|
New Vaccine Documents!
|
Documents Show Biden Justice Department’s
Unprecedented Targeting of January 6 Protestors
When the government decides to investigate ordinary citizens, it can wield
enormous, intrusive power. Such was the case after January 6.
This is confirmed in 90 pages of records
from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a component of the
Department of Justice, that we recently obtained in our Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
These documents detail a troubling and unprecedented deployment of federal
resources to prosecute Americans caught up in the January 6 disturbance.
The documents seem to describe a massive political and spy operation
masquerading as a law enforcement operation.
We filed our lawsuit
against the Justice Department and FBI for records related to the death of
Ashli Babbitt (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-02462)).
Here are the details of what we learned.
A January 25, 2021, confidential draft
chart indicates staff assignments. Several “Lead AUSAs”
(assistant U.S. attorneys) are listed. One is assigned to “White
Nationalist Militias.” Two others are assigned to “Proud Boys.”
Another is assigned to “Oath Keepers.”
The chart identifies “Branch 2: Priority Incidents and Subjects.” Its
tasks are to investigate “specific incidents comprising the Capitol
attack. Branch investigations are staffed by Criminal Division sections
with designated lead prosecutors reporting up to their section
supervisors:”
To identify and prosecute the individuals and organizations responsible
for planting pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC.
To identify and prosecute rioting activity
in the “Speaker’s Lobby,” and in particular to determine whether
there is civilian criminal culpability for the death of Ashli
Babbitt.
To identify and prosecute rioters
responsible for the death of USCP Brian Sicknick.
To review force allegations against USCP and
MPD officers, including the officer-involved shooting of Ashli
Babbitt….
The chart lists “Branch 3: Intake, Assignment and Rapid Indictment” as:
“Branch 3 intakes proposed prosecutions against individual rioters and
assigns them for horizontal prosecutors; it also may channel individual
defendants to Branches 1 and 2 based on those branches’ responsibilities.
Branch 3 is the fulcrum of our reactive prosecutorial effort.”
The chart then describes a process for the “rapid indictment” of
January 6 defendants:
Phase 1: Command Center (FMC): Co-located prosecutors and law
enforcement agents in the command center screen referrals and assign them
to Phase 2 or refer them/push up intelligence to Branches 1 and 2.
Phase 2: Complaints (FMC/Details): Cases
referred from Phase 1 are assigned to AUSAs, a CTS [likely Civil Trial
Section] attorney, and a WFO [FBI Washington Field Office] team who work in
coordination with AUSOs/FBI field offices throughout the country to obtain
criminal complaints and appropriate process.Phase 3: Rapid Indictment (FMC): Cases charged out of Branch 3 are
funneled to this unit, which will rapidly indict them. Only priority cases
and Branch 2 and 3 cases are indicted by vertically organized
AUSAs.
Phase 4: Indicted Prosecutions (Criminal
Division): Indicted cases are returned/assigned for prosecution. Cases are
centrally tracked with ticklers for Speedy Trial Act, discovery,
intelligence gathering.
The chart describes “Branch 4: Advance Litigation Support” as “Branch
4 is a litigation, coordination and technology branch that provides support
to all three investigative branches. Branch 4 has both litigation and
technological responsibilities.”
The chart lists five roles for personnel to carry out:
Mass Data Collection (Process/Litigation): This team will coordinate and
handle sensitive search warrants and other process directed at collecting
large scale data (e.g., Geofence/Ad Tech).
Media Issues (Process/Litigation): This team
will coordinate evidence collection from the media under the Justice
Manual and develop litigation strategy for media-related
defenses.
Filter (Support/Litigation): This team will
develop filter protocols, staff filter reviews, and support filter-related
litigation.”
Discovery (Planning/Litigation): This team
will coordinate discovery, including protocols, Giglio, and
litigation, focused on addressing “One Government” issues.
