Tom Fitton | Hillary Clinton Exposed, Obamagate, Voter Fraud, Illegals Getting Cash, and the Conspiracy to Remove President Trump from Office

Summary

The Charlie Kirk Show — Episode Summary

Guest: Tom Fitton (President, Judicial Watch)
Episode Title: “Tom Fitton | Hillary Clinton Exposed, Obamagate, Voter Fraud, Illegals Getting Cash, and the Conspiracy to Remove President Trump from Office”
Date: June 10, 2020

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Charlie Kirk hosts Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, for a wide-ranging conversation focused on government transparency and accountability. They discuss the Hillary Clinton email case, “Obamagate,” the Michael Flynn saga, issues of alleged voter fraud, the Justice Department’s bias, illegal immigrant benefits, and broader threats to the rule of law in the U.S. The episode aims to expose what the hosts describe as unequal justice and the manipulation of legal processes by “the ruling class.”

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Judicial Watch & the Clinton Email Scandal

• Judicial Watch’s Role: Fitton outlines how Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits were central to uncovering the Clinton private email server ([02:15]), highlighting ongoing legal battles seeking Clinton’s deposition.
• Alleged Favoritism: Fitton expresses frustration with both the judiciary and Justice Department for what he regards as protection of Hillary Clinton.

  “She’s essentially saying she’s too important to testify... and the Justice Department providing zero help and frankly, a lot of coverage to Hillary Clinton. And it’s just Judicial Watch alone trying to get accountability here.” — Tom Fitton [03:38]

2. The “Deep State,” FISA Abuse, and Obamagate Allegations

• Obamagate Claims: The conversation covers alleged misconduct in the origins of the Russiagate inquiry, focusing on figures like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, and connections to Fusion GPS ([05:15]).
• Judicial Watch Investigations: Fitton credits Judicial Watch and select congressional allies (e.g., Devin Nunes) for revelations that led to wider scrutiny of intelligence and Justice Department actions ([06:20]).
• Unlikelihood of Prosecution: Both Kirk and Fitton voice pessimism about high-level accountability:

  “The idea that senior level officials are going to be prosecuted... I’m not seeing any evidence of it.” — Tom Fitton [09:50]
  “We do not have a justice system. We have what I call anarcho-tyranny.” — Charlie Kirk [11:20]

3. The Michael Flynn Case & Judicial Entrenchment

• Case Update: Fitton explains the legal maneuverings around Flynn, asserting that entrapment, not law enforcement, was at play ([12:15]).
• Obama’s Alleged Involvement: Fitton references Sally Yates' testimony as evidence of direct involvement from President Obama in targeting Flynn.

  “Obama was targeting Flynn specifically. And of course, when you’re targeting the National Security Advisor... you’re attacking the president.” — Tom Fitton [14:10]

• Call for a Presidential Pardon: Fitton urges Trump to pardon Flynn, claiming the case represents an “assault on the Constitution” ([15:10]).

4. Roger Stone’s Case & Justice Department Integrity

• Concerns over Political Targeting: Kirk and Fitton raise the DOJ’s handling of Roger Stone as another instance of politicized prosecution ([18:01]).
• Abuse of Process: They critique the conduct and priorities of the DOJ and FBI, especially relating to high-profile political cases:

  “The Justice Department and the FBI can’t be trusted to pursue political cases... The institution is full of left wing partisans who abuse the powers entrusted to them.” — Tom Fitton [19:45]

5. Voter Fraud, Voting Rolls, and Mail-in Ballots

• Voter Fraud Claims: Fitton asserts that voter fraud “is very real,” criticizing what he describes as lax protections and dirty voter rolls, especially the risks posed by mass mail-in voting ([24:28]).
• Specific Data: Fitton cites settlements with Los Angeles County (1.6 million extra names), lawsuits in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and outdated voter rolls nationwide ([27:26]).
• Legal Requirements:

  “Federal law requires states take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls.” — Tom Fitton [29:25]

• Opposition from Activists: He criticizes groups like the ACLU and Stacey Abrams for opposing voter roll clean-up efforts ([30:07]).
• Mail-in Ballots & Ballot Harvesting: Distinguishes between mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, warning of increased fraud risks with the latter ([32:26]).

6. Lawsuits Concerning Illegal Immigrant Benefits

• Suing California & Maryland: Judicial Watch is suing to block states and counties from giving coronavirus stimulus funds to illegal immigrants, arguing such actions require legislative approval ([33:43]).
• Federal Law Violation: Claims that Governor Newsom’s unilateral decision to allocate $75 million in California is illegal ([34:10]).

7. Broader Concerns: The Justice System & Rule of Law

• Elite Control: Kirk and Fitton argue that the legal system is manipulated by an “intelligentsia ruling class” to shield allies and undermine political opponents ([20:31]).
• Banana Republic Warnings: Kirk expresses worry that current events represent “banana republic”–style politics ([21:52]).
• Assault on the Republic: Fitton promotes his forthcoming book “Assault on the Republic,” characterizing recent events as an orchestrated attack not just on Trump but on American democracy itself ([21:52], [46:33]).

8. On Rosenstein, Lawfare, and Transparency

• Rosenstein Testimony: Fitton accuses former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein of dishonesty about “wearing a wire” on Trump, referencing Andrew McCabe’s contemporaneous memo ([37:07]).
• Lawfare Philosophy: Judicial Watch uses FOIA and impact litigation to promote transparency, often fighting both Democrat and Republican officeholders resistant to accountability ([38:48]).
• Unique U.S. Rights: Both note the constitutional importance of being able to sue the government as a form of non-violent redress ([40:27]).

