Big Court Victory for Cleaner Elections

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

[Update]
[[link removed]]


EMAILS SUGGEST OBAMA FBI KNEW MCCAIN LEAKED TRUMP DOSSIER

We are getting more insight into the thinking of the corrupt FBI
officials involved in the plot against Donald Trump – in particular
what they knew and when they knew about the smear/leak operation using
the shady “dossier.”

Our new understanding comes from 138 pages
[[link removed]]
of
emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page.

These include an email dated January 10, 2017, in which Strzok said
that the version of the dossier published by _BuzzFeed_ was
“identical” to the version given to the FBI by McCain and had
“differences” from the dossier provided to the FBI by Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson and _Mother Jones_ reporter David Corn.
January 10, 2017, is the same day _BuzzFeed_ published the anti-Trump
dossier by former British spy Christopher Steele.

The emails also show Strzok and other FBI agents mocking President
Trump a few weeks before he was inaugurated. In addition, the emails
reveal that Strzok communicated with then-Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe about the “leak investigation” tied to the Clinton
Foundation (the very leak in which McCabe was later implicated).

We received the records in our January 2018 FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for
all communications between Strzok and Page (J_udicial Watch v. U.S.
Department of Justice_ (
[[link removed].
1:18-cv-00154)).

The FBI has only processed the records at a rate of 500 pages per
month and has refused to process text messages. At this rate, the
production of these communications will not be completed until at
least late 2021. The FBI is now using the coronavirus
[[link removed]]
as an excuse to shut down the production of any further records.

On January 10, 2017, Strzok, under the subject “RE: _Buzzfeed_
published some of the reports,” writes
[[link removed]
“Our internet system is blocking the site. I have the pdf via
iPhone, but it’s 25.6MB. Comparing now. The set is only identical to
what [Sen. John] McCain had (it has differences from what was given to
us by Corn and Simpson).”

Strzok sent the email to Page and several top-ranking FBI officials,
including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Assistant Director for the
Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, Deputy Assistant Director
of Counterintelligence Jon Moffa, Assistant Director for Public
Affairs Michael Kortan, General Counsel James Baker, and Director
James Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki.

Earlier, on January 10, 2017, _BuzzFeed_ published
[[link removed]]
a version of the dossier that Strzok said was “identical” to what
McCain’s office had turned over to the FBI. Strzok sent the
_BuzzFeed_-related email at 7:48 PM. At 8:23 PM on the same day,
Strzok forwards to Page and several FBI officials an article
[[link removed]]
by the UK outlet _The Guardian_ titled “FBI chief given dossier by
John McCain alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts.”

David Corn was one of Steele’s media contacts
[[link removed]].
Fusion GPS paid Steele, via funds from the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to write the
dossier. In testimony
[[link removed]]
to the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 2017, Simpson said he was
not aware of any version of the Steele dossier being given to the FBI.

While acknowledging he had given the dossier to the FBI, McCain had
denied being the source of the
dossier report. But court filings
[[link removed]]
unsealed in March 2019 show the Arizona Republican senator and an
associate had shared the dossier with several media outlets.

Former State Department official and McCain associate David Kramer
said in a December 13, 2017, deposition
[[link removed]]
that
the dossier was given to him by Steele and he then provided it to
journalists at outlets includingCNN, _BuzzFeed_ and _The Washington
Post_. The details were first reported by _The Daily Caller
[[link removed].

The new records also include a December 22, 2016, email
[[link removed]]
in
which Strzok asks then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe if the FBI had
opened a “leak investigation” into Clinton Foundation media
reports. Strzok writes: “I received word via Jen that tomorrow
morning Mike S [presumably Executive Assistant Director Michael
Steinbach] wants to talk about whether we have opened a leak
investigation into the publicity surrounding the C Foundation. He said
he’d like to discuss, as the D [Director James Comey] ‘would like
to do something.’ I need guidance as to how/if you’d like me to
detail the media pull we conducted. As you may recall, we have not
detailed that activity other than to you and Bill.” McCabe’s reply
to Strzok is redacted.

McCabe was fired from the FBI in March 2018 for leaking to the media
and lacking “candor
[[link removed]
A February 2018 DOJ inspector general report
[[link removed]]
concluded “that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing
investigation … violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media
policy and constituted misconduct.” McCabe was referred for
prosecution but the Justice Department declined.