Litigation Technology (Support/Analysis):
This team will stand up and maintain the apparatus tailored to store,
process, analyze, and produce the unprecedented amount of data.
“Investigation and Litigation Technology Support Apparatus” lays out
the array of technological sources to be use against January 6 defendants.
The chart lists “Categories of data” which includes “cell phone
records and device location data, cell phone data dumps, ad tech company
locational data, financial locational data, social media accounts, email
accounts, cloud storage accounts, financial records, flight travel records,
and others.”
“Technological needs” listed in the chart include “devoted cloud
storage, processing capacity to upload data to analytical and review
platforms, analytical tools (e.g., Palantir), devoted review platform
accessible across multiple DOJ and law enforcement components, and
integration capacity – for purposes of analysis and discovery.”
“Complicating issues” related to the “Investigation and Litigation
Technology Support Apparatus” include “unprecedented volume, high
number of prosecutors, agents, analysts and support staff involved, data
collected by multiple FBI field offices, trial prosecutions,” and
others.
A previous review of
records from this lawsuit highlighted the prosecution
declination memorandum justifying the decision not to prosecute
U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd for the shooting death of Babbitt.
We are engaged in a comprehensive, independent investigation into the
January 6 disturbance:
- January
2023: documents from the
Department of the Air Force, Joint Base Andrews, MD, showed U.S. Capitol
Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd was housed at taxpayer expense at Joint Base
Andrews after he shot and killed U.S. Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt
inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6,
2021.
- August 2023:
A hearing was held in
federal court in our lawsuit against the U.S. Capitol Police seeking videos
and emails concerning the protest at the U.S. Capitol on January 6,
2021.
- 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.
- November 2021:
we released multiple audio, visual and photo
records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the
shooting death of Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.
The records included a cell phone
video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of
the shooter, Byrd.
- October 2021,
United States Park Police records related to
the January 6, 2021, demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol showed that on the
day before the January 6 rally featuring President Trump, U.S. Park Police
expected a “large portion” of the attendees to march to the U.S.
Capitol and that the FBI was monitoring the January 6 demonstrations,
including travel to the events by “subjects of
interest.”
Our investigations continue on the January 6 overreach, and you can expect
additional, important litigation on this topic!
FBI Says it Won’t Produce Records on Intervention to Help Hunter Biden
on Missing Gun Due to ‘Ongoing Criminal Investigation,’ Federal Judge
Orders Sept. 6 Hearing on Records Dispute
A federal court just scheduled a hearing for next
week in our lawsuit for records regarding the gun owned by Hunter Biden
that reportedly was thrown in a trash can behind a Delaware grocery store.
In a joint status
report to the court, the FBI stated it would not produce records
about the incident due to an “ongoing criminal investigation.”
The video hearing was set by DC U.S. District Court Judge Jia M. Cobb for
September 6, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
We filed the lawsuit after the
FBI withheld records in response to a January 30, 2023, Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-00920)). We
are asking for:
All records, including investigative reports, telephone logs, witness
statements, memoranda, and firearms purchase documentation, related to the
reported purchase, possession, and disposal of a firearm owned by Hunter
Biden discarded in a Delaware trash receptacle circa October 2018.
All records of communications of FBI
officials regarding the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of the
firearm.
The FBI claims it has completed a search for records responsive to our FOIA
request but alleges an unspecified number are exempt from disclosure due to
an “ongoing criminal investigation:”
FBI has completed a search for records responsive to [Judicial
Watch’s] request and is currently processing those records. FBI’s
position is that the number of potentially responsive records is exempt
from disclosure under FOIA exemption 7(A), as this case relates to an
ongoing criminal investigation. See 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(7)(A) (FOIA does not apply to information where disclosure “could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings”); see also U.S. Attorney’s Office,
District of Delaware, Tax and Firearm Charges Filed Against Robert
Hunter Biden, U.S. Department of Justice (June 20, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/tax-and-firearm-charges-filed-against-robert-hunter-biden .