9. Final Thoughts & November 2020 Outlook

• Ongoing Litigation: Judicial Watch is focused on litigation to clean up voter rolls before the election and urging more transparency from the Trump administration ([44:41]).
• Nonpartisan Approach: Fitton insists their accountability measures target anyone—Democrat or Republican—who resists lawful transparency ([46:50]).
• Urgency and Civic Engagement: Both emphasize the importance of public vigilance and legal activism to counteract what they see as systemic abuses ([42:50]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the justice system:

  “We do not have a justice system. We have what I call anarcho-tyranny.”
  — Charlie Kirk [11:20]

• On elite double standards:

  “It seems as if the rules are rigged for the few and the well connected... you’re able to get away with things that regular citizens are not able to get away with.”
  — Charlie Kirk [04:39]

• On the power of civic litigation:

  “As long as we’re allowed to do it… there is this measure of accountability and the rule of law is working in many key respects and our constitutional system was working in many key respects.”
  — Tom Fitton [39:11]

• On voter fraud risks:

  “People cheat all the time... the idea that people don’t cheat in elections is absurd. Of course they’re setting up a system to allow cheating to take place more easily.”
  — Tom Fitton [24:28]

• On the effectiveness of Judicial Watch:

  “We do more significant journalism than most of the media.”
  — Tom Fitton [43:33]

---

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment / Topic | |-----------|-----------------| | 01:43 | Introduction of Tom Fitton; Clinton email case update | | 05:15 | Judicial Watch’s role in uncovering FISA/Deep State abuse | | 09:36 | Likelihood of prosecutions for FBI/DOJ officials | | 12:15 | Michael Flynn case and Obama administration’s involvement | | 18:01 | Roger Stone case and politicized prosecutions | | 24:28 | Voter fraud, dirty rolls, and mail-in ballot concerns | | 27:26 | Examples and lawsuits on outdated voter rolls | | 33:43 | Judicial Watch lawsuits over COVID stimulus to illegal immigrants | | 37:07 | Rosenstein, DOJ accountability, and philosophy of “lawfare” | | 44:41 | Key Judicial Watch priorities through November 2020 | | 46:33 | Forthcoming book “Assault on the Republic” | | 47:03 | Closing remarks and call to civic action |

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is intense, urgent, and unapologetically partisan from a conservative perspective. Fitton and Kirk blend detailed legal discussion with accessible analogies and passionate calls for governmental accountability, all while reinforcing themes of institutional bias and the need for grassroots vigilance.

---

For listeners seeking in-depth understanding of the conservative view on government accountability, perceived institutional corruption, voter fraud, and the use of litigation as a tool for transparency, this episode serves as a comprehensive and forceful overview.

Transcript

[A]

Thank you for listening to this Podcast 1 production now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast 1, Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody. Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. We have Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch with exclusive insight on Obamagate, voter fraud, illegal voting, Hillary Clinton, and so much more. Email me your questions freedomarliekirk.com Listen to our sister episode. This is personal. I go into something happening in America that you absolutely have to be aware of. Email me your questionsfreedomarliekirk.com, type in charlie Kirk show hit. Subscribe. Leave us a five star review. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

[B]

Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

[A]

Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

[B]

I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful, powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.

[A]

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Hey, everybody. Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. I am joined by an American hero, Tom Fitton, who is the president of Judicial Watch. He has done more on the cause, let's just say the righteous cause of transparency than anyone that I can think of in the country. He has submitted unbelievable amounts of FOIA requests. He has held the Clinton crime cartel accountable and is still pushing for transparency. Tom Fitton, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

[B]

Hey, Charlie, good to be with you. And I really appreciate your leadership. You know, it's good to see there's a rising generation of leaders coming up, not only through you, but with you, with the young people that you're helping train and activate.

[A]

Well, thank you so much, Tom. So, Tom, give us an update from Judicial Watch. You recently had the issue with the Clinton email. There is something around there. It's really kind of complicated. Give us an update from the mothership of transparency, Judicial Watch.

[B]

Well, you know, we uncovered the Clinton email case, Clinton emails, way back in 2005. And in many ways this president's president, because of the Clinton email scandal that we uncovered, that was the consequence of it. And you know, one of the issues is they were messing with the courts. They were telling the courts all the emails were uncovered. We should shut it all down. And obviously that wasn't the case. And one judge, Judge Royce Lamberth, in addition to Judge Sullivan, by the way, who already granted us discovery, Judge Lamberth wants us to had granted us additional discovery, including the testimony of Mrs. Clinton. And that order came down, I think, in March. And what did Mrs. Clinton do? She ran to the appellate court with a writ of mandamus, which is an emergency court rule motion. Well, that's what General Flynn has done to overturn Judge Sullivan's decision on attacking him. But in this case, Mrs. Clinton has no, really no good faith basis, in my view, to ask the court for this emergency relief. She's essentially saying she's too important to testify. I mean, you can just imagine all the smoke she's throwing up on this. So we were in court last week arguing against Hillary Clinton's lawyers before a three judge panel. She's alleging she's too important to testify and what difference would it make? All the old arguments, of course, we're having to push back against judges who were hostile in part to our efforts to get accountability here. But I'm always prepared for that. What I don't really like is to have the Justice Department come round and say, well, yeah, we didn't want Hillary Clinton to be deposed, but this emergency motion, it's really something that we don't agree with. But on the other hand, we just wanted all this to be shut down and we just want to end it. So we've got Hillary Clinton and the Justice Department providing zero help and frankly, a lot of coverage to Hillary Clinton. And it's just Judicial Watch alone trying to get accountability here. And maybe, maybe she'll, you know, if, if, if things, all things were being equal, she'd be deposed. Yeah, but we'll see if she gets a carve out from the law here like she's previously done, but we'll see.