The documents also include several emails
[[link removed]]
in which Strzok forwards Russiagate-related news articles to Page and
other FBI officials. On January 1, 2017, Strzok forwarded to Moffa and
another unidentified official a _New York Times _article titled
“Trump Promises Revelation on Hacking.” The article discusses
President-elect Donald Trump’s skepticism about U.S. intelligence
assessments of Russian hacking relating to the 2016 election. Strzok
cut and pasted a quote from the article in which Trump said, “I
don’t care what they say, no computer is safe. I have a boy who’s
10 years old; he can do anything with a computer. You want something
to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by
courier.” The article mentions that Trump said new information would
be coming out the following Tuesday. Strzok then says in his cover
note, “I think the Tuesday surprise is all the stuff [redacted] told
him during the CI [counterintelligence] briefing. He DID mention the
stuff about his son and the computer password …” A redacted FBI
agent replies to Strzok, but the reply is also redacted. Another FBI
agent then responds, “To be accurate he called it a code word not a
password. Ha!” Strzok replies, “Funnies.”

On December 15, 2016, Strzok forwards to Page an article
[[link removed]]
from _the Daily Mail_ reporting that a former British diplomat, Craig
Murray, claimed to have received emails that were stolen from the DNC
and John Podesta. Murray said he received the emails near the grounds
of American University in Washington, DC. The article says the emails
were from an inside DNC source, not Russians. Strzok writes in his
cover note to Page, “Shaddy sh*t at AU…;)”.

On December 21, 2016, Strzok forwards to Page a link
[[link removed]]
to a _Defense One_ article about Russian efforts to interfere in the
U.S. presidential election. Strzok cut and pasted a quote from former
Acting CIA Director Michael Morell in which Morell says, “To me, and
this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent
of 9/11.”

On December 26, 2016, Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
to Moffa and an unidentified Washington Field Office agent a Bloomberg
article
[[link removed]]
titled “Trump Aide Partnered with Firm Run by Man with Alleged KGB
Ties.” The article reports that Trump adviser Gen. Michael Flynn,
having partnered in 2016 with Subu Kota, a man who pleaded guilty in
1996 to selling stolen biotech material to an FBI agent posing as a
Russian spy. Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
the article to Page, saying, “See, look, I’m sharing… ;)”

On January 4, 2017, Strzok forwards to Page a 14-page white paper by
the Capital Research Center entitled “Conducting Foreign Relations
Without Authority: The Logan Act.” He had previously sent the same
file to Office of General Counsel attorney Trisha Anderson and to
Priestap.

In a January 4, 2017, email thread
[[link removed]]
a redacted official in the FBI’s Operational Technology Division
emails Strzok and Page: “The AD [Assistant Director] of Cyber is
apparently bringing up the idea of [redacted]. [Redacted] just
messaged me after being pinged by SF [likely the FBI’s San Francisco
office]. He asked why this was coming up again, and he wants to talk
to me about it next week. Any recommendation on how to deal with
this?” Pages replies, “Why don’t you let Pete or Bill or I reach
out to the AD of Cyber to let him know how we got here [redacted]. It
might then be worth [redacted].” The official responds, “Perfect.
That works for me and you can mention that OTD brought it to you. My
initial recommendation was for the AD to reach out to you two, but I
can only assume that message did not reach him.”

On January 9, 2017, in an email
[[link removed]]
with the subject line “USIC report,” [U.S. Intelligence Community]
Strzok tells Page and a redacted official “Per D’s request on
Friday, NYO received a single copy of the influence report from
ODNI’s [redacted]; it is being maintained in the CD SAC’s safe for
PEOTUS [president-elect of the United States]/senior staff.”

On January 10, 2017, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
Page, Moffa, Priestap and Jennifer Boone to say, “Per Rich
[presumably Richard Quinn
[[link removed]],
formerly with the public affairs office], CNN to publish C material
today between 4 and 5. Page replies: “We have lots of details from
kortan [Asst Dir Michael Kortan of public affairs]. He will brief at
the 3:45.” Strzok responds: “Can I maybe get a read out vis a vis
relationship with Brits etc?”

The significance of these new emails is that Strzok and his Obama FBI
colleagues knew almost immediately that McCain likely leaked the
infamous dossier. The emails also show that senior FBI officials had
contempt for President Trump and gossiped about its
counterintelligence briefing to him. The FBI under Comey and McCabe
was a train wreck and, given the ongoing cover-up of these docs, the
agency hasn’t improved much.

This latest records release adds to the volume of material we’ve
already uncovered on the Strzok/Page machinations. Here is some of our
previous work in this area.

In February 2020, we uncovered
[[link removed]]
an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her
interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for
“the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose
to use it “out of convenience” and that “it proved to be
anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology and the
“convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302 report that
summarized the interview.

