that

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records of any incidents of aggression or biting by President Biden’s dog Commander. 

Judicial Watch filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the U.S. Secret Service, a component of Homeland Security, failed to respond adequately to a December 28, 2022, FOIA request (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:23-cv-00612)). Based upon a tip it received, Judicial Watch is Sasking for:

• Any records related to incidents of aggression and bites involving the Biden family dog, “Commander,” including communications between Secret Service officials in the Uniformed and Non-Uniformed Divisions involved in White House operations and the Presidential Protection Division.

The Secret Service acknowledged receipt of the request and wrote in a January 20. 2023, letter that it had found responsive records and was processing them. At the time of the complaint, however, it had not produced any of the records.

Acquired in December 2021, Commander, a pure-bred German shepherd, replaced another German shepherd, Major, which left the White House following a series of attacks on Secret Service and White House staff.

In April 2022 Judicial Watch released records detailing multiple attacks and damages to United States Secret Service (USSS) members by Major at both the White House and Biden’s lake home in Wilmington, DE. The documents reveal that a member of USSS who was attacked by the dog was displeased that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki misled the press about the incident.

In August 2021, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the Secret Service revealing Biden’s dog Major was responsible for many more biting incidents than the Biden White House had publicly acknowledged.

One email noted that “at the current rate an Agent or Officer has been bitten every day this week (3/1-3/8) causing damage to attire or bruising/punctures to the skin.”

“Judicial Watch already caught the Biden White House lying about their family dog attacking and injuring Secret Service and White House employees,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Now it seems their new dog is also out of control and the Secret Service is hiding records about the issue.”

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Secret Service for Records on Aggression and Biting by President Biden’s Dog appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that Colorado’s secretary of state agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. As part of its settlement Colorado will report to Judicial Watch on its yearly progress in cleaning up its rolls for the next six years. Since Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit, Colorado voter roll removals increased by 78%, from 172,379 to 306,303 per reporting period.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in October 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of itself and three residents of Colorado, alleging that the state had failed to clean its voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Griswold, et al.(No. 20-cv-02992)). In August 2021, the court ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit could proceed. Judicial Watch was later joined in its lawsuit by the American Constitution Party of Colorado and the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

The lawsuit alleged that high registration rates and other voter roll metrics “indicate an ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado’s voter list maintenance efforts.” Judicial Watch sought a court order declaring that Colorado and its secretary of state violated the NVRA and ordering them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the registrations of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls in Colorado.”

The number of outdated registrations removed by Colorado under a key NVRA provision increased after Judicial Watch filed suit, from 172,379 registrations for the reporting period ending in 2018 to 306,303 registrations for the period ending in 2022—an increase of 78%. The settlement agreement requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch its most recent voter roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years. This data is to include:

• The total number of registered and eligible voters, active voters, and inactive voters.
• The total number of address confirmation notices sent to Colorado voters pursuant to the NVRA, the number received back confirming or changing an address, and the number that were undeliverable or not returned.
• The total number of registrations addresses removed pursuant to key provisions of the NVRA.

“Coming on the heels of a massive voter roll clean up in Colorado thanks to our lawsuit, this settlement agreement is a major victory for all Colorado voters,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Simply put: Cleaner voter rolls mean cleaner elections.”

Judicial Watch is 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.

In February Los Angeles County confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last year under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed in 2017.

Judicial Watch settled 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 also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled 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 of Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme” congressional gerrymander.

In May 2022, Judicial Watch sued Illinois on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two other registered Illinois voters to stop state election officials from extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law.

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.

###

The post Judicial Watch Victory: Colorado Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Ineligible Voters; Agrees to Extensive Reporting and Review of Voter Roll Clean Up Efforts appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for communications of its chair, Lina Khan, regarding Twitter and Twitter’s owner Elon Musk (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1:23-cv-00692 (ABJ)) 

Judicial Watch sued after the Federal Trade Commission failed to respond to a November 14, 2022, FOIA request for:

Records and communications maintained by Lina Khan, Chairperson, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) including memoranda, reports, briefings, hand-written notes, email communications, email chains, email attachments and other form of records or communications exchanged regarding or referring to Mr. Elon Musk, CEO, Twitter, or the company Twitter with the below named individuals:

(a)            Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips

(b)            Commissioner Christine S. Wilson

(c)            Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter

(d)            Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya

 Khan, nominated by President Biden in March 2021, has reportedly been aggressive in investigating Twitter after its purchase by Elon Musk in October 2022. According to the New York Post:

The Federal Trade Commission has asked Twitter to turn over internal communications related to owner Elon Musk, detailed information about layoffs and other business decisions as part of an investigation into the social media company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday citing documents.

