New Info on Biden Abuse

[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR INFORMATION ON MISCONDUCT BY JACK SMITH’S
STAFF

[[link removed]]

We aim to uncover the truth about the Biden administration’s lawfare
against President Trump and the US Constitution.

Judicial Watch just filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Justice Department for details of any investigations,
inquiries, or referrals concerning potential misconduct of any person
working for Special Counsel Jack Smith (_Judicial Watch Inc. v U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:25-cv-00801)).

We sued after the Justice Department failed to respond to two FOIA
requests on December 5, 2024, sent to the Office of Professional
Responsibility and the Office of Information Policy, requesting:

> Records and / or communications about any investigations, inquiries,
> or referrals concerning potential misconduct of any person working
> for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office.

The Biden Justice Department requested a clarification in January. But
Judicial Watch has received no other communication since.

In December 2024, it was reported
[[link removed]]
that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility
had opened a review into whether Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team
skirted guidelines during their investigation into President-elect
Trump:

> Jay Bratt, a top prosecutor on the classified documents probe,
> previously noted complaints from an attorney representing one of
> Trump’s co-defendants…. Stanley Woodward, attorney for Trump
> valet Walt Nauta, accused Bratt of bringing up his interest in a
> judicial nomination as a pressure tactic.

Jack Smith and his team were a rogue political operation whose only
purpose was to keep Donald Trump from being elected. There were
serious complaints about misconduct by this get-Trump DOJ operation.
This new Justice Department must get on the ball and stop the secrecy
about the lawfare against President Trump.

We have several FOIA lawsuits related to the prosecutorial abuse
targeting Trump:

In March 2025, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis was ordered
[[link removed]]
to turn
over 212 pages of records to a state court judge. The court also
ordered Willis to detail how the records were found and the reason for
withholding them from the public. The records were belatedly found in
response to our request and lawsuit for communications with Special
Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee. Previously in
this case, in January 2025, the Superior Court in Fulton County, GA,
issued an order granting Judicial Watch $21,578 “attorney’s fees
and costs
[[link removed]
Judicial Watch soon thereafter received payment.

In January 2024, we filed a
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
against Fulton County,
Georgia, for records regarding the hiring of Nathan Wade as a special
prosecutor by Willis. Wade was hired to pursue unprecedented criminal
investigations and prosecutions against former President Trump and
others over the 2020 election disputes.

In January 2025, a federal court in a separate case ordered
[[link removed]]
the
Justice Department to provide information on communications between
Smith and Willis regarding the prosecution of then-former President
Donald Trump. The Justice Department had continued to object to
providing any information, even after its prosecutions against Trump
were shut down.

In February 2024, the Justice Department asked
[[link removed]]
a
federal court to allow the agency to keep secret the names of top
staffers working in Smith’s office that is targeting former
President Donald Trump and other Americans.

(Before his appointment to investigate and prosecute Trump, Smith
previously was at the center of several controversial issues, the IRS
scandal
[[link removed]]
among them. In 2014, a Judicial Watch investigation
[[link removed]]
revealed that top IRS officials had been in communication with
Smith’s then-Public Integrity Section about a plan to launch
criminal investigations into conservative tax-exempt groups. Read more
here
[[link removed]].)

Through the New York Freedom of Information Law, in July 2023, we
received the engagement letter
[[link removed]]
showing New York County District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg paid $900 per
hour for partners and $500 per hour for associates to the Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher law firm for the purpose of suing Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in
an effort to shut down the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight
investigation into Bragg’s unprecedented indictment of then-former
President Donald Trump.

BIDEN’S DOG ALSO ATTACKED SECRET SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHEN HE WAS VP

We uncovered Secret Service documents through FOIA lawsuits
[[link removed]]
that show the two
German Shepherd dogs Joe Biden owned while president, Major and
Commander, attacked two dozen Secret Service and White House
personnel.

Now Judicial Watch just uncovered 22 pages
[[link removed]
records revealing that while Biden was vice president, his German
Shepherd, Champ, attacked his U.S. Secret Service protective detail.
We received the documents in a June 18, 2024, FOIA request to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security for:

> Any and all records related to incidents of aggression and bites
> involving the now-deceased Biden family dog, “Champ,” including
> but not limited to communications sent to and from USSS [United
> State Secret Service] officials in the Uniformed and Non-Uniformed
> Divisions involved in White House operations, the Vice Presidential
> Protective Detail, and the Presidential Protection Division.

In a March 24, 2012, email
[[link removed]]
with the subject “Dog attack!!,” an employee writes: “I need a
couple of days off! Champ just tried to attack me!” Later in the
exchange the employee responds to the assistant to the special agent
in charge, “I need hazard pay!!”

