[Header]

Secret Service Corruption EXPOSED

Historic Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Appeals Court Rules Against
Counting of Ballots Received after Election Day

[[link removed]]
In a huge victory for election integrity, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion
[[link removed]]
reversing a lower court ruling on Mississippi’s election law that
permitted absentee ballots to be received as late as five business
days after Election Day.

Earlier this year, your Judicial Watch filed a civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]]
challenging the Mississippi election law on behalf of the Libertarian
Party of Mississippi (_Libertarian Party of Mississippi v Wetzel et
al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00037)). The court consolidated the case we filed with
one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi
Republican Party, and other complainants.

(Judicial Watch filed the first challenge
[[link removed]]
to require all ballots be received by Election Day in 2022 against
Illinois.)

The Fifth Circuit opinion states in part:

> Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the
> election” of members of Congress and the appointment of
> presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice
> confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots
> must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because
> Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after
> the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse
> the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further
> proceedings.
We argued that holding voting open for five days past Election Day
violates the constitutional rights of voters and candidates:

> Counting untimely, illegal, and invalid votes, such as those
> received in violation of federal law, substantially increases the
> pool of total votes cast and dilutes the weight of votes cast by
> Plaintiff’s members and others in support of Plaintiff’s federal
> nominees.
The complaint details that as many as 1.7% of votes cast in
Mississippi in 2020 were received after Election Day.

In our appeal filings
[[link removed]],
we explained that the Mississippi law extending Election Day is
obviously at odds with federal law. The Fifth Circuit hearing can be
found here
[[link removed]].
This is a historic victory for election integrity and voter rights and
confidence. This is a precedent that ensures that only ballots that
arrive by Election Day can be counted under federal law. We hope this
begins a national movement to increase voter confidence, comply with
federal law, and limit voter fraud by counting ballots that arrive
only by Election Day.

We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As
part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly
experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory
elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio,
Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements
[[link removed]].

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election
law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting
rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements
in dozens of states.

In a similar lawsuit, in 2022, we, on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost
and two other registered voters, sued
[[link removed]]
Illinois for allowing vote-by-mail ballots (even those without
postmarks) to be counted if received up to 14 calendar days after
Election Day if the ballots are dated on or before Election Day.

In May 2024, we sued
[[link removed]]
California under the National Voter Registration Act
[[link removed]]
of 1993 (NVRA) to force it to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit,
filed on behalf of the Libertarian Party of California, asks the court
to compel California to make “a reasonable effort to remove the
registrations of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls” as
required by federal law (_Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian
Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 2:24-cv-3750)).

In March 2024, we, Breakthrough Ideas, Illinois Family Action, and
Carol J. Davis sued
[[link removed]]
Illinois
officials under the NVRA to force them to clean the State’s voter
rolls. (_Judicial Watch Inc., et al., v. Illinois State Board of
Elections, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-01867).

In December 2023, a notice letter was
[[link removed]]
sent to election officials in the District of Columbia notifying them
of evident violations of the NVRA, based on their failure to remove
inactive voters from their registration rolls. The letter pointed out
that D.C. publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter
registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letter threatened
a federal lawsuit unless the violations were corrected in a timely
fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, DC,
officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly
removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to
remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as
“inactive.”

In July 2023 we filed
[[link removed]]
an
_amicus curiae_ (friend of the court) brief
[[link removed]],
supporting the decision
[[link removed]]
of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down
Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s
voter registration list (_Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Shenna
Bellows_
[[link removed]]
(No.
23-1361). According to a national study
[[link removed]]
conducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration
rate was 101% of eligible voters.

Judicial Watch in July 2023 also settled
[[link removed]]
a
federal election integrity lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois
Conservative Union against the state of Illinois, the Illinois State
Board of Elections, and its director, which now grants access to the
current centralized statewide list of registered voters for the state
for the past 15 elections.

In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled
[[link removed]]
with us and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258
ineligible registrations in response to communications from us. The
settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to extensive
public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll
clean-up efforts for the next five years.

In March 2023, Colorado agreed
[[link removed]]
to settle our NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove
ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement requires
Colorado to provide us with the most recent voter roll data for each
Colorado county each year for six years.
In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed
[[link removed]]
the removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last
year, under the terms of a settlement agreement
[[link removed]]
in a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
we filed in 2017.

We settled
[[link removed]]
a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the
city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and
promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter
registration lists.