The FTC, chaired by Lina Khan, sent 12 letters to Twitter and its lawyers since Musk’s takeover in October. It also asked the company to “identify all journalists” who were granted access to company records and to provide information about the launch of the revamped Twitter Blue subscription service, the report said.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Federal Trade Commission’s letters to Twitter “were obtained by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which published excerpts of them Tuesday in a staff report about the FTC’s investigation.” 

“The leftists now running the Biden administration don’t hesitate to use the power of the state to silence their critics,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “And we will use the power of the courts to expose them.”

Judicial Watch is heavily involved in countering government and big tech censorship.

In February it filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records of communication related to the work of the Election Integrity Partnership that could detail coordinated censorship activities.

In a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch is suing the DHS for all records of communications between the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which was reportedly active during the 2022 midterm elections. Among the news outlets flagged by EIP were websites for Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Epoch Times and Breitbart.

Judicial Watch recently sued the DOJ for records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and social media sites regarding foreign influence in elections, as well as the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Secretary of State of the State of California for  censoring a Judicial Watch election integrity video.

In April 2021, Judicial Watch published documents revealing how California state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In May 2021, Judicial Watch revealed documents showing that Iowa state officials pressured social media companies Twitter and Facebook to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In July 2021, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which revealed that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the COVID narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Federal Trade Commission for Communications about Twitter Owner Elon Musk appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge ruled that its lawsuit can go forward on behalf of former Virginia Magistrate Elizabeth Fuller against officials in the Office of the Executive Secretary of Magistrate Services for firing Fuller in violation of her First Amendment rights. 

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, came in the lawsuit filed in March 2022 by Judicial Watch (Elizabeth Fuller v. Karl R. Hade, et al. (No. 1:22-cv-00218)).

On October 19, 2021, Fuller was fired from her position as magistrate after commenting to the Alexandria Times as part of a discussion about the publicly available outcome of her own 2020 complaint against a bondsman named Man Nguyen.

The judge’s order states that the court “finds that [Fuller] has sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation to survive a motion to dismiss.”

[Fuller’s] comments to the Alexandria Times facially concern a matter of public interest. [Fuller’s] comments concerned the murder of Ms. Dominguez, which had received media attention and “fueled public debate about lenient law enforcement and bail practices in the Commonwealth of Virginia and nationwide.” Ms. Dominguez’s murder was even discussed by then-Virginia Delegate, now Virginia Attorney General, Jason Miyares during a floor debate on bail reform in the Virginia General Assembly. In her comments to the Alexandria Times, [Fuller] appeared to express her discontentment with the actions of Bouaichi, Nguyen, and the Circuit Court Judge, and her belief that Ms. Dominguez’s death was “entirely preventable if anybody in the process had been doing their job effectively.”

On or about January 13, 2020, Ibrahm Elkahi Bouaichi was arrested and indicted by a grand jury for burglary with the intent to commit murder, abduction, sodomy, strangulation, and rape of Karla Elizabeth Dominguez Gonzalez. Notwithstanding the seriousness of these charges, the Alexandria Circuit Court released Bouaichi on a $25,000 bond in April 2020. Less than four months after his release on bail, Bouaichi, on July 29, 2020, reportedly drove to Ms. Dominguez’ residence in Alexandria, Virginia and shot and killed her outside her apartment complex.

Judicial Watch pointed out in its initial complaint:

In the immediate days following the news reports about Ms. Dominguez’ murder, [Fuller] learned from a police officer in the citizen lobby of the magistrate’s office that the vehicle and gun reportedly used by Bouaichi to murder Ms. Dominquez belonged to the surety bail bondsman, Man Nguyen, who posted the $25,000 bond for Bouaichi’s release in April 2020. On information and belief, bondsman Nguyen and the officer struck casual conversation while they were waiting in the citizens lobby when Nguyen said it was his gun and car that Bouaichi used to murder Ms. Dominguez, and that he had let Bouaichi stay at his house while he was away on vacation.  The officer subsequently relayed the information to Plaintiff as part of casual conversation among friendly colleagues, outside any hearing or proceeding.  

On August 6, 2020, Fuller, in her personal capacity, filed a complaint with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, alleging that Nguyen violated rules and regulations of his licensure as a surety bail bondsman. On September 1, 2020, Nguyen’s surety bail bond license was suspended and revoked as a result. Fuller understood that this concluded the matter. 