An ongoing investigation creates the need for increased internal review,
including in this case review by the Special Counsel.
We argue Biden’s FBI is withholding information about the number of
documents they are hiding and whether any records will ultimately be
released:
This is case is indisputably of significant public interest. It is also
time sensitive. [Judicial Watch] has asked and Defendant has refused to
provide the number of potentially responsive records that needs to be
processed in this case. Without this number, Plaintiff cannot evaluate –
let alone agree to – a processing time of 120 days … Because this
case could proceed down several different paths, [Judicial Watch] believes
this case may benefit from a status conference at this juncture.
This is nothing but a continuing stonewall on the FBI’s reported clean-up
operation to shield Hunter Biden from facing the criminal consequences of
his gun scandal – this time using the compromised special counsel
‘investigation’ of Hunter as a new excuse to hide records that we asked
for back in January.
In February 2023, from a separate lawsuit, we released
records from the United States Secret Service that
implicate the FBI in the unusual action to help Hunter Biden.
In response to a February 24, 2021, email inquiry
from Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger regarding the
Secret Service’s involvement in the investigation of the Hunter Biden gun
incident, the Communications Department asks for “more information or
documentation.” Schreckinger responds: “Sure thing. Agents visited
StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply and asked to take possession of the
paperwork Hunter had filled out to purchase a gun there. The FBI also had
some involvement in the investigation.”
In October 2020, The Blaze reported that in October 2018, Hunter Biden’s
handgun was taken by Hallie Biden, the widow of then-presidential nominee
Joe Biden’s son Beau. In 2021, Politico reported:
Hallie took Hunter’s gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery
store, only to return later to find it gone.
Delaware police began investigating,
concerned that the trash can was across from a high school and that the
missing gun could be used in a crime, according to law enforcement
officials and a copy of the police report obtained by POLITICO.
But a curious thing happened at the time:
Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought
the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to
two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the
other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.
We have at least 10 federal lawsuits focused on Biden family corruption.
In June 2023, we sued the CIA for all
communications of the spy agency’s Prepublication Classification Review
Board (PCRB) regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and
“clear” a letter signed by 51 former intelligence community officials
characterizing the Hunter Biden laptop story as having “all the earmarks
of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
In July, we sued the DOJ for records from the Office of the
Attorney General and Office of the Deputy Attorney General regarding the
Internal Revenue Service investigation of Hunter Biden.
In June 2023, we filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice for a
copy of the FBI FD-1023 form that describes “an alleged criminal scheme
involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the
exchange of money for policy decisions.” We also asked for communications
about the FD-1023.
In May 2023, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the National Archives for Biden
family records and communications regarding travel and finance
transactions, as well as communications between the Bidens and several
known business associates.
On October 14, 2022, we sued the
DOJ for all records in the possession of FBI Supervisory Intelligence
Analyst Brian Auten regarding an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to
members of the U.S. Senate. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
raised concerns that the briefing was intended to undermine the senators’
investigation of Hunter Biden.
We filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department on April 20, 2022, for
messages sent through the SMART (State Messaging and Archive Retrieval
Toolkit) system that mention Hunter Biden.
In December 2020, State Department records obtained through our FOIA lawsuit showed
that former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch had
specifically warned in 2017 about corruption allegations against Burisma
Holdings.
In October 2020, we forced the release of State Department records that included a briefing checklist of a
February 22, 2019, meeting in Kyiv between then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch and Sally Painter, co-founder and chief operating officer
of Blue Star Strategies, a Democratic lobbying firm which was hired by
Burisma Holdings to combat corruption allegations. At the time of the
meeting, Hunter Biden was serving on the board of directors for Burisma
Holdings.
I’ll be sure to keep you updated, as events warrant, on all our Biden
corruption investigations and litigation!