Kentucky
[[link removed]]
also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it
entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.
In February 2022, we settled
[[link removed]]
a
voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its
counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive
registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor
[[link removed]]
of our challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme”
congressional-districts gerrymander.

This case and other pending cases are far from over. The legal battles
to ensure election integrity will continue with Judicial Watch in the
lead as long as the need remains …

RECORDS CONFIRM AGENT ON HARRIS SECRET SERVICE DETAIL BROKE INTO
MASSACHUSETTS HAIR SALON, TAPED OVER SECURITY CAMERA

We just uncovered 62 pages
[[link removed]]
of records from the Department of Homeland Security thanks to a FOIA
lawsuit that shows, contrary
[[link removed]]
to what it told the media, at least one U.S. Secret Service agent
broke into a hair salon and taped over the salon’s security camera
in Pittsfield, MA, during a July 27, 2024, campaign fundraising visit
by Vice President Kamala Harris

The records also show one agent telling colleagues that by covering
the hair salon’s external security camera with tape, the Secret
Service was laughably pretending to be “mitigating threats.”

We filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
here in
Washington DC after the Secret Service failed to respond to an August
2024 FOIA request for records regarding the break-in by vice
presidential protective detail (_Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S.
Department of Homeland Security_
[[link removed]]
(No,1:24-cv–02750)).

The _New York Post_ reported
[[link removed]]
on August 11: “The Secret Service apologized to a salon owner in
Massachusetts who alleged that individuals broke into her business to
use the bathroom during the agency’s security work for a nearby Veep
Kamala Harris fundraiser…. [A] Secret Service officer covered a
camera outside her salon with tape.”

A Secret Service agent in the New York Field Office states in a July
28, 2024, email
[[link removed]]
to an official on Harris’s detail whose name is redacted:

> The owner [redacted] called the NYC Duty Desk stating she has
> pictures of agents going into the house, covering up cameras and
> using the bathroom. The address in question is 54 Wendell Ave.,
> Pittsfield, MA 01201. She just wanted to know who had given
> permission to go inside and use the space.
The Harris detail official forwards the email to an official in the
“TSD,” Technical Security Division.

A Technical Security Division official whose name is redacted reports:


> The building in question is [redacted]. It was a multi-story
> building with a salon on the ground floor, and residences above. I
> entered the day prior during working hours to ask one of the
> employees about [redacted]. I have no knowledge of any of the teams
> assigned to TSD entering the building at any time. [Redacted]
>
> At least one of the residents were on the property and I saw them
> out on the balcony multiple times. I have no idea if they might have
> given someone permission to enter to use the bathroom. SA [special
> agent] [redacted] advised that [redacted].
>
> I don’t know the extent of the issues the owner has, just what you
> see in his forwarded thread. If any further information is
> necessary, please let me know.
The message is forwarded to another official in the vice
president’s detail and the sender states:

> See below from TSI [technical security investigators] [redacted] the
> TSD lead for the visit.
>
> Also I was informed after the visit by the Arrival Departure agent
> (SA) [redacted] that local PD [police department] were utilizing the
> bathroom within the building. VPD [vice presidential division] did
> not give permission to use this facility. However, local PD did seem
> to have a relationship with facility owner and stated they have
> worked together before! I was made aware that potentially one Agent
> may have used the facility as well which was the site 2 PI
> [protective intelligence] agent (SA) [redacted] which was paired
> with his local PD counterpart.
>
> CSP [critical systems protection] Agent [redacted] informed us of
> camera vulnerabilities located on the hair salon facing the A/D
> [area/departure] area. I was informed that attempts were made to
> contact owners but unsuccessful. Day of the visit SA [redacted]
> mitigated threats due to covering the exterior camera.
The email thread works its way up to Brian Lambert, assistant
director, Office of Investigations, who then writes to Michael Ball of
the Investigations Division, asking, “Can you please check work
[sic] BOS [Secret Service Boston Field Office] to see if that SA used
the bathroom?” Ball replies, “Copy.”

In a July 30, 2024, email
[[link removed]]
exchange a Boston Secret Service official asks a Pittsfield official
whose name is redacted: “Sir, Please take a look. See if you know
anyone in the video. I only know the woman who put the tape on the
camera.”

The redacted individual responds: “Doesn’t look like anyone of
your people! Other than the female with the tape.”

