Judicial Watch Sues CIA!



[INSIDE JW]

Biden 9/11 Plea Deal Outrage

[[link removed]]

Surrender! The Biden Defense Department agreed to a plea deal with
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and two other
top terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Jihadist terrorists and other American enemies are surely celebrating
their comrades’ victory, made possible by the Biden
administration’s surrender in court to the men responsible for
helping murder nearly 3,000 Americans. America is less safe as a
result of this Harris-Biden betrayal.

The Left has been opposing the timely prosecution of Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed for years. (Obama tried to shut down Gitmo, for example.)
Judicial Watch representatives have been monitoring the proceedings in
Gitmo, and our representative is there now as an observer. We can
attest based on extensive experience that the process has been a
circus from the get-go.

9/11 survivors and families — and all Americans — are rightly
outraged by this miscarriage of justice.
We are America’s leading organization on issues related to the
9/11 attacks. We are running a longstanding monitoring project of the
proceedings against the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Our
representatives have visited the facility at least 80 times to observe
the proceedings.

For more than 20 years we have represented Lynn Faulkner, the husband
of a 9/11 victim, in litigation now pending in New York federal court
seeking to hold defendants accountable including Saudi Arabia,
Afghanistan, and others.

We have compiled
[[link removed]]
the
largest collection of government records pertaining to the spiritual
leader of the 9/11 hijackers, Anwar al-Awlaki, through our
investigations and litigation.

In July we reported
[[link removed]]
that
the Transportation Safety Administration, created after 9/11, has no
idea how aviation security was affected when it plucked federal air
marshals from their duties to help with the Mexican border crisis.

In June 2023 we reported
[[link removed]]
that the
U.S. has failed to properly remove millions who overstayed their
visas, which at least four of the September 11 hijackers did.

In June 2021 we reported
[[link removed]]
that four “forever prisoners” were released as part of a Biden
administration initiative to clear out the top security facility that
houses the world’s most dangerous Islamic terrorists, including 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In September 2020 we reported
[[link removed]]
that it took nearly two decades after the worst terrorist attack on
U.S. soil for every state to finally comply with a federal law
requiring minimum security standards for driver’s licenses and
identification cards.

In September 2015 we filed
[[link removed]]
a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
seeking records of communications between the Office of the Secretary
of State and the White House/Executive Office of the President
following the capture and slaying of Osama bin Laden.

In June 2004 we submitted to the 9/11 Commission documents
[[link removed]]
showing that Saudi Arabian nationals, including bin Laden family
members, were allowed to fly out of the United States immediately
following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The documents
represent the first admission by the government that the flights
occurred at all. We are asking the 9/11 Commission to investigate and
reconcile previous contradictory testimony about Saudis being allowed
to leave the country.

And you can be sure we will also try to get to the bottom of this
latest betrayal.

SECRET SERVICE REJECTS JUDICIAL WATCH FOIA REQUESTS ABOUT
ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON TRUMP

A real stench is rising out of Butler, PA, and Washington DC.

The United States Secret Service completely denied
[[link removed]]
multiple FOIA requests for documents about the assassination attempt
on former President Donald Trump.

On July 16, 2024, we filed three comprehensive FOIA requests seeking
emails, videos, and advance survey security assessments, among other
documents related to the assassination attempt.

The Secret Service produced not one record in response:

> At this time, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(B)(7)(A), any
> potentially responsive records, if they exist, are exempt as
> disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with
> enforcement proceedings. The citation of the above exemption is not
> to be construed as the only exemption which may be available under
> the FOIA.
We are pursuing the next steps in preparation for litigation.

The Biden Secret Service is in cover-up mode in its inexcusable and
epic failure to protect former President Trump and other innocents.
For Secret Service leaders to promise transparency to Congress while
hiding every possible FOIA record from the American people is yet
another indictment of this corrupt and failing agency.

We have more than 25 pending FOIA and open records requests with the
Biden administration and local and state officials and agencies in
Pennsylvania on the shooting.