[A]

So this is such an important issue because it seems as if the rules are rigged for the few and the well connected. It seems as if, if you are part of a specific ruling class, you're able to get away with things that regular citizens are not able to get away with. So, Tom, can you take our listeners a little bit back in time about how Judicial Watch has been on the cutting edge of some of the most important discoveries with the Clintons with FISA abuse, because the work you're doing at Traditional Watch, I don't see anyone else doing this. I don't see anyone in traditional Republican politics fighting like you are.

[B]

Yeah. You know, although I am pleased to say, Charlie, I appreciate that, that the few members of Congress that have been doing anything they saw that what Judicial Watch was able to get out of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. And they saw once Obamagate erupted, hey, we need to do more of this in terms of our independent investigation. And we uncovered that they had the Clinton emails that they were hiding. And then we found within them all the pay to play that was going on at the State Department, where she's getting all these shady foreign governments, corporations to pay the Clinton foundation that were then leveraging for them insider status at the State Department, which is, of course, what Hillary Clinton said she wouldn't do and arguably was illegal. And of course, the Justice Department had zero interest under Obama in doing any investigation there. President Trump wins. And then you kind of see the outlines of the Russiagate smears emerge. You kind of saw it before the election because, remember, they were leaking the FBI was this information out there to try to undermine Trump. And we knew immediately that this was a scheme, a scam and a scheme. And so we began the investigations, and it led to the disclosure of the FISA warrant applications. It led to the disclosure of what Bruce Orr was up to. The top Fusion GPS operative, his wife. Well, he basically was a Fusion GPS operative. His wife was working for them. And he was at the senior level, the Justice Department. We have all these paid struct materials that have come out. Just two weeks ago, we received the opening document, allegedly for the spy operation against President Trump, written by none other than Peter Strzok. And when you look at the document, you'll see it was even worse than the dossier in terms of having no basis to begin a spy operation against the presidential campaign. And all of this has come out, and much of it came out before these IG reports came out, basically, that are based on the documents we had already pushed before the American people. And I'm convinced Justice Department wouldn't be doing jack if it weren't for the disclosures that a Devin Nunes had made, that Judicial Watch had made, and frankly, more recently that Mr. Grinnell has made in his position at ODNI when he was there.

[A]

Well, and that's such an important history and backstory, Tom, because Judicial Watch has been on the cutting edge of giving conservatives the conviction to go after this deep state corruption against the president. Do you guys want to get in shape? All I have to say is Tom Fitton has biceps that could take over a small Central American country. I'm half kidding, Tom Fitton is built like a brick, and you guys need to be as well. Fitbot is a smart fitness app that takes all the guesswork out of planning your workouts. Fitbod's algorithm factors in your goals, experience level, equipment, workout duration and muscle recovery to intelligently crafting the perfect total body workout program just for you. With each workout, the app learns your abilities and plans workouts designed to maximize your results. And by cycling new exercise in the mix, fitbod keeps your workouts fun and fresh. Look, I can tell you fitbod is the way to go with my bad back. Fitbod is so easy to use. I love it. Fitbod combines the knowledge of fitness pros with a powerful machine learning algorithm to to give you a workout program that maximizes your results. Get a program tailored to your unique body experience and environment. It's perfect for anyone who's looking to get better fitness results. Whether your goal is general fitness, strength training, muscle tone, bodybuilding, powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting, fitbot is super easy to use and even has HD video tutorials to make learning new exercises a breeze. Get personalized fitness plan that helps you work out smarter at fitbod Me Kirk Try fitbod for one month free when you sign up today at fitbod Me Kirk. That's one month free at fitbod Me Kirk. And so Tom, I get this question all the time and there's so many topics I want to cover with you, but I want to go straight to the point. Do you think that Durham is going to put forth charges against Lisa Page and Peter Strzok or any of these individuals? Lisa Page, who by the way, is now an MSNBC contributor. Do you think charges are coming? Tom Because I get this question more than any other question from our listeners.

[B]

Well, I wish I could tell you that I thought charges were coming, but I don't. I just don't see the sort of investigative activity to suggest that senior level officials will be charged. Look, I mean, think of that FBI lawyer who altered the the Carter Page CIA document to make it seem like he was working for the Russians when in fact he was working for the CIA. That lawyer was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution back in November of last year. I mean, it's kind of a dead, you know, they had him dead to rights. Still nothing's happened. Comey and McCabe were referred for prosecution for lies and leaks targeting President Trump in one case targeting Hillary Clinton. They wouldn't even prosecute them for that. So the idea that senior level officials are going to be prosecuted, I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Everything that Barr has said has suggested that that won't take place. But, you know, we can always hope and I tell you it's certainly not going to happen if we don't know the full scale of the corruption. My view is public getting public, getting the transparency about what went on out there may not be sufficient, but certainly is necessary to push the Justice Department to do what it needs to do. But, you know, look, in many ways it's too late. It's too late. I mean, they're going to, even if it were senior people under the gun here, they're going to come around, I suspect, and say it's in the middle of election year, so we can't do it. It's really disappointing.