On September 1, 2015, a special agent in the Vice Presidential
Protective Division reports
[[link removed]]
a bite on the forearm, requiring a torn jacket to be repaired, and
notes that an attack by Champ had occurred on each of the prior three
days:

> Fyi, NEA [possibly North East Annex] is going to take the jacket and
> try to fix it, or will send it to their tailor.
>
> I will get it when they are done.

Another agent writes about the incident to colleagues under the
subject “Champ,” noting:

> When I went over to the Res [VP Residence] tonight to check on
> [redacted], I informed [redacted] of the incident (since the
> MilAides [military aides], Docs and VPCROs are outside with us when
> Champ is around).
>
> He said that Champ bit his forearm. The bite did not go thru his
> jacket but there were teeth indentations on his skin. There was no
> blood nor was the skin broken. He was check [sic] out by the Doc. AT
> [redacted] and [redacted] were notified. He still has marks on his
> skin today.
>
> This just a FYI since you were going to brief the SAIC/DSAIC
> [special agent in charge/deputy special agent in charge] tomorrow.
> That’s three incidents in the past three days (including the one I
> briefed you on regarding [redacted] at the Lake House on Sunday).

A separate September 1, 2015, exchange
[[link removed]]
between two Vice Presidential Division agents discusses recent
incidents with Champ “So it’s been twice this week that Champ has
snapped at someone on the shift. He came at me last week when I was on
midnights, but I said his name which calmed him down before he could
bite.”

A March 25, 2011, email
[[link removed]]
from a lieutenant in the Uniformed Division, Vice Presidential Detail,
alerts colleagues:

> Yesterday two [redacted] sections officers observed the family pet
> – “Champ”– German Sheppard becoming more aggressive towards
> people, especially when the Labradoddle [sic] – “Brother” is
> around.
>
> Today, “Champ” showed aggression towards a grounds worker. The
> CP [command post] put out a broadcast for all personnel to avoid
> playing with or interacting with the family pets.
>
> Please make your personnel aware of this issue, and advise the CP to
> broadcast when the family pets are out on the grounds for the safety
> of the officers.”

On March 25, 2011, an email
[[link removed]]
was sent warning that Champ had “been aggressively approaching and
chasing our Uniformed Division officers:”

> I just received a call from Inspector [redacted] reporting Champ has
> been aggressively approaching and chasing out Uniformed Division
> officers at night. Apparently, this has been a repetitive behavior
> over the past few nights.
>
> Do you have any suggestions on how we can resolve this situation? We
> don’t want to have an officer bit or any harm to Champ.

On March 26, 2011, an email exchange
[[link removed]]
with the subject line “Family Pets,” warns that Champ “showed
aggression” toward an agent and a civilian employee on two separate
occasions:

> “Champ” is becoming more protective of the residence. He showed
> aggression to one of our officers today and a second time to a
> Greenway employee [redacted]. Sgt. [redacted] spoke with [redacted]
> (who is a [redacted]), and she will turn off the automatic doggy
> door for both dogs, which means she will have to let them out
> herself. Officers on their push are required to call post [redacted]
> to find out where the dogs are, if they are out, for avoidance.

On May 11, 2011, a lieutenant on the Emergency Response Team writes
[[link removed]]
that there had been “several incidents” recently where Champ had
“shown aggression” toward members of the Secret Service Emergency
Response Team:

> Men – [likely Joe Biden] has indicated that his dog Champ has had
> several incidents where he has shown aggression towards members of
> ERT [Emergency Response Team] when we are posted at the VPR [vice
> president’s residence]. [Redacted] realizes that we are trying to
> give him and Champ space while walking the grounds and appreciates
> the job we are doing for him. Effective immediately, if Champ comes
> your way, call his name and let him see you. [Redacted] believes
> this will help alleviate any future aggression issues.
>
> In the future, if you are having any issues performing your duties
> let me know about them. If the incidents with Champ continue to take
> place, let me know so we can find an alternative solution.

No wonder the Secret Service is a mess. Biden’s dogs terrorized
agents and White House personnel for a decade, and nothing was done
about it until we exposed the dangerous scandal.

In June 2024, we uncovered
[[link removed]]
Secret Service
records that revealed the details about several incidents in which
Secret Service personnel were bitten by then-President Biden’s dog
Commander, sometimes requiring medical attention.

Our FOIA requests and lawsuits
[[link removed]]
exposed initial White
House falsehoods about the severity and number of attacks by the
Bidens’ previous dog, Major. Judicial Watch then received a tip that
Commander was also attacking
[[link removed]]
Secret Service
personnel and uncovered documents last July showing 10 biting
incidents.

According to a Judicial Watch source, President Biden mistreated his
dogs. The source disclosed that Biden punched and kicked his dogs.