Expect lawsuits to follow….

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR RECORDS OF CIA PERSONNEL DEPLOYED FOR JANUARY
6 PROTESTS

Judicial Watch just filed an important FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Central Intelligence Agency for all records related to any
shots fired inside the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, and
records of requests for CIA support, including bomb technicians and
bomb-detecting dogs placed on standby or used in response to the
massive protests in and around Washington, DC (_Judicial Watch v.
Central Intelligence Agency_
[[link removed]
_(No. 1:24-cv-02172)).

We sued after the CIA failed to respond to our March 13, 2024, FOIA
request asking the agency to produce records related to:

* Shots fired inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
* A person being shot inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
* Requests for CIA support or assistance at the U.S. Capitol on
January 6, 2021.
* Bomb technician support or assistance to any potential or actual
bombs or explosive devices in response to the massive protests in and
around the Washington DC area on January 6, 2021.
* Accelerant or explosives K-9s (bomb detection dogs) placed on
standby or used in Washington, DC, in response to the massive protests
in and around Washington, DC on January 6, 2021.
* Any after action reports concerning the events that took place in
Washington, DC on January 6, 2021.

In March, we received 88 pages
[[link removed]]
of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records
from the Department of Justice in a FOIA lawsuit that show the CIA
deployed personnel to Washington, DC on January 6, 2021.

The records include a series of text messages under the heading
“January 7 Intel Chain
[[link removed]
in which two separate references to participation by the CIA are made.
One states
[[link removed]]
that “two CIA bomb techs” are assisting with “a pipe bomb scene
on New Jersey and D ST SE.” Another record references “several CIA
dog teams on standby
[[link removed]

We forced the Justice Department to admit CIA personnel were at the
January 6, 2021, disturbance. Now the CIA should come clean on exactly
what its role at the protests was.

We are extensively investigating (and litigation) January 6 issues.

In February 2024, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on
behalf of Aaron Babbitt, the late Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt’s husband,
and Ashli Babbitt’s estate against the U.S. Department of Justice
for all FBI files on Ashli Babbitt, a U.S. Air Force veteran who was
shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt.
Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021.

In October 2023 we announced
[[link removed]]
that we received the
court-ordered declaration
[[link removed]]
of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel
for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior
officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021
that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to
serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.

In September we received records
[[link removed]]
from
the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a component of the
Department of Justice, in a FOIA lawsuit that detail the extensive
apparatus the Biden Justice Department set up to investigate and
prosecute January 6 protestors.

A previous review of records
[[link removed]]
from that lawsuit highlighted the prosecution declination memorandum
[[link removed]]
justifying the decision not to prosecute U.S. Capitol Police Lt.
Michael Byrd for the shooting death of Babbitt.

In January 2023 documents
[[link removed]]
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.

In November 2021 we released
[[link removed]]
multiple audio
[[link removed]],
visual
[[link removed]],
and photo records
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]]
of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the
shooter, Byrd.

In October 2021 United States Park Police records
[[link removed]]
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.”

JUDICIAL WATCH ASKS COURT TO ORDER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO TURN OVER
AUDIO OF PRESIDENT BIDEN’S INTERVIEWS WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT
HUR

President Biden’s inability to perform his duties is being shielded
from the public eye by Deep State agencies such as the Department of
Justice.

One example of this is our legal battle for the infamous “Biden
tapes.” In fact, Judicial Watch filed
[[link removed]]
a reply brief asking a federal court to expeditiously rule in our
favor and order the Biden Justice Department to produce within 14 days
the audio recordings of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interviews of
President Biden in the criminal investigation into Biden’s theft and
disclosure of classified records. (_Judicial Watch, Heritage
Foundation, Cable News Network, Inc., et al v. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]
_(No. 1:24-cv-00700-TJK)).

On March 11, 2024,we filed its FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia after the Department of Justice failed to respond
to a February 2024 FOIA request for records of all Special Counsel
interviews of President Biden (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00700)).