[A]

I agree with you, Tom. I have a more kind of big picture approach. I don't think we have a Justice Department or Justice system, I should say, in our country anymore. I'm so beyond cynical that we actually are going to start to see James Comey and Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page and Peter Strzok be held accountable. And a lot of people are holding out hope and they say, well, you, you know, Attorney General Barr seems like he's really going after it. I think the Barr's been great on a lot of things, but I do not, I'm not holding my breath for convictions to come down. I think there might be some slaps on the wrist for some, let's just say sacrificial lambs along the way. I think they might find some people that are not in that kind of intelligentsia community on the far left that are in the protected ruling class. And people have to realize right now we do not have a justice system. We have what I call anarcho tyranny, which is the left is able to use the multitude of laws that we have towards their political opponents as they see fit. Speaking of which, Tom, you have been on the cutting edge on this Flynn scandal. Can you give our listeners just an update of where things stand with Judge Sullivan and also your personal involvement of how you were calling the shots early on, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and how it was law entrapment, not law enforcement.

[B]

Well, that's exactly right. And so the news is that he'll be he'll finally get his, I should say he'll get a substantial day in court on Friday. I think the scheduled hearing is over his appeal, his writ of mandamus against Judge Sullivan. So that panel will hear all argument this Friday and your listeners and viewers will be able to watch or at least listen to it, I believe online, which is kind of unusual for an appellate Court because the coronavirus, they're meeting via teleconference. So it will be widely available. This is what happened. Flynn knew what the Obama administration was about, knew about the corruption in the intelligence agencies. For instance, Judicial Watch had obtained. I think this is maybe one of our most important finds ever. NSA material, National Security Administration material. I believe it was the agency that showed that the Obama admin knew that weapons were going out to the jihadists out of Benghazi and they knew the plan in terms of the emergence of ISIS and the support that we were providing to terrorists opposing Assad at the time. So he knew Benghazi's role there. And, you know, that's one of the reasons my view is they targeted him and they knew. Now we know. More recently, the Obama administration knew that there was no basis to target Flynn. They concluded there was no viable case. But the next day, Obama and Comey met about Flynn. And who's the testimony that I'm relying on? Sally Yates. Sally Yates was surprised how much about Obama knew. We now know that his chief of staff unmasked him that day. Obama's chief of staff and Yates is saying in retrospect, it made sense about this Logan act crap. Of course she was pushing it too because she didn't understand why was Obama talking about it. And then sure enough, a few weeks later, Obama's minion Comey ambushes Flynn in that really outrageous interview in the White House, avoiding all the rules to get that ambush interview done. And so Obama was targeting Flynn specifically. And of course, when you're targeting the national Security advisor of the President of the United States, when you're spying on the inc Security advisor of the President of the United States, President Trump, you're attacking the president. This was an assault on the president's ability to conduct foreign affairs. And to me, that's the reason he should be pardoned. He needs to protect his presidency. I understand the law. The criminal case may play out in a way that exonerates Flynn in some ways, but I think they're going to come back after him. He should just pardon him because it was an assault on President Trump and the Constitution as much as it was an attack on Flynn. This is just a terrible situation. And you know, they talk about reforming the police and defunding the police. The police agency I'm concerned about in terms of corruption has been in your face for years, is the FBI. And they are kind of protected in this town from any serious reform.

[A]

I want to tell you guys about credible.com. if you are being Crushed by the cartel of the colleges. You guys gotta check out credible.com credible.com is an online marketplace that gets you pre qualified student loan refinancing rates from up to 10 different lenders. They help people get out of student loan debt. If you've got student loan debt, you could benefit with a lower rate, you could save on interest or lower your monthly payment. With a shorter loan term, you could get debt free faster. Consolidate all your student loan bills in one place. Credible customers have given awesome reviews about how much better their lives have been after refinancing their student loans. On credible, you see actual pre qualified rates for the 10 different lenders. It only takes a couple minutes to check rates. They never sell your data, so you won't receive spam or phone calls from dozens of lenders. So right now, visit credible.com charlie. That's C R E-I-B L E.com C H-A R L I E. When you refinance your student loans using this link, they'll give you a $200 gift card if you're being crushed by student loan debt. The answer is credible.comcharlie. that's credible.comcharlie. and it's been that way for quite some time. The FBI has been the preferred enforcement agency of the ruling class. And they use the ultimate authority to spy on citizens, to go into people's lives. Show me the man. I'll show you. The crime, basically is how the FBI can operate and exactly right. And people need to recognize, and I don't say this as a cynic because I'm not inherently cynical. I'm not. I'm not built that way. But I have no faith in our justice system at all. I don't. When I see people like Hillary Clinton who destroyed emails, who lie under oath be able to continue to waltz around the globe and sell out our country for cash from our enemies. When I see people like Peter Strzok and Lisa page and Andrew McCabe and Samantha Powers do what they did and with no justice to come after them, it really makes me. It makes me unsettled about where our justice system is. And lady justice is supposed to be blind and lady justice is anything but blind right now. You have a system that is so out of whack and out of balance. And the other example I want to talk about, and I support a full pardon for him, is Roger Stone. Now, I don't get into the specifics of whether Roger did what he was prosecuted and convicted of. I actually think that is a separate issue. Instead, the trial that he was given was unfair. It was a rigged trial with the jury 4 woman who actually ran for office as an anti Trump activist. Can you fill our listeners in a little bit about any of your transparency efforts around Roger Stone or how you stand around the conviction of Roger?