In an August 5, 2024, email
[[link removed]]
exchange between an assistant special agent in charge of the Secret
Service Boston Field Office and a local police chief, the police chief
confirms that at least one agent was in the hair salon, along with
local officials. The Boston agent writes, “Hi Chief, Hope all is
going well in Pittsfield. I am about to hit the road for Philadelphia
for a week or so. Quick question for you. Regarding the video from the
salon … were the individuals who went inside ever identified?” The
police chief responds, “After I reviewed it, it appears 2 females
were EMS County ambulance, 1 USSS [Secret Service] agent and 1 state
police CERT [Community Emergency Response Team] member. Hope all is
well!”

In an August 6, 2024, email
[[link removed]]
from _Business Insider_ reporter Jacob Shamsian to the Secret Service
Media Inquiry Department:

> I spoke to [redacted] the owner of the Four One Three Salon in
> Pittsfield. She told me that on the day of Harris's visit, on July
> 27, she closed down her salon, which is located just behind the
> Colonial Theatre where Harris held a fundraiser.
>
> She said that a Secret Service agent taped over the exterior
> security camera of her salon. And then a couple of hours later, her
> lock was picked and several people - including one person wearing a
> Secret Service uniform - entered the salon to use the bathroom. They
> left the door unlocked when they left.
>
> Security footage that [redacted] shared with me backs up her version
> of events.
>
> [The owner] told me that she later spoke to an EMT [Emergency
> Medical Technician], who told her that the ‘person in charge’ of
> the Secret Service that day told people to use her bathroom’s
> salon [sic]. She said she spoke to someone at a Secret Service field
> office (it wasn’t clear to me if it was the Massachusetts or New
> York field office – Pittsfield is in Massachusetts just across the
> border from New York), who blamed the local police.
The reporter, Shamsian, poses a series of questions that the Secret
Service answers in the email chain.

When asked if a Secret Service officer picked the lock of the salon,
Secret Service replies, “No one from the USSS picked the lock of the
Salon door.”

When asked if the Secret Service sought permission from a person whose
name is redacted or the property owner to “use the facility for the
bathroom or any other reason,” the Boston Secret Service replies,
“USSS personnel did not ask for permission to enter the Salon nor
did any of our personnel enter the business. We reviewed the videos
provided to us and observed that none of the individuals who entered
the Salon were USSS personnel. The Pittsfield Police Chief confirmed
those individuals were state or local police, fire or EMS.”

When asked if the Secret Service agent in charge – or any other
officer – told others to use the bathroom, the Secret Service
replied, “No one from the USSS directed any state or local personnel
to enter the Salon or use the restrooms.”

On August 6, 2024, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the Boston Field
Office, Andrew Murphy, sends an email
[[link removed]]
to a colleague in the Office of Protective Services (OPS) whose name
is redacted, ordering him to, “Please send me the names of every BOS
personnel working the [redacted] visit to Pittsfield. This information
is time sensitive.”

The reply from the official is redacted. Murphy then responds,
“Thank you. Can you please provide me with the names of the duty
agents from the 27th of July through today.”

In an August 7, 2024, email
[[link removed]]
with the subject line “Draft PreDecisional Statement” includes
news articles sent by Vincent Tutoni, assistant director for
Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, to Communications Director
Anthony Guglielmi and others:” So DHS front office is interested in
this unfortunate incident. Received a call last night at 8:45pm. We
will have to confer with them this AM.”

Guglielmi replies, “Got it. Let us know. [Redacted] asked reporter
for some time 11am. Salon owner had a previously scheduled interview
today also with the local paper.

On August 12, Acting Director Ronald Rowe receives an email
[[link removed]]
from a person whose name is redacted asking, “Will the Agent who
broke into the salon in Mass be disciplined? Will the Agent in charge
be disciplined for breaking into the salon?”

The Biden-Harris Secret Service is unprofessional, dishonest, and
corrupt. The Secret Service not only broke into a business to use its
bathroom but then lied about it, placing the blame on local law
enforcement.

We have extensively sued and investigated the Secret Service on
transparency and corruption issues.

My new book, _Rights and Freedoms in Peril_
[[link removed]],
details some of our numerous
lawsuits and disclosures about Secret Service controversies.

Recently, we sued
[[link removed]]
the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security for records on a 2022 car accident
involving Vice President Kamala Harris’s Secret Service motorcade.
The _New York Post_ reported
[[link removed]]
in October 2022 that “Vice President Kamala Harris was involved in a
minor car accident Monday, one that was initially — and falsely —
dismissed as ‘mechanical failure.’” The driver of her SUV struck
a curb hard enough “that the tire needed to be replaced, bringing
the VP’s motorcade to a standstill.” NBC reported
[[link removed]]
that the vehicle had been partially airborne.