Also in February, we made public Strzok-Page emails showing their
direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the
bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The records also show additional “confirmed
classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov
email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director
James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the
DOJ was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ
was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear
Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about
“squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.

In January 2020, we uncovered
[[link removed]]
Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the
lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the
Clinton email controversy.

In November 2019, we revealed
[[link removed]]
Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of
Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.

Also in November, we uncovered
[[link removed]]
emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the
transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system,
Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email]
chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of
paragraphs.”

The coup cabal’s house of cards is looking more fragile by the day,
thanks in large measure to Judicial Watch.

MEXICAN HOSPITAL OVERRUN BY COVID-19 CLOSES NEAR BUSY U.S. CROSSING

President Trump rightly restricted border crossings on our Mexican and
Canadian borders to control the coronavirus contagion. Our _Corruption
Chronicles_ blog reveals
[[link removed]]
the threat to our health still lurking on our southern border.

> COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in Mexican cities along the
> United States border, yet transit between the countries has
> increased dramatically, flouting State Department travel
> restrictions
>
[[link removed]]
> issued to keep the virus from spreading. A few weeks ago Judicial
> Watch reported
>
[[link removed]]
> that southern border crossings are hotbeds of traffic that are
> jeopardizing the health of federal agents charged with screening the
> influx and potentially spreading the virus to American communities.
> The problem is only getting worse, according to Customs and Border
> Protection (CBP) sources, who say traffic is so bad that wait times
> in some crossings can take up to six hours. That is because
> thousands in border states, especially Arizona, are taking daily
> jaunts to Mexico to have lunch or dinner, shop, visit family and get
> haircuts in the middle of the pandemic. Many return to the U.S. the
> same day, creating a gridlock that must be screened by CBP officers.
>
> In the Mexican city of Sonora, near the southwest Arizona town of
> San Luis, COVID-19 is so rampant that an overwhelmed hospital was
> shut down not far from the jam-packed San Luis
>
[[link removed]]
border crossing.
> Mexican mediareports that a nurse died at the facility, Hospital de
> San Luis Rio Colorado, and more than 30 doctors and nurses are sick
> with the virus. At least 20 doctors may also be infected.
> Nevertheless, the San Luis crossing remains among the busiest along
> the southern border, with consistently lengthy wait times. “It’s
> crazy busy,” said veteran CBP agent Patricia Cramer, who also
> serves as president of the Arizona chapter of the agency’s
> employee union. In the last few days wait times have spiked up to
> six hours, according to agents who man the hectic crossing. This
> week the shortest wait time has been over two hours, according to
> records provided to Judicial Watch by agents in the sector. “That
> hospital that got closed is near the busiest port along the southern
> border,” said Cramer who has been in contact with the mayor of San
> Luis, a working-class town of about 34,000 adjacent to the Colorado
> River. “He is very worried,” she said. “His town is going to
> get hit hard.”
>
> In El Paso, Texas, nine CBP officers have tested positive for
> COVID-19 and, though traffic in that sector has been lighter than in
> Arizona, officials say there should be no cross border traffic
> considering a big COVID-19 outbreak in nearby CiudadJuárez, Mexico.
> This week Mexican officials report 140 COVID-19 case in Ciudad
> Juárez and 33 deaths. “Juárez is right across the border from us
> and they’ve had more than 30 deaths,” said longtime CBP officer
> John Monahan, who serves as president of the El Paso CBP union.
> “The border needs to be shut down for a period of time,” Monahan
> insists. “It defeats the purpose if you let people cross back and
> forth over and over again.” Like many of his colleagues at the
> agency Monahan is calling on the Department of Homeland Security
> (DHS) to curb the flow of cross border traffic during the health
> crisis. “I don’t think DHS cares about our health and safety,”
> he said. “Agents are scared and there’s a lot of anxiety.”
>
> Under COVID-19 protocols Mexican nationals are not allowed to go
> back and forth via land crossings for non-essential travel, but
> those with legal U.S. residency (green cards) and citizens cannot be
> stopped. Cramer and her fellow agents are calling on elected
> officials to help curb the non-essential cross border traffic, which
> they say is a threat to the nation’s health and safety. That is
> precisely why DHS issued travel restrictions
>
[[link removed]]
> for land ports of entry and ferries between the U.S. and Mexico
> during the pandemic. The document published in the Federal Register
> states that the risk of continued transmission and spread of
> COVID-19 between the U.S. and Mexico poses a “specific threat to
> human life or national interests” and therefore officials in both
> countries have mutually determined that non-essential travel between
> the nations “poses additional risk of transmission and spread of
> COVID-19.” Essential travel is defined as American citizens and
> lawful residents returning to the U.S., medical purposes, military
> or diplomatic duties and lawful cross-border trade.