[B]

Well, I mean, one of the easiest things we've been asking questions about, but we couldn't get any straight answers from the Justice Department on is that outrageous raid on Stone that CNN coincidentally happened to be there to film. How was that leaked out? If that doesn't give you an indication that this was a political targeting? Look, you know, this is not as you, as you're implying. This doesn't mean that the people targeted are, quote, innocent.

[A]

I'm not saying that, but it does

[B]

mean that you can't trust the basis for the targeting or that the decision making was free from political corruption. And given the fact that the Justice Department and the FBI, clearly we're targeting these people not to enforce the rule of law, but to, again, attack the President of the United States. The President should step in and pardon them all. You know, you go back to George H.W. bush, it's probably a little bit before your time, Charlie. He pardoned, I think, six individuals who were targeted by another, an independent counsel at time, Lawrence Walsh, I think he was. Walsh was indicting people just a few weeks before Trump, President Bush's election or reelection. Talk about interference in an election campaign. And he said, you know what? I'm pardoning all these people. We all know they were coming after me and they were using these people to get after me and I'm pardoning them. And I think that's the approach President Trump should take. And look, the Justice Department and the FBI can't be trusted to pursue political cases. I mean, you're seeing that now. It doesn't mean that Barr's a bad guy. It just means systematically, the institution is full of left wing partisans who abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people to target their political enemies. And even in apolitical cases, you wonder what the priorities are. Look at all these poor saps who've been caught up in this college admissions scandal. Do you feel safer, Charlie, that we spend all these resources to put those terrible people behind bars while, as you point out, we've got the worst spying scandal in American history and not one person has even been brought before a grand jury, as best we can tell. And who's running Justice Department? I'll tell you for the ride. Just trying to kind of ride the Tiger, I tell you, the President, maybe I would appoint a separate special counsel that utilizes resources apart from the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate those and other agencies, because it ain't working to date, as far as I can tell.

[A]

And Tom, I'll tell you who's running the Justice Department. Hyper educated Ivy League radicals that have been taught to hate our country and use the instruments of power to basically create the America that they want, which is one that is basically enshrines the intelligentsia ruling class. That destroys people like you and me, that destroys our value system. And people have to recognize that we believe in limited government because we know that if human beings are given that sort of authority, they are going to abuse that power. And that's why we have cross examination of witnesses. That's why we have due process. But even with that, they are able to abuse the jury selection process. They're able to abuse the process of getting a fair and impartial hearing. A judge like Judge Sullivan, you know, judges wear black because they're supposed to be. And you would know this. The imagery is supposed to be something that is somber and not anything impartial. It's supposed to be a blind type. I'm here to give a fair hearing to the individuals within my courtroom. And yet Judge Sullivan is now acting as if he's a prosecutor, anything but impartial. I mean, we have never seen anything like this in recent history. And it makes me very troubled, especially for where we are headed to as a republic, because this is stuff that is closer to banana republic stuff, not

[B]

a constitutional republic, you know, and when you tie it all together, and I just happen to have a book coming out in a few months, I don't think we've officially announced, but the title is Assault on the Republic. I mean, that's what this is about. I mean, you see it with the attack on President Trump, the coup impeachment attack, the Mueller investigation. You see it with the attack on our sovereignty, the refusal to even oppose the opposition to the very notions of borders. And then you have the assault on our election system by the left. And when you get these bureaucrats deciding who should or should not be president, that's not just an attack on conservatives, it's not just an attack on Republicans. I know Trump is the immediate target here, but it's an attack on every American who thinks they ought to have a say who runs the country. We don't give them the right to do that. And when they take that right, they're acting as coup plotters and Coopsters, as I call them. And I tell you we can't do enough to expose and prosecute them. And you know, we can name the two or three people who have been fired because of this. And you know, Barr is. It's June, Charlie. It's June. Still, nothing's been done.

[A]

When running a business, HR issues can kill you. Wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and more. And HR manager salaries are not cheap. They're an average of $70,000 a year. Bambi, spelled B A M B E E was created specifically for small businesses. You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy and maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month. With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength. Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email or real time chat from onboarding determinations. They customize your policies to, to fit your business and help you manage your employees day to day. All for just $99 a month. Month to month. No hidden fees. Cancel anytime. You didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time in HR compliance. Let Bambi help. Get your free HR audit today. Go to Bambi.comkirk right now to schedule your free HR audit. That's Bambi.comkirk that's Bam to the Bee.comkirk so you talk about election interference, Tom, you have been on the cutting edge of exposing questionable voter, let's just say voting practices across the country trying to unearth voting fraud. Is voting fraud real? Is voter fraud real? Is, is there a problem with some of the way these states are doing voter registration? And what have you found at Judicial Watch?

[B]

Well, voter fraud is very real. It's repeatedly uncovered in prosecutions and cases throughout the country. But more importantly, do we have a system in place that protects against voter fraud? There's always going to be voter fraud. I testified to Congress last week and we made the point, you know what? People cheat all the time. They cheat in sumo wrestling, you cheat in video games. People even cheat against themselves in solitaire. I mean, they can't even, you know, they can't even. No one's looking. It doesn't matter. You cheat. And the idea that people don't cheat in elections is absurd. And of course they're setting up a system to allow cheating to take place more easily. And the law is that you don't need to prove voter fraud in order to have a system in place to curtail it. Because it's important that people have confidence that the elections are freely and fairly administered. And when you don't have that confidence that suppresses the vote, Charlie. That means people won't vote because they think their vote won't be counted. So increasing voter id, securing elections, encouraging people to vote in person in a secure location as opposed to this mail in ballot scheme, that will increase the opportunities for fraud and intimidation. That's what's at issue here. And I'm sorry, I was testifying last week, Stacey Abrams was on the panel of all people, and she's up there. And the Democrats on the committee were saying about you shouldn't have to choose between your life and your vote. And that sort of outrageous rhetoric, that's the voter suppression because that's steering people from voting in person when it's perfectly safe to do so. So you know what? That's the suppression we need to be battling. And that's the most significant suppression out there right now. The left trying to scare people from voting in person and impose on our system a mail in ballot scheme that will blow up the elections in terms of aviding election day chaos and mass voter fraud. It is a serious threat to our elections this cycle and in the future if this is the way it's gonna go.