Although a redacted transcript of the Biden interview was released on
April 15
[[link removed]]
in response to our lawsuit, the public has a significant interest in
hearing the audio recordings “because an open question remains about
whether Special Counsel Hur’s conclusion that President Biden should
not be prosecuted for his mishandling of classified records [and] is
supported by the evidence.”

The Biden Justice Department, in seeking
[[link removed]]
to keep the audio recordings secret, asked the court to ignore
precedent and rewrite FOIA law. The Biden agency: demands that a law
enforcement/executive privilege exemption be rewritten to help Joe
Biden; wants to change FOIA law to protect (after 50 years of being a
politician) President Joe Biden’s privacy in his voice; and seeks to
potentially end FOIA with a new argument that the possible “AI”
alteration of the Hur recordings is reason to keep the recordings and
any government record a secret from the public.

As we explain in our latest filing, the Justice Department continues
to
[[link removed]]
baselessly assert executive privilege; “doubles down” on its
insufficient argument of “potential harm to unspecified and
undefined ongoing investigations;” and engages in unsupported
speculation on “concerns that the release of the audio recordings
could reasonably be expected to chill cooperation with future
high-profile law enforcement investigations.”

We state that, in its continued withholding of the recordings, the
Justice Department wrongly argues that FOIA “allows for it to
withhold the audio recordings that contain the voice of the President
of the United States, who has been an elected federal officeholder for
more than 50 years, speaking the same substantive information
contained in the transcripts.”

Even though President Biden is no longer running for re-election, we
state, “the substantial public interest in determining whether the
Special Counsel “pulled any punches” (or even “swung too far”)
when investigating President Biden remains.”

The Biden Justice Department wants to destroy FOIA in order to protect
Joe Biden. In our 30 years of work, we have never seen such a
dishonest assault on the people’s right to know. The Court can’t
order the release of the Biden tapes soon enough.

The Heritage Foundation and a CNN-led media coalition lawsuits have
been joined
[[link removed]]
with our lawsuit.

On February 5, 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur issued
[[link removed]]
the “Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into
Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified
Documents Discovered at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and
the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”

In the report, Hur called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a
poor memory” and declined to charge Biden with a “serious
felony:”

> We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely
> present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as
> a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based
> on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is
> someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.
> It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict
> him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious
> felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
We have several ongoing FOIA lawsuits about Biden’s document
scandals and the related unprecedented partisan prosecutorial and
judicial abuses of former President Donald J. Trump.

113 NON-CITIZENS VOTED IN DC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

It’s a voting free-for-all in your nation’s capital. Aliens, legal
AND illegal, are welcomed in the voting booths.

We received an Excel spreadsheet of names and other data from the
District of Columbia Board of Elections revealing that 113
non-citizens voted in the June “2024 Presidential Primary.”

The alien voter information was produced in response to Judicial
Watch’s July 3, 2024, D.C., Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for:
a. All public records that identify the number of non-citizens who
voted in the June 2024 primary;
b. The wards in which they are located;
c. The party affiliation they registered as;
d. Any records that identify whether the non-citizens are lawfully or
unlawfully present aliens; and
e. Records that identify the same information for non-citizens
registered to vote who will be eligible to vote in the general
election (i.e., including independents).
This spreadsheet updates data we received earlier through a
pre-primary D.C. FOIA request
[[link removed]]
(May 14, 2024) to the D.C. Board of Elections
[[link removed]]
for records regarding the number of
noncitizens registered to vote in Washington, D.C. under the Local
Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. The data showed that at the time
583 foreign nationals were registered to vote in the June primary
election. The records from the earlier FOIA request also confirmed
that noncitizens can be election workers in the District of Columbia.

Based on the updated, post-primary data from the spreadsheet and from
the D.C. Board of Elections website
[[link removed]],
the turnout rate in the primary among non-U.S.-citizen registrants was
19.3%, as compared to the turnout rate among U.S.-Citizen registrants
of 25.9%.