COURT ORDERS MARYLAND TO RELEASE COMPLETE VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS

As the Left assaults election integrity with national pushes for
unsecure “vote by mail”, mass ballot harvesting, and an end to
voter ID, your Judicial Watch methodically works to ensure our
elections are cleaner.

A federal court ordered
[[link removed]]
the State of Maryland to produce the voter list for Montgomery County
that includes the registered voters’ date of birth. This ruling is
the latest victory for us in the lawsuit we filed on July 18, 2017,
against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections
under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA
[[link removed]]).

We filed suit
[[link removed]]
for the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were
more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age
of 18 who could legally register (_Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone,
et al.
[[link removed]
(No. 1:17-cv-02006)).

Ruling in our favor, Judge Hollander said:

> Judicial Watch need not demonstrate its need for birth date
> information in order to facilitate its effort to ensure that the
> voter rolls are properly maintained. Nevertheless, it has put
> forward reasonable justifications for requiring birth date
> information, including using birth dates to find duplicate
> registrations and searching for voters who remain on the rolls
> despite “improbable” age.
>
In order to avoid turning over the dates of birth for Maryland
voters, the Maryland Administrator of Elections, Linda Lamone,
directed her staff to remove date of birth as a field on the voter
registration application. Judge Hollander ruled that Lamone could not
do this, saying:


> Because full voter birth dates appear on completed voter
> registration applications, the Administrator may not bypass the Act
> by unilaterally revising the Application.
>
In August 2019, Judge Hollander ruled
[[link removed]]
in our favor in the same case, ordering
[[link removed]]
the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery
County. She noted then:

> Organizations such as Judicial Watch have the resources and
> expertise that few individuals can marshal. By excluding these
> organizations from access to voter registration lists, the State law
> undermines Section 8(i)’s efficacy. Accordingly, [Maryland
> election law] is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the NVRA’s
> purposes. It follows that the State law is preempted in so far as it
> allows only Maryland registered voters to access voter registration
> lists.
The judge at the time also asked us and Maryland to brief the issue
of access to birth dates “more fully,” and reserved her ruling on
that point. This recent ruling resolves the last remaining issue in
the case, allowing us access to full voter registration files for
Montgomery County registrants.

The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11,
2017, notice letter
[[link removed]]
sent to Maryland election officials, in which we explained that
Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate – over
100 percent of its age-eligible citizenry. The letter threatened a
lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County’s voter rolls were
not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter
registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any
“programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the
accuracy and currency of Maryland’s official eligible voter lists
during the past 2 years.”

Democrat Maryland officials, in response, went so far as to accuse us
of being an agent
[[link removed]]
of Russia, an allegation they later dropped.

New federal data released in summer 2019 showed that the number of
Montgomery County’s voter registrations still appeared to be over
100 percent of its age-eligible citizenry.
Maryland politicians fought tooth and nail to keep us from uncovering
the full truth about their dirty election rolls. This latest court
victory will allow us to ensure that Maryland and Montgomery County
are removing voters who have moved or died long ago.

As you know, we are the national leader in enforcing the National
Voters Registration Act. Attorney Robert Popper is the director of our
Election Integrity initiative.

We recently filed a lawsuit against North Carolina
[[link removed]]
and two of its counties for failing to clean their voter rolls.
According to our analysis of voter registration data, many of North
Carolina’s 100 counties have large numbers of ineligible voters on
their rolls. We have also alleged that the States’ own data shows
that North Carolina has nearly one million inactive voters on its
rolls.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld
[[link removed]]
a
voter roll cleanup program that resulted from our settlement of a
federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled
[[link removed]]
an
NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year began the process of
removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s
voter rolls. Kentucky
[[link removed]]
also
began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last
year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial
Watch lawsuit.

In December 2019, we provided notice
[[link removed]]
to
19 large counties in five states that it intended to sue unless they
took steps to comply with the NVRA by removing ineligible
registrations from their rolls. In addition to North Carolina and
Pennsylvania
[[link removed]],
Judicial Watch sent letters to counties in California, Virginia, and
Colorado. Our 2019 study of election data found at least 2.5 million
“extra” names on voting rolls across the country.