In February 2024, we received
[[link removed]]
records
related to incidents of aggression by Commander, including at least 23
biting incidents. After one incident, East Wing public tours were
stopped for approximately 20 minutes due to the blood on the floor.
These records include a spreadsheet
[[link removed]]
of 22 incident reports between October 2022 and June 2023, 10 of which
required medical treatment.



JUDICIAL WATCH BATTLES FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY

Micah Morrison, our chief investigative correspondent, summarizes
[[link removed]]
our
work to ensure fair elections across the country.

> Democracy by its nature is a messy business and the fight for clean
> and honest elections never ends. Judicial Watch has risen to the
> vanguard of voting integrity and voter rights reform with legal
> actions that include endingdiscriminatory elections in Hawaii
>
[[link removed]],
> stopping extreme partisan gerrymandering in Maryland
>
[[link removed]],
> and cleaning four million and counting dirty names
>
[[link removed]]
> from voter rolls around the country. And there’s more to come.
>
> In recent weeks, Judicial Watch notched three significant election
> integrity wins. In Mississippi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> Fifth Circuit sided with Judicial Watch, declining to revisit an
> earlier ruling that it was unlawful for the state to count ballots
> arriving after Election Day. In California, Judicial Watch filed a
> federal lawsuit to prevent state officials from extending Election
> Day for seven additional days. And in Maryland, following a separate
> Judicial Watch court victory opening voter rolls to public scrutiny,
> a federal judge struck down a state board of elections regulation
> criminalizing the use of voter registration lists for election
> integrity investigations.
>
> This week, as well, President Trump signaled his support for
> election integrity action with a sweeping executive order
>
[[link removed]]
> that reinforces “a uniform Election Day across the nation,”
> requires “documentary proof of United States citizenship” to
> vote, and directs the attorney general to increase efforts to ensure
> state compliance with the National Voter Registration Act.
>
> In the Mississippi case siding with Judicial Watch, the full Fifth
> Circuit court let stand an appellate panel ruling that ballots
> arriving after Election Day cannot be counted. The appellate panel
> had ruled
>
[[link removed]]
> that “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 that this ‘day for the election’ is the day by which
> ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state
> officials.”
>
> Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton hailed the full Fifth Circuit
> action as “a historic victory for honest elections,” noting that
> federal law “sets ‘Election Day’ not ‘Election Week.’”
>
> Judicial Watch’s new lawsuit against California counting ballots
> up to seven days after Election Day “has even more urgency and
> strength,” Tom noted.
>
> In the California case, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit
>
[[link removed]]
> on behalf of U.S. Representative Darrell Issa to prevent state
> election officials from extending Election Day for seven days beyond
> the date established by federal law. “Despite Congress’
> unambiguous and longstanding statement regarding a single and
> uniform national Election Day,” the JW brief said, “California
> modified and extended Election Day by allowing seven additional days
> after Election Day for receipt of vote-by-mail ballots.”
>
> The lawsuit notes that late-arriving ballots can “change electoral
> outcomes in California.” Two of Issa’s Republican colleagues
> were leading on Election Night 2024 “but ultimately lost
> reelection due to late-arriving [vote-by-mail] ballots.”
>
> Issa called on the state to fix its “broken systems of
> elections.” In California, he told Breitbart
>
[[link removed]],
> “Election Day has become Election Month and ballots are counted
> until Democrats are declared the winner.”
>
> In the Maryland case, the National Voter Registration Act—a key
> weapon in Judicial Watch’s legal arsenal of electoral reform—was
> under attack. The NVRA directs the states to make “a reasonable
> effort” to remove from voting rolls the names of ineligible voters
> disqualified from voting due to death or change of residence. Dirty
> voter rolls—rolls that carry many ineligible voters—create
> opportunities for election fraud.
>
> Judicial Watch fought hard and ultimately won a legal battle
>
[[link removed]]
> to make Maryland voter rolls more transparent. But the Maryland
> State Board of Elections fought back, issuing a regulation that
> sought to criminalize the use of voter registration lists for
> investigations into NVRA violations. Judicial Watch filed a friend
> of the court brief
>
[[link removed]]
> in the case noting its extensive role in the Maryland NVRA
> litigation.
>
> Earlier this month, a federal judge in Maryland struck down
>
[[link removed]]
the
> Board of Elections regulation. The court concluded that, “as a
> matter of law,” the regulation “presents an obstacle to
> accomplishing and executing the purposes and objectives of the
> NVRA.”
>
> The Maryland case is a win for transparency and accountability, a
> win that may echo across other states. “This new federal court
> ruling affirming transparency requirements for voter registration
> lists is an important victory for Maryland voters and election
> integrity,” Tom Fitton said. “It was truly outrageous that
> Maryland election officials tried to criminalize voters asking
> questions about election integrity.”

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 - 2025, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]