In September, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service
denied President Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service
protection, we sued
[[link removed]]
the
Department of Homeland Security for all Secret Service and other
records regarding potential increased protective services to former
President Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life
at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

In August we released records showing that the Secret Service has made
it a top priority that “diversity and inclusion is not just
‘talked about’ – but demonstrated by all employees through
‘Every Action, Every Day.’” [Emphasis in original] The records
show the Secret Service demands that 12 percent of its workforce be
composed of “persons with disabilities,” and that it is the policy
of the Secret Service to provide equal employment opportunity without
regard to such non-merit factors as “disability (physical or
mental).”

JUDICIAL WATCH SENDS ELECTION MONITORS TO WISCONSIN, LAUNCHES NATIONAL
VOTER FRAUD HOTLINE

Every day brings new reports of outright election fraud in states and
cities across the country. We have always been out front in uncovering
election abuses, and we’re active this season. Micah Morrison, our
chief investigative reporter, provides an important
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
in
Judicial Watch’s _Investigative Bulletin_.

> With the race for the presidency hurtling to the finish line,
> Judicial Watch will dispatch an election integrity team to Wisconsin
> to help ensure free and fair elections. Wisconsin is a critical
> swing state with
>
[[link removed]
> history
>
[[link removed]]
> of tumultuous electoral contests. “Judicial Watch’s teams will
> monitor the election in Wisconsin to expose and deter any fraud,”
> said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
>
> Improper or illegal election activities are also the focus of
> Judicial Watch’s new
>
[[link removed]
> Integrity Hotline
>
[[link removed]].
> Voters who witness fraud or intimidation, or suspicious activities
> at polling places or with voting machines, can send details to JW
> election experts at [email protected].
>
> Judicial Watch has long been a national leader in ensuring election
> integrity and voting rights. Judicial Watch’s election integrity
> team is led by
>
[[link removed]
Popper
>
[[link removed]],
the former
> deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of
> the U.S. Department of Justice and a veteran poll observer.
>
> “Voter fraud in one form or another is a feature of every
> election,” Popper says. “It can be impersonation fraud, absentee
> ballot fraud, registration fraud, double voting, noncitizen voting,
> or voting by those ineligible under state law. It’s hard to detect
> and prove, especially where the law requires a showing of specific
> intent, but we know it is there. And sometimes fraud can swing a
> close election. Clean elections are a critical component of an
> effectively functioning democracy. Dirty elections undermine
> confidence in the democratic system.”
>
> A key weapon in the fight to keep elections free and fair is the
> National Voter Registration Act, which mandates that states make
> “a reasonable effort” to remove from voting rolls “the names
> of ineligible voters” who have been disqualified from voting due
> to death or change of residence. States often dodge this
> responsibility, creating opportunities for election fraud.
>
> Legal pressure from Judicial Watch under the NVRA has led to the
> removal from voter rolls of more than four million ineligible voters
> nationwide. JW has spearheaded major voter roll cleanups in
> California, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky,
> Colorado, and elsewhere. Cleaner voter rolls mean cleaner elections.
> You can learn more about JW’s voter roll cleanups
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]].
>
> Judicial Watch fights on other legal fronts as well. In 2022, we
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]]
> a highly partisan Maryland redistricting plan initiated by Democrats
> in the state legislature. Last year, we
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]]
> Illinois to provide more transparency in its state-wide centralized
> list of registered voters. Earlier this month, we
>
[[link removed]
a
> major victory
>
[[link removed]]
when the
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court
> ruling allowing absentee ballots to be received up to five days
> after Election Day in Mississippi.
>
> “Congress statutorily designated a singular ‘day for the
> election’ of members of Congress and the appointment of
> presidential electors,” the Fifth Circuit noted in
>
[[link removed]
> ruling
>
[[link removed]].
> “Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this ‘day for
> the election’ is the day by which ballots must be both cast by
> voters and received by state officials.”
>
> Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton hailed the ruling. “This is a
> historic victory for election integrity and voter rights and
> confidence,” Tom said. “This is a precedent that ensures that
> only ballots that arrive by Election Day can be counted under
> federal law. We hope this begins a national movement to increase
> voter confidence, comply with federal law, and limit voter fraud by
> counting ballots that arrive only by Election Day.”