The records we previously obtained include a Board of Elections
meeting transcript
[[link removed]]
that explains that noncitizens are not required to have an ID to vote.
If they do not have proof of residence when they go to register to
vote or vote for the first time they can still vote by “Special
Ballot.” Also, prisoners are welcome to vote, according to a
“Voting Guide for Incarcerated Residents
[[link removed]

The fact that 113 foreign nationals voted in the presidential primary
in Washington, D.C., is a national scandal, is an insult to every
American voter, and may be a violation of federal law.

While federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal
elections, there are at least two states and local jurisdictions in
the United States that allow non-citizens who are legal permanent
residents to vote in local elections. These include:
1. Maryland: Barnesville, Cheverly, Chevy Chase, Garrett Park, Glen
Echo, Hyattsville, Martin’s Additions, Mount Rainier, Riverdale
Park, Somerset, Takoma Park.
2. Vermont: Burlington, Montpelier, Winooski.
In May we received records
[[link removed]]
from the District of Columbia, explaining to illegal aliens and other
noncitizens how they can register to vote in local elections.

JUDICIAL WATCH FILES FCC COMPLAINT AGAINST NBC FOR AIRING OBSCENE AND
INDECENT CONTENT FROM OLYMPICS OPENING CEREMONY

Haven’t we had enough public obscenities? And to see it on the world
state of the Olympics is beyond the pale.

That is why Judicial Watch filed a Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) complaint against NBC for airing obscene and indecent content
from the Olympics Opening Ceremony.

The blasphemous Olympics’ Opening Ceremony that included, among
other obscene and indecent acts, a man partially exposing himself
around children, is patently offensive for any sensible American and
requires immediate FCC action against NBC.

Our FCC complaint reads in part:

> NBC and its various stations/outlets on TV, cable and Internet
> carried (and continues to make available) the Olympics Opening
> Ceremony on July 26, which included an adult male purposefully
> exposing (himself) in the presence of a child/children. This content
> is both obscene and indecent and, to make matters worse, was aired
> during viewing hours when it was likely seen by millions of children
> and minors.
The obscene/indecent content occurred during a portion of the
ceremonies that mocked Jesus Christ and the Last Supper. The Olympics
was forced to issue an apology over the content.

According to the FCC
[[link removed]],
“federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from
being broadcast on the radio or TV.” The FCC further states:

> Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment.
> For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test
> established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average
> person’s prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a
> “patently offensive” way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious
> literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
>
> Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities
> in a way that is patently offensive but does not meet the
> three-prong test for obscenity.
>
> Profane content includes “grossly offensive” language that is
> considered a public nuisance.
The FCC notes airing obscene or indecent content is a federal crime:

> It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any
> time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or
> profane programming during certain hours. Under 18 U.S.C. Section
> 1464, “[w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language
> by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or
> imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Under 18 U.S.C.
> Section 1468(a), “[w]hoever knowingly utters any obscene language
> or distributes any obscene matter by means of cable television or
> subscription services on television, shall be punished by
> imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a fine in accordance
> with this title, or both.” Likewise, under 47 U.S.C. Section 559,
> “[w]hoever transmits over any cable system any matter which is
> obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United
> States shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2
> years, or both.” Section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules,
> applicable to broadcast stations, bans the broadcast of obscene
> material and prohibits radio and television broadcasts of indecent
> material between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

The Justice Department should also launch an investigation, especially
given the use of children in this obscene and indecent NBC broadcast.

Any person can file a complaint about the NBC broadcast directly with
the FCC:
[link removed].

AS AG KAMALA HARRIS HELPED MAN BECOME NATION’S FIRST UNDOCUMENTED
LAWYER

Kamala Harris’ outrageous support for illegal aliens goes way back
to her days in California state office. Our _Corruption Chronicles_
blog has the details
[[link removed]].

