol, but, you know, American presidents.
	Just have them auction off.
	Even if they had one night of voting, actually, American Idol style.
	I think it would be more reliable than what's been going on.
	The idea that it takes weeks and weeks to count ballots after an election is a farce.
	And don't let them tell you otherwise because there's nothing normal about it and we're the only country in the world that does it like that for good reason.
	Fantastic, Tom.
	First of all, thank you.
	Thank you immensely for accepting on such short notice because it was a shot in the dark and thank you.
	It was phenomenal.
	You guys do great work.
	Well, thank you.
	We could do like an episode on every single one of the sagas, like going back to Hillary Clinton's emails.
	I mean, that I remember.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, that's a success.
	She's now president because of the emails that we uncovered.
	That was amazing.
	Do you have an opinion on Seth Rich and the rumors that, you know, the robbery was not a robbery, but rather retaliation for him having been the leak of or the access to the DNC servers?
	Well, in my experience, murders that have a political component, the investigations are almost always compromised.
	And so...
	So, as I said, the most likely thing is that it was a random DC killing.
	But because of the way it's been handled by the government, people have questions that haven't been answered.
	And at this point, I don't know if they're ever going to get answered.
	I'm going to try keep pinging people.
	Pinging Kim.com, who at one point in time alleged to have had direct knowledge, but I doubt...
	Even if he agrees to come on, there's only so much that can be known about things about which not everything is known.
	But yeah, we'll see.
	These things, by the time the truth comes out, everyone's forgotten about the scandal, and it's going to be the same thing with COVID.
	It's going to be the same thing with...
	It's just, you know, people will have forgotten the lies, they'll have forgotten the abuse, they'll have forgotten the scandal, and they'll just continue moving on as if things are going to change if they keep not changing.
	Tom?
	You know, in my experience, David, the politicians move on, but they're only able to move on, and I think they're less able to move on because people are fed up.
	I mean...
	The last thing you want to be talking about is the 2020 election, but the people still demand answers on it.
	And it drives Republicans crazy, and certainly it drives the media and the left crazy who prefer that election go down the memory hole in terms of the questions about it.
	I'm a little more, I think I'm getting very much more blackpilled, Tom.
	I think people, those who...
	Don't care, never cared.
	Some of those who did care want to move on, want to forget about it.
	And even some of the people who cared at the time vehemently say, there's nothing that can be done about that.
	And the way I'm looking at people having been abused by these shots and by these boosters, and now they find out all the stuff that they were told at the time they were coerced into it was lies and false.
	They just want to move on because they don't want to think of themselves as stupid people who are easy to manipulate.
	Which is what many of us have to feel like.
	And I think people want to forget to preserve their own egos.
	But maybe I'm just projecting right now.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Who knows?
	Hopefully I'm wrong anyhow.
	But Tom, keep up the good work.
	You're doing the Lord's work, the political Lord's work.
	So keep it up.
	Thank you very much for coming on.
	And let's do it again.
	Let's follow up and update when there's other stuff.
	Stick around.
	You and I will say our proper goodbyes after I end the chat and end the stream with the chat.
	But where can people find you?
	I mean, I know where to find you, but where can they find you on social media?
	Well, you know, Judicial Watch's website is judicialwatch.org, judicialwatch.org.
	And of course, as we discussed earlier, we're all over social media, so it's pretty easy to find me and Judicial Watch, but just by using DuckDuckGo or Google, whatever, or the AI that's now running Microsoft.
	I'll put up all the links in the pinned comment anyhow.
	And tune into Twitter spaces, people.
	You'll definitely hear Tom one of these days.
	Tom, again, thank you very much.
	Keep up the great work and stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