More than a year later, the Alexandria Times disclosed the contents of Fuller’s complaint and other information obtained through a third party’s Freedom of Information Act request regarding Nguyen’s involvement and subsequently approached Fuller for comment about the complaint in October 2021. Fuller commented as follows:

Nguyen came to work in the days following the murder, nearly boasting and joking about the fact that the gun and car belonged to him and that Bouaichi had stayed at his home. 

“[Bondsman Nguyen] was telling this officer about what happened and almost bragging about it. The officer said to me, ‘You will never believe what he just said to me.’” “So I said, ‘I’ve got to do something about it.’”

Five days after this story was published on October 7, Fuller was placed on administrative leave, and she was fired on October 19, 2021 for violating Canon 3, Section B(6), which states: “[a] magistrate shall abstain from public comment about a pending, impending or concluded proceeding in any court or magistrate’s office.”

In early November 2021, Fuller filed a grievance appealing her termination and asked for reinstatement, which was denied.

Judicial Watch argues that Fuller’s firing was retaliation for protected speech and that the judicial canon used to justify her firing doesn’t apply to comments made about a public filing made in her personal capacity:

At all relevant times, [Fuller] was engaged in constitutionally protected speech when she made the comments to the Alexandria Times, which undeniably addressed matters of public concern.

***

[Fuller] enjoys the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the right to comment to the Alexandria Times on [Fuller’s] public complaint filed in her personal capacity about the misconduct of a bondsman and its outcome, and the system’s failure to protect a rape victim. 

“Simply put, Ms. Fuller embarrassed Virginia officials over their deadly soft-on-crime bail policies. As the court noted, our client commented on a serious public safety matter of widespread public interest,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The lawsuit will now proceed to discovery and we hope, ultimately, to trial.”

“I am so proud that Judicial Watch was so gracious to represent me before the federal court to secure this important victory for my First Amendment rights. This ultimately is not simply about whether or not I have a job, but about an innocent rape victim who unjustly and needlessly lost her life. It gives me hope that her story continues to be heard through this case independent of the outcome,” stated Liz Fuller.

###

The post Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Allows Lawsuit to Go Forward over Magistrate’s Firing for Comments on Released Rapist’s Murder of His Victim appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of Texas-based Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) in its lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration over the FDA’s approval of the controversial abortion drug Mifeprex(Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486). In its brief, Judicial Watch describes the FDA’s approval process as “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law.”

Judicial Watch filed the brief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division in the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (No. 2:22-cv-00223-z).

Judicial Watch points out the Clinton administration’s use of political pressure to force the drug through the approval process:

The evidence uncovered of [the FDA’s] true motivation for their decision to approve Mifeprex is eye-opening and shows the [Clinton] administration and FDA applying political pressure on not only international corporations, but on international governments – all for a drug to kill prenatal human beings. The evidence also shows the intricate political and corporate machinations spent in the service of promoting a drug that has nothing to do with women’s health. [The FDA] pressured both Roussel, a French company, and Hoechst AG, the German pharmaceutical company and majority shareholder of Roussel, to bring the abortion pill to the U.S.

***

In a November 15, 1993 letter from Donna Shalala, HHS Secretary to the White House, she states that “Dr.Kessler [FDA Commissioner] and I have taken steps to persuade Roussel Uclef and Hoechst to change their position.”

***

The [Clinton administration] and the FDA were willing to place political pressure on two foreign governments [France and Germany] to accomplish the task of approving an abortion pill. This was not a life-saving medication or a drug that cured cancer. This was a drug which was being sought for one purpose and one purpose alone: the intentional death of prenatal humans. And for what reason? The ability to satisfy a financially and politically powerful group of abortion advocates.

Judicial Watch explains that the FDA improperly weakened safety restrictions regarding Mifeprex over the years:

In a congressional hearing after the 2000 approval of Mifeprex, the FDA asserted that it chose to approve mifepristone [and] to maintain more stringent safety restrictions on the drug…. This included the requirement that the drug be administered “by or under the supervision of a physician” who met several qualifications.

 ***

[H]istory shows that in the first decade of post-approval use, the FDA increased Mifeprex safety requirements. [Emphasis in original] … Yet, despite these very public safety concerns, the [Obama] FDA significantly revised the Mifeprex labeling and REMS in 2016 and reducedthe safety requirements. [Emphasis in original] These changes included significantly altered dosage, removal of the follow-up medical visit, removal of the requirement to take the drug in a doctor’s office, and expansion of the use through 70 days gestation. Also of significance and concern, the FDA modified the REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] to require reporting of only deaths attributable to the drug. No longer would hospitalizations, transfusions, or other serious adverse events need to be reported.