[A]

So Tom, can you go into some specifics of some of the FOIA requests that you found with irregularities of voter registration? One that circulated a lot was when I tweeted out one of the emails you guys sent and I attribute it to you. It was right before the Iowa caucus and I tweeted that it was revealed that eight Iowa counties have more adults registered to vote than voting aged adults living there. The Iowa Secretary of State came back and then you guys came back at that and the fact checkers said I was wrong on this. Can you just, that's one example. Can you just give some specifics for our audience? Cuz that one in particular, you know, really made news.

[B]

Well, that's a good example because we looked at the data and that's what the data, the best data said. And the Iowa Secretary of State who's a Republican, attacked us and pointed to quote newer data that was informal, that said, oh no, no, Judicial Watch is wrong. There's only five counties with more people on the rolls. It was absurd. And you know, we've done an analysis and it's based on 2019 data and things haven't gotten much better since that across the country there are hundreds of counties with more people on the rolls than are eligible to vote. And when you just count those extra people, and I'm not talking about other people who should be on the rolls. Also, you have two and a half million names. Los Angeles county settled the case with Judicial Watch. They're in the process of removing up to 1.6 million extra names from their rolls. North Carolina, we just sued a few weeks ago. They have about 800,000, about a million extra names on their rolls. Pennsylvania, we just sued. They have about 800,000 extra names on the rolls. So when they start talking about flooding the system with mailed in ballots, that's why we're concerned, among other reasons. Because are these inactive names, the people who are dead or moved away, are they going to get ballots? What's going to happen to those ballots? California, Governor Newsom is doing it on his own, which is illegal. So we've sued to try to stop it on behalf of voters out there, but he's gonna be sending out, according to reports, upwards of 20 million ballots to people who haven't asked for them.

[A]

And so thank you for offering those statistics, because anytime I talk about voter fraud, people say it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as extra ballots being sent out. And so what you're saying here is you've sued the Los Angeles county and you, not the establishment Republicans, not the organizations that are all over TV and doing all this, but Judicial Watch is the one actually removing fraudulent, potentially fraudulent names and let's just say dated names from the voting rolls in Los Angeles.

[B]

Yeah. When you've got names that aren't supposed to be there, that's a pool from which fraudsters can draw from to vote illegally. That's the concern. And that's why it's not like Judicial Watch is like coming up with this interpretation of the way life should be. Federal law requires states take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls. And Charlie, it seems to me reasonable to suggest if you don't take anyone off the Name rolls for 20 years like they did in California, that's not reasonable.

[A]

No, I mean, and one statistic is Detroit still has a voter listed on their voting rolls who was born in 1823, which was years before Michigan was even a state. So that's just like a nice little factoid.

[B]

Well, you know, and there's always going to be. The law doesn't require the voting rolls to be perfect. I mean, come on. But on the other hand, if someone hasn't voted for a number of years, you try to contact them and they still don't get back to you. They still don't vote. That's when they need to start removing people. So the Stacey Abrams of the world, the ACLU, and these other groups who, by the way, are attacking our efforts to clean up the list. I mean, this is how crazy they are. This is the process they're attacking. You don't vote, Charlie. I send you a postcard, you don't respond and you don't vote in two federal election cycles as long as four, five, six years, and then only, only then do we remove your name under the law. They object to that.

[A]

And these individuals can also re register if all of a sudden they become enlightened that they want to vote again. It's not as if you're prohibiting them from ever participating. In the end, if they absolutely get convicted, they can do an affidavit ballot at the ballot box the day of the election. And if it comes down to it, it will probably be counted as valid if they're still a citizen of the country.

[B]

We did this process in Ohio, the process, which by the way, was upheld in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is why the LA county people in California, I think, settled with us. As the best I can recall, those inactive names, 99% of them had moved away. They just weren't there anymore. And you see on Twitter and on the Internet, all these people posting pictures of ballots they're getting for people who had lived in their home previously, either family or previous occupants, and they're getting inundated with ballots and offers to get absentee ballots. This, that's a right opportunity. That's an area rife with opportunities for fraud. And the American people know it, which is why they support voter ID and which is why the left is desperate to try to scare them to death from voting in person. If you want your vote to be secure and safe, the best way to do that is to go and vote at a polling place. Now, I understand why people vote by mail. It's readily available and easy. But you know, the best way to make sure your vote's going to count, in my view, is to vote in person. Relying on the post office is not the best way to do it.

[A]

Well, it's also an important distinction, though, Tom. Voting by mail and then voting by ballot harvesting are actually two distinctive things. It's totally different because a lot of the time when you ballot harvest or you give your, your vote, your ballot to an individual that's knocking on your door, it's not. The document's not always sealed, so it's not a completed document. Right. And it allows people to fill in information that you have no ability to be able to track. Once you hand that ballot off to a union organizer, that knocks on your door. Right. And even.