> Years before her catastrophic failure as the Biden
> administration’s border czar, Vice President Kamala Harris helped
> an illegal alien become the nation’s first undocumented lawyer
> while she was California’s top law enforcement official. In a
> court brief filed during the illegal alien’s years-long legal
> battle to obtain a law license, then California Attorney General
> Harris wrote that “it is not a crime either to be present or to
> work in the United States without immigration status.” Even the
> Obama administration opposed an illegal immigrant practicing law in
> the United States and the Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged it,
> arguing that a 1996 immigration reform law precludes undocumented
> aliens from receiving commercial and professional licenses issued by
> states and the federal government. Accordingly, the California
> Supreme Court blocked the illegal immigrant’s license to practice
> law and the case went on for years until Harris intervened on the
> migrant’s behalf.
>
> Though it occurred over a decade ago, the story resurfaced this week
> as part of the mainstream media’s love fest with Harris since she
> replaced Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for president. A
> Sacramento newspaper published a celebratory puff piece
>
[[link removed]]
> in which the illegal immigrant attorney, Sergio Covarrubias-Garcia,
> praises Harris for intervening to help him become a lawyer despite
> living in the U.S. illegally and being sentenced for reentering the
> country after being deported. Garcia was born in the Mexican state
> of Michoacán and first came to the U.S. illegally as an infant but
> lived in both Mexico and the U.S. until permanently moving to
> northern California at the age of 17. A court document
>
[[link removed]]
>
[[link removed]
> by Judicial Watch shows that he was convicted and sentenced after
> “pleading guilty to being an alien found unlawfully in the United
> States after previously having been removed.”
>
> Garcia graduated from a public high school in a northern California
> farming town and reportedly earned scholarships to “prestigious
> universities,” but could not accept them “due to his status as
> an undocumented immigrant,” according to a biography
>
[[link removed]]
published by a public
> university where he delivered an inspirational lecture. He enrolled
> at Butte Community College near his home and completed his
> undergraduate degree at the publicly-funded California State
> University Chico before graduating from Cal Northern School of Law,
> a private school in Chico. Garcia passed the California State Bar
> exam in 2009 but was prohibited from practicing law because he was
> an illegal immigrant. His case received a lot of media attention
> with open border groups and many of the state’s Latino legislators
> supporting him. The feds, on the other hand, rightfully litigated to
> stop the illegal alien from practicing law in the country.
>
> Then Harris came to the rescue. She submitted a written brief to the
> court supporting Garcia’s case and provided a taxpayer-funded
> lawyer from the attorney general’s office to argue for him in
> front of the California Supreme Court, according to the recently
> published news story. Contradicting the Obama DOJ, Harris’s court
> brief said a license for Garcia would comply with state and federal
> policies that “encourage immigrants, both documented and
> undocumented, to contribute to society.” The legal filing
> continues to claim that “it is not a crime either to be present or
> to work in the United States without immigration status, and Garcia
> has never been charged with the crime of unlawful entry. In fact,
> Garcia has been forthright about his immigration status with federal
> officials and has been approved for a visa when one becomes
> available.” Keep in mind, this is our border czar.
>
> Garcia, who is 47 years old, is of course “fully backing Harris on
> her campaign to become the first female president of the United
> States” and is eternally grateful to the former California
> Attorney General. “To know that the ‘top cop’ in California
> did not hate me for being undocumented and was supporting me and
> wanting me to achieve my dream, that was huge,” Garcia says in the
> article. One of the attorneys who represented Garcia and is
> currently the dean of the University of California Davis Law School
> confirms that Harris’s endorsement “made the difference” in
> the case and eventually led to Garcia obtaining his law license.
> “When the highest law enforcement officer of a state weighs in and
> says this is legal, this is permissible, this is possible, the
> Supreme Court of the State of California listens,” said the UC
> Davis Law Dean, Kevin Johnson. “She could have ducked and covered
> and tried to avoid any political controversy.” Harris took it a
> step further and even awarded the nation’s first illegal immigrant
> to practice law with a medal of valor.

Until next week,



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[advertisement]
[[link removed]]


[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]