Pfizer Records Reveal 23-Person Study of COVID Vaccine Booster Safety
and Effectiveness before Approval
Now that COVID chatter has returned, and President Biden is talking about a
vaccine, we are learning how skimpy a 2021 study used to justify the Pfizer
booster was.
We uncovered 58 pages of records
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showing that a Pfizer
study surveyed 23 people in 2021 to gauge reactions to its COVID vaccine
booster before asking the FDA to approve it. The FDA indicated that this
production of records “represents our complete response to your request;
no additional productions are anticipated.”
Judicial Watch forced the release of the records through a March 2022 lawsuit filed after
the Department of Health and Human Services failed to respond to an August
2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records “submitted by
Pfizer and BioNTech to the FDA, including BARDA, relating to
‘booster’ vaccinations for the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No.
1:22-cv-00730)).
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, BARDA, has been
heavily involved with the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. According to
its website:
The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)
provides an integrated, systematic approach to the development of the
necessary vaccines, drugs, therapies, and diagnostic tools for public
health medical emergencies such as chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear (CBRN) accidents, incidents and attacks; pandemic influenza (PI),
and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
BioNTech is a German
pharmaceutical company that partnered with Pfizer in developing the
original vaccine.
The records include a July study titled
“Phase 1 Booster Safety and Immunogenicity Data up to 1 Month Post-Dose 3
of BNT162b2 30 µg [micrograms] in Study C4591001” provided
“preliminary safety and immunogenicity data” for a group that had
received two vaccine shots and, seven to nine months later, a third
(booster) shot:
This submission includes preliminary findings from a subset of younger
(18 to 55 years of age) and older (65 to 85 years of age) participants in
the Phase 1 part of Study C4591001 who completed the initial two-dose
series of BNT162b2 30 µg, given approximately 3 weeks apart, and then
received a third dose (booster) of BNT162b2 30 µg approximately 7 to 9
months after the second dose. Data were collected through the cutoff date
of 13 May 2021.
The participants were evaluated for symptoms up to one month after the
booster shot. The booster’s immunogenicity, or how well a vaccine works
over time, was evaluated seven days and one month after the booster:
SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralization titers were assessed in sera drawn before
BNT162b2 Dose 1 (on Day 1); 7 days and 1 month after BNT162b2 Dose 2;
before Dose 3; and 7 days and 1 month after Dose 3.
The participants included 11 people aged 18 to 55 and 12 people aged 65 to
85. Of the younger group, there were nine females and two males; eight of
whom were white, one was black and two were Asian. Of the older group six
were female, six were males, and all were white.
The study reports that a booster dose increases the breadth of neutralizing
response against SARS-CoV-2 variants and that the data suggests that a
third dose could prolong protection and further increase the breadth of
protection:
[T]he durability of protection from vaccination and the required
frequency of booster doses are unknown at this time. To date, results from
the global Phase 1/2/3 study of BNT162b2 indicate robust protection lasting
at least 6 months, despite modest waning of immunity over time. Booster
doses have the potential to keep protection high if immunity continues to
decline over time.
This Pfizer study was sent to Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of
Vaccines Research and Review.
An August 13, 2021, FDA-CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research)
report is titled
“Phase 1 Booster (Dose 3) Immunogenicity at 1 Month Post-Dose 3 in Study
C4591001: SARS-CoV-2 Wild-Type and Delta Variant Neutralization Data.”
On August 24, 2021, the White House stated it was moving
“aggressively” to roll out booster shots despite not yet receiving
clearance from the FDA to give everyone third doses.
Shortly thereafter, it was reported that Gruber
and her deputy, Phil Krause, were leaving the agency because they were
frustrated with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Biden White House
interference in vaccine decisions. Gruber and
Krause were among a group of resigning doctors who agreed that
“Available evidence doesn’t yet indicate a need for COVID-19 vaccine
booster shots among the general population …”
On September 21, 2021, just over a month after Pfizer’s second
submission, the FDA approved a single
booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for those over 65, for
those 18 to 64 at a high risk of severe Covid-19, and for those whose
frequent institutional or occupational exposure puts them at high risk of
serious complications of COVID-19.