[B]

Well, that's why ballot harvesting is illegal virtually everywhere in the United States. And California has this circus like ballot harvesting law that would allow that type of activity to go by really unchecked. And isn't it interesting because they're saying we have to vote by mail because of coronavirus. But I don't see Gavin Newsom saying we have to restrict ballot harvesting, which requires in person contact in order to get the darn ballots. Yeah, ballot harvesting is a real menace to free elections and it's a recipe for voter intimidation and voter fraud. It's a trifecta in that regard.

[A]

I completely agree. And so you also are involved in another lawsuit tomorrow where you were suing the state of California for giving stimulus money to illegal immigrants, is that right?

[B]

Oh, yeah, that's another one. We actually have two lawsuits like that. It's funny you say you're involved in another lawsuit. I'm waiting to find out what it is. You know, but that's another big one. You know, people will be shocked to learn that states can give cash and other benefits to illegal aliens under federal law, but only if the legislature approves it. And what Newsom did was he designated $75 million in emergency funds on his own to give to illegal aliens. So we're suing to stop that. We asked for a temporary restraining order and the court ruled in state court that, well, you know, you're likely to win on the merits, but there's a public interest in giving these people money. So I'm going to consider it later whether you win or not, but I'm not going to stop it from happening. We had a similar case in Maryland and the court ruled, yes, we're likely to win on the merits because the law is pretty clear they can't do it. They're spending upwards of $10 million. One Montgomery county, which is a big liberal county just outside of D.C. sanctuary County. But the court said, you know what, the county's got at least withhold up to 25% of what they haven't spent yet. So there's still something to fight about. But these cases are going to be about what else happens beyond this. So we've gotten some good precedent. We haven't stopped it, but we're making significant headway. And you know, where's the Justice Department? This is federal law we're talking about that's being violated and it's little old judicial watch going in to do the Basic law enforcement, heavy lifting here on voter, on this cleaning election, the clean voting roll, cleaning voter rolls, on the sanctuary policy issues. And look on all these investigations on Obamagate and the targeting of Trump. We're being opposed by the same Justice Department. We're being opposed by the FBI. We're being imposed by virtually all these agencies. You know, my concern about the insurrection that happened last week is that the president was being forced to rely on federal agencies. That's just a few short months before were trying to turn him out of office through an illicit coup.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

And now he had to rely on the same group to protect him from an insurrection. I'm glad Barr was there because he knew what to do. But, you know, I tell you what, as an aside, I clean house at the Pentagon. We see where they stand on these issues, and that's Obama land over there. As far as the general officer corps goes, he needs to clean house in

[A]

a lot of different places. And if he wins re election, he has to clean house top to bottom. And so, Tom, I also want to get into here the issue Rod Rosenstein testified. I'd love to get a short comment on that. But generally, can you talk about, because we have so many younger listeners here that are trying to make sense of all these scandals. And I just want to compliment you because you do what the left has always done to us, which you engage in what I call lawfare, which is you're not afraid to sue the left and make them go on defense and maybe think twice about their illicit schemes to destroy our country from within. So I want to get your thoughts on Rosenstein. And can you just talk more broadly about the philosophy that you take about transparency and then also talk about how this is. You just don't only go after Democrats. This is something where you believe no one is above the law.

[B]

Well, that's exactly right. And you know, with Rosenstein, he's a Trump appointee. He was right. He was the acting number two at the Justice. He was number two at the Justice Department for purposes of Russia. He was the attorney general because he was running the Russia investigation against Trump. And one of the interesting aspects of what he testified about was he denied discussions about wearing a wire. Well, that doesn't jive with the documents we have now. Andrew McCabe wrote a memo about a meeting he had with Rosenstein contemporaneously about this. And McCabe comes out and he says, I tell you what, we're investigating President Trump. And I tell you what, you're implicated. You're a witness. And Rosenstein goes, he says, well, I'll tell you everything and I'll wear a wire because I might be able to get through the White House because they won't pat me down going in. And McCabe writes, this is all in the memo and I'm kind of paraphrasing, I'm paraphrasing it accurately. And McCabe says, well, I'll have our people get back to you on it. And then Rosenstein finally gets his spine. He goes, you know what, you're an issue. We got an issue too, because you're compromised because of the money your wife got from the Clinton machine. Talk about animals in a box fighting each other. They were trying to wear wire on the President of the United States. They were invoking the 25th Amendment, talking about it to target President Trump and obviously talking about the special counsel. I call it the seven days in May. That's what was going on, a coup plot against the president. And Mueller was part of it. And Rosenstein, his testimony is, quote, problematic in terms of his denial about wanting to wear a wire.

[A]

Well, it's incredible. And you know, Tom, I'm going to be honest with you. You know, I process news, read probably news five or six hours a day. And I even need reminding of some of this stuff.

[B]

I know, I know.

[A]

Do you know what I mean? It's like, this is, I do this, I process. I'm like, oh yeah, that's right. Rosenstein was going to wear a wire on the president. Like probably an important detail to keep reminding our listeners about the outrages we

[B]

forget about, you know, but you know, going back to the big, the big picture question you asked about, we have this precious, precious right to petition our government. It's the First Amendment. It's a God given right. It's reflected in the Constitution. And you know, from our perspective, we're trying to exercise it. You know, we've got nowhere else in the world. I mean, Judicial Watch is unique here in the United States. As you know, when you're talking about the rest of the world, there's nothing like it. And my gosh, as long as we're allowed to do it and we talk about the system not working, well, the fact is we can go into court and be on equal footing, relatively speaking, with these terrible agencies and deep state bureaucrats we're talking about. So there is this measure of accountability and the rule of law is working in many key respects and our constitutional system was working in many key respects. And gosh darn it, as long as we're able to exercise our freedoms to hold the government accountable so we know what it's up to and that we can sue them when they do things wrong to maybe correct it. We're going to exercise it to our best ability. And we only do that with the support of folks watching your support as well, Charlie. But I tell you what, it can go away like, so we got to do it every day.