MASS MIGRATION IGNITES U.S. TUBERCULOSIS RESURGENCE, FOREIGNERS
ACCOUNT FOR 76% OF LAST YEAR’S CASES

The Biden-Harris border invasion is a public health crisis. Our
_Corruption Chronicles_ blog
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
the
truth:

> Besides compromising the safety of Americans by
>
[[link removed]
> over half a million illegal immigrants
>
[[link removed]]
with
> criminal records in communities throughout the United States, the
> Biden administration has ignited yet another crisis by failing to
> properly screen migrants for contagious diseases. Judicial Watch has
> long reported on the serious health threat presented by illegal
> aliens and a decade ago
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]]
> that tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors (Unaccompanied
> Alien Children—UAC) under Obama fueled a deadly respiratory virus
> epidemic that struck American kids across the country and killed at
> least nine. Months earlier a U.S. Congressman, who is also a medical
> doctor, had confirmed that UAC were bringing in serious diseases
> including swine flu, dengue fever, tuberculosis, and Ebola virus. In
> a
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]]
to the
> director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
> the Georgia lawmaker, Phil Gingrey, warned of a “severe and
> dangerous” crisis because the young migrants were importing
> infectious diseases from Central America that are considered to be
> largely eradicated in the U.S.
>
> That was over a decade ago under Obama’s weak border policies and,
> predictably, the problem has worsened significantly during the
> unprecedented illegal immigration crisis that has gripped the nation
> under Biden and his laughable border czar, Kamala Harris. Besides
> the detrimental impact on national security, civilian safety, and
> taxpayer-funded programs (among others), mass migration is
> compromising health. Specifically, tuberculosis (TB), a deadly
> infectious disease that attacks the lungs and was once considered to
> be eradicated in the U.S., is on the rise. A
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]]
> published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),
> a nonprofit dedicated to researching immigration issues, reveals
> that after decades of decline TB is resurfacing in the United
> States. “One key factor of the resurgence of TB in the U.S. is
> open borders and mass immigration,” FAIR researchers found. “The
> massive, unregulated influx of migrants from countries with higher
> TB rates than the United States has helped spread the disease. Even
> legal immigrants and refugees—who are required to undergo medical
> screenings before arriving in the United States—may have latent TB
> which then progresses to active TB and becomes transmissible once
> inside the United States.”
>
> TB cases in the U.S. increased by 34% between 2020 and 2023 and the
> number of TB cases is now higher than pre-pandemic levels in 2019,
> according to figures in the report. Nationally, 76% of TB cases in
> 2023 occurred in foreign-born patients and counties, states as well
> as metropolitan areas with high foreign-born populations have larger
> rates of TB than those with lower foreign-born populations. “Some
> countries of origin for both legal and illegal aliens have TB rates
> as high as 60 times the U.S. rate,” the FAIR report states, adding
> that “the government’s health screening for TB in potential
> immigrants is deficient” and that some categories of illegal
> immigrants do not undergo any type of health screening. Besides,
> latent TB is not grounds for inadmissibility even though some U.S.
> border regions have “TB rates exceeding rates in high-risk
> countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon,” researchers
> found. It is important to note that the cost of treating each case
> of TB is more than $20,000 and can reach over $500,000 if it is
> drug-resistant, FAIR points out.
>
> “Data clearly indicate that the prevalence of tuberculosis is, in
> part, a function of immigration,” FAIR researchers write.
> “Medical experts have long acknowledged this connection.” For
> example, in 1990 the CDC wrote that many TB cases in the U.S. occur
> among foreign-born people with asymptomatic infection when they
> entered the United States. More recently, research published by the
> National Institutes of Health (NIH) determined that for countries
> with low TB rates, “immigration is an important factor in TB
> epidemiology, where migrants may originate from countries with
> substantially higher TB burden.” Incredibly, screening procedures
> for illegal immigrants entering the U.S. do not adequately guard
> against the spread of TB even though federal law states that aliens
> with communicable diseases “of public significance” are
> inadmissible. “However, the vast majority of aliens granted visas
> or who otherwise enter the U.S. are never medically screened,”
> FAIR researchers found. “Even for those who are medically
> screened, the standard for admission is lax, as it only excludes
> active TB and allows individuals with latent TB to enter the
> country, resulting in the importation of latent TB into the U.S.
Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[image]
[[link removed]]


RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PERIL

_"When it comes to fighting for the American people’s ‘right to
know,’ no one holds a candle to Tom Fitton and his team at Judicial
Watch"_ - SEAN HANNITY

Tom Fitton returns with an exhaustive investigation into the
progressive movement’s efforts to dismantle the venerable
institutions of American rights and freedoms.

Order Tom Fitton's Must-Read Today!
[[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]]
|
Privacy Policy
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]