The FDA said it based its decision on the
documents presented by Pfizer, as well as input from the CDC, the Israeli
Ministry of Health and the University of Bristol in the UK.
Three weeks after approval, about 8.9 million boosters had
been administered.
With the planned push for new boosters by the Biden administration, the
public would do well to examine these troubling documents about the shotgun
approval of prior COVID boosters.
Years after Judicial Watch Exposes ISIS/ Cartel Ties, Media Finally
Reports It
As they say, you heard it here first. Our reporting on the southern border
has been second to none, especially regarding dangerous elements exploiting
the lack of security there. Our Corruption Chronicles blog gives an
update on the national
security risks of open borders:
Nearly a decade after Judicial Watch exposed that Mexican
drug cartels and Islamic terrorists have teamed up to smuggle foreigners
into the United States through the southern border, the mainstream media is
finally reporting it and the government has been forced to acknowledge it.
A national news outlet revealed this week
that a smuggler with ties to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
helped more than a dozen nationals from the Central Asian nation of
Uzbekistan, a former Soviet republic, enter the U.S. via Mexico. Under the
Biden administration’s catastrophic open border policies, the Uzbek’s
asked for asylum and remain in the country.
Now the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) is probing the matter, according to the news report, which says that
multiple sources confirmed a “scramble set off when US intelligence
officials found that the migrants traveled with the help of a smuggler with
ties to ISIS.” The incident was so serious that an urgent classified
intelligence report was circulated to the president’s top cabinet
officials in their morning briefing book and a flurry of urgent meetings
among top national security and administration officials were initiated,
the article states. Counterterrorism officials say the breach shows that
the U.S. is “deeply vulnerable to the possibility that terrorists could
sneak across the southern border.” That has already occurred as Judicial
Watch reported years ago. Back in 2016 we uncovered an operation
in which Mexican drug traffickers help Islamic terrorists stationed in
Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future attacks. Among the
jihadists that have traveled back and forth through the porous southwest
border is a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an ISIS operative who
lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far from El Paso,
Texas.
All these years later a Biden administration
spokeswoman from the National Security Council is quoted in this week’s
news story trying to downplay the severity of the most recent security
lapse, though other unidentified government officials reveal the migrants
from Uzbekistan are still under FBI scrutiny as possible criminal threats.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took the event
seriously enough to begin detaining, vetting, and expediting the removal of
other migrants who also used the same ISIS-connected network. The
government should properly screen every foreign national upon entering the
U.S. rather than wait until a red flag arises once they are inside the
country. Why does it take the involvement of an ISIS smuggler for federal
authorities to go back and double check illegal aliens already disbursed
into unsuspecting communities throughout the nation?
The chilling reality is that Islamic
terrorists have taken advantage of this lax security system for many years.
Back in the spring of 2015 Judicial Watch reported about an ISIS camp
operating just a few miles from El Paso, Texas in an area known as
“Anapra” just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.
At the time sources, including a Mexican Army field grade officer and a
Mexican Federal Police Inspector, confirmed that “coyotes” engaged in
human smuggling—and working for the Juárez Cartel—help move ISIS
terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa
and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez,
cartel-backed “coyotes” also smuggle ISIS terrorists through the porous
border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. The specific areas are
exploited by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police
forces, and the safe havens they provide for the unchecked large-scale drug
smuggling that was already ongoing.
The problem is almost certain to get worse
as illegal immigration skyrockets under the Biden administration and its
reckless open border policies facilitate the business model of Mexican drug
cartels, also known as Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCO). Under
Biden, the sophisticated criminal enterprises have seized unprecedented control
of the southwest border, according to congressional testimony delivered
recently by federal sources in counterterrorism, intelligence and drug
enforcement.
Until next week,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|