OUR CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN ELECTIONS

Judicial Watch’s work to protect and promote cleaner elections is
wide, broad and successful. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, summarizes
[[link removed]]
Judicial Watch’s historic efforts for election integrity:

> With the presidential race heating up, election integrity is back in
> the news. Cheaters gonna cheat and there’s lots of ways to steal
> an election—dirty voter rolls, mail-in voting, and “ballot
> harvesting
>
[[link removed]
are
> three areas ripe for abuse.
>
> Judicial Watch is the national leader in election integrity
> education and litigation. The very notion of voter fraud is steeped
> in partisan bickering, but Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
> insists electoral abuse is not “a Right-Left issue” at all. The
> Right may be leading the fight
>
[[link removed]]
> on election fraud, but “if you’re a Leftist Democrat trying to
> take on an incumbent in a corrupt jurisdiction,” Fitton says,
> “voter fraud can keep you from gaining traction as well.”
>
> Judicial Watch is cleaning up dirty voter rolls across the nation.
> States are required by the National Voter Registration Act to remove
> so-called “inactive voters” from registration rolls if they do
> not respond to an address confirmation notice and then fail to vote
> in the next two general federal elections. Many “inactive
> voters” do this because, well, they’re dead. Or they have moved
> away.
>
> Why does this matter? Leaving the names of inactive voters on
> registration rolls creates opportunities for fraud, such as dead
> people voting
>
[[link removed]]
> or double voting
>
[[link removed]].
> Critics argue that these concerns are overblown
>
[[link removed]],
> but sometimes it only takes a few votes to swing an election
>
[[link removed]].
>
> And dirty voter roll numbers are not small. Here’s what we have
> uncovered:
>
> In North Carolina, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed nearly
> one million inactive voters on its rolls. That’s about 17% percent
> of North Carolina’s total voter registration. Earlier this month,
> we sued North Carolina
>
[[link removed]]
> to clean up its act.
>
> Recently in Maryland, a federal judge ordered
>
[[link removed]]
> Montgomery County to turn over its voter rolls to Judicial Watch for
> analysis. Judicial Watch asked for the rolls after it determined
> that county registrations had exceeded 100% of its age-eligible
> citizenry. Read more about the Maryland case here
>
[[link removed]].
>
> We uncovered 1.6 million inactive voters on California voting rolls.
> In 2017, we sued California and Los Angeles County to force a
> cleanup. Our investigation found that Los Angeles County had more
> voter registrations on its rolls than actual voting age citizens in
> the county, and that the entire state had a voter registration rate
> of 101% of age-eligible citizens. Last year, California capitulated,
> settling our lawsuit
>
[[link removed]]
> and agreeing to remove inactive voters from its rolls.
>
> We’ve been working to clean up Ohio voting rolls since 2012. In
> 2018, a Supreme Court decision upheld
>
[[link removed]]
> an Ohio voter-roll cleanup that resulted from settlement of a
> Judicial Watch lawsuit. The lawsuit
>
[[link removed]]
> found that the number of people listed on voter registration rolls
> in three Ohio counties exceeded 100% of the total voting age
> population.
>
> We took on Kentucky. Our investigation found that 48 Kentucky
> counties—40% of the state total—had more registered voters than
> citizens over the age of 18. Statewide, we noted, the registration
> rate was higher than 100% of its age-eligible population. We sued
> and won: a federal court directed Kentucky
>
[[link removed]]
> to clean up its rolls. Indiana also agreed
>
[[link removed]]
> to clean up its rolls after Judicial Watch launched an
> investigation.
>
> In February, we announced
>
[[link removed]]
> that our investigation in Iowa found 18,000 extra names on voter
> rolls. Eight Iowa counties had more voter registrations than voting
> age citizens. “Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections,” Tom
> Fitton noted. Iowa was apoplectic
[[link removed]],
but offered
> no evidence that our count was incorrect.
>
> And in a major new development, Judicial Watch announced in January
> that we found at least another 2.5 million extra names on voter
> rolls across the country. A Judicial Watch analysis of data released
> by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that there are 378
> counties in the U.S. that have more voter registrations than
> citizens old enough to vote. The 378 counties had a combined 2.5
> million extra registrants over the 100%-registered mark. We’ve
> notified 19 counties in five state
>
[[link removed],
> Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia—that we
> intended to sue unless they take steps to clean up their voter
> rolls.

> Stay tuned.
>
> Meanwhile, for more on our efforts to clean up dirty voter rolls,
> here’s a discussion
>
[[link removed]]
> with Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch Election Integrity Initiative
> Director Bob Popper.

With your support we will be relentless in our pursuit of clean and
fair elections.

Until next week,



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[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 - 2020, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]