[A]

I want to reinforce what you just said, Tom, because there's a very important just civics argument here that a lot of people miss is that not every, not even every western country allows you to sue your government. It's a very interesting provision that the founders allowed in the Constitution and it's something we don't talk about enough now. It's hard, it's expensive, it can cost you a lot. They'll defame you, they'll use their allies in the media. They might countersue or they might counter investigate you, I should say, but still there. And I want you to focus on this, Tom, at a bigger picture. Can you talk about how brilliant the founders were to allow a civil, nonviolent way for you to be able to go up against the great superpower that is the federal government?

[B]

Yeah, well, they gave us these. Well, they were, they, they, they, they knew this right was precious and that's why they sought to guarantee the rights and protect them in the governing document of the United States, which is the United States Constitution, the right to peaceably assemble our First Amendment rights generally related to political speech and to petition the government. And we have federal laws that reflect that, such as the Freedom of Information act and just like general common laws that allow you to sue government officials when they commit misconduct. And you know, for the longest time the left was the only one who used these accountability laws like the foia. That was just a left wing thing that the lefties used FOIA to target the deep state at that time that they thought was targeting too many of their terrorist friends here in the United States and abroad. And so they used FOIA to hamper those investigations. That's what they were doing it for. It wasn't honest accountability in many respects. We started using it to protect our liberties and to keep this gargantuan government under control. I tell you, it's frustrating, but think of where we'd be without it because the government's out of control. And I'm telling people there's a way out. And the way out is the judicial watch way. Accountability, transparency and a commitment to the rule of law, which has been under sustained attack long before Trump came in. It metastasized under Trump and it isn't gonna end when he leaves office, either next year or in five years.

[A]

And I want our listeners to understand that. And by the way, Tom, we have a lot of teenage listeners that are just getting aware of politics right now. You're an outside group, a public charity that is doing the work that, quite honestly, an inspector general or our own Justice Department should be doing. That's the way I classify it. And that, that is disheartening in one way. You can look at it two ways. It's disheartening, like, oh, wow, our government's not doing it. But then it's also pretty awesome because then, no, you're voluntarily, Tom, committing your life, your time, your treasure to do what the government should be doing. And it almost is a insurance policy, get it. Or a trap door to be able to say, I still want this republic to exist. And there is a provision that allows us to do that.

[B]

Well, that's right. And you know, we do more significant journalism than most of the media. Our Benghazi litigation, which uncovered the Clinton emails and that whole, you know, that led really in many ways to Hillary Clinton losing, you know, that to me was the most significant non governmental investigation in modern American history. There's been nothing like it. And I'm convinced, dare I say it, that President Trump wouldn't be president. But for the pressure Judicial Watch was bringing to bear on the improprieties of what Mueller was doing. The whole Obamagate scenario that was going on, that we were pushing back against and highlighting was abusive. And frankly, it led to the Mueller operation being shut down before it could fully destroy the president.

[A]

So in closing, Tom, let's look to November. What lawsuits are the most important that you're involved in? What can the American people expect? What are you pushing for in a transparency message from now till November? What should we keep, what should we stay aware of?

[B]

Well, we don't time our litigation for elections because, you know, I'm not saying vote for or against the candidate here.

[A]

It's well stated, I understand.

[B]

But you know, our election cases are important because when we're suing to clean up the rolls, they can start cleaning up the rolls immediately. So because of our work right now, we're in court right now, your voting rolls will be a little cleaner come election day. And it's less likely the system will be upended on election day for or against a particular candidate because of the work we're doing now. So this work is key. I mean, we're. And I encourage people to follow this issue closely. The left is obsessed with election systems and the way elections are done, and they're trying to upend the law and blow up our system. And we don't have the similar capacities on the right. I mean, we're. I can think of one other group, two other groups. I probably know the name of every lawyer involved in the issue on our side of it. Only recently have the Republicans began doing it. And as you know, they are not as effective. And they kind of, you know, they have a very different reason for engaging in these fights than Judicial Watch does. And in many ways, we're sometimes fighting against Republican officeholders who refuse to clean up the rolls like we were doing in Iowa. So those are important issues. And, you know, we just have to keep on getting out the information about the attack on President Trump because I fear that if nothing, whatever doesn't come out now, depending on the result of the election, we may never see. So there's gotta be urgency by the Trump administration to be transparent, and I'm not seeing that. And I would encourage them to rethink their approach here.

[A]

Yeah, I completely agree. And so, Tom, in closing, Assault on the Republic's the book. You said it's not public yet, but I guess our audience can stay aware of it.

[B]

But it's coming out in the fall.

[A]

We'd love to have you almost every month before the election if you can make time, because what you're talking about, no one else understands and no one else is actually fighting as hard as you are.

[B]

Yeah, it's complicated, but pretty darn simple. In the time they tried to remove the president unlawfully to protect Hillary and the Obama gang from being prosecuted for all their crimes against him in America.

[A]

Yeah. Well, God bless you for what you're doing. So, Tom, thanks so much for joining the Charlie Kirk Show, Judicial Watch. Help him out, and we'll talk to you soon.

[B]

Thank you. Charles Sample.