***

In 2021, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a tool, abortion proponents, led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists “(ACOG”), sued the FDA to dispense with the REMS in-person medical visit as a prerequisite for obtaining Mifeprex and permit the drug to be mailed…. With the pandemic declared over by President Biden on September 18, 2022, the foundation of concern for in-person medical visits should have ended. Instead, the FDA maintained its temporary suspension and continued permitting Mifeprex to be mailed. Then on December 16, 2022, the [Biden] FDA permanently removed the [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] requirement for any in-person medical visits.

Judicial Watch’s brief alleges that the FDA, in approving Mifeprex, did not demonstrate as required under law, (1) pregnancy was a “serious or life-threatening illness” or a “disease,” and (2) that the drug “provided a meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.”

“The chemical abortion drug would never have been approved but for pro-abortion politics. Pregnant mothers and their unborn children will continue to be harmed and maimed unless the courts require the FDA to follow the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  

In an effort to appease pro-abortion activists, the Clinton FDA hastily approved the abortion pill on September 28, 2000. Judicial Watch immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and then battled the government in court to force the release of documents pertaining to the decision to approve the drug. Judicial Watch successfully obtained over 9,000 pages of records and then fought the agency over withheld records.

In May 2006, Judicial Watch released a special report containing documents that shed light on the Clinton administration’s push to get the abortion drug to market in the United States.

In 2007, Judicial Watch received 175 pages of documents pertaining to the abortion pill RU-486 that had previously been withheld by the FDA. According to the records, the China-based Hua Lian Pharmaceutical Company manufactured RU-486 at the time of approval. This seems to be the first official document confirming that the abortion drug had been manufactured in China. The records also indicated the extent to which the pro-abortion lobby was involved in the approval process. For example, one of the trials used by the FDA to justify its decision was conducted by Dr. Suzanne Poppema, president of the National Abortion Federation. Another trial was performed by Dr. Daniel Mishell, a senior scientist for RU-486’s then-patent holder, the Population Council.

In October 2022, Judicial Watch also sued HHS for records regarding drug stability test results, new drug applications and related materials of the abortion drug Mifeprex well as requests for reviews and assessments of the manufacturing facilities DANCO and GenBio where the abortion pills are produced.

###

The post Judicial Watch Files Brief in Support of Legal Challenge to Safety of Abortion Drug appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, D.C.) Judicial Watch announced today that it received 254 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) this included emails of then-Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins regarding a British group’s recommendations on the use of Ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.

Judicial Watch obtained the records as the result of an August 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for Collins’ emails filed after the HHS failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-02302)).

In February 2021, a leading British physician and World Council for Health co-founder Dr. Tess Lawrie,who is director and founder of a doctors’ organization called the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), emailed 31 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, including the Director of the Offfice of New Drugs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Peter Stein; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks; and then-Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock; and copying several leading foreign medical figures, with an email titled “URGENT: The BIRD meeting and recommendation on covid-19 prevention and treatment.” She attached a document titled “Draft BIRD Proceedings 25-02-2021 v.1.4.pdf.”

While the document attached to the email is completely redacted, Lawrie’s cover letter states: “BIRD panel conclusions are that Ivermectin should be approved immediately for prevention and treatment of covid-19:”

The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel recommends ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of covid-19 to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with covid-19 infection and to prevent covid-19 infection among those at higher risk. [Emphasis in original]

The BIRD Steering Group has taken heed of the WHO statement on ‘Developing global norms for sharing data and results during public health emergencies’ that states that ‘public disclosure of information of relevance to public health emergencies should not be delayed’, and also notes the ‘very great risks’ that can occur from ‘withholding data and results arising from analyses’. We are, therefore, sharing this evidence-to decision framework within just a few days of the BIRD meeting to avoid delay.

Further, due to the urgency related to the communication and dissemination of this recommendation that is aimed at saving thousands of lives daily, please forgive the limitations of the draft proceedings document attached. Information on the process and methods can be found among the annexes. An Executive Summary is being finalised and will be available on Monday.

Later that day, Woodcock forwards Lawrie’s email and attachment to then-NIH Director Francis Collins, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, Operation Warp Speed director David Kessler and several other HHS officials, with a comment that is entirely redacted.

“Rather than educate the public about the supposed reasons for their rejection of the Ivermectin-use recommendation, the FDA, NIH, and Fauci’s former agency have blacked out their responses in these documents,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Through a separate lawsuit, in July 2022, Judicial Watch uncovered FDA records regarding COVID booster vaccines research that show top officials being pressured by “companies and, for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense”

Those records included an August 25, 2021, email from the former director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review Marion Gruber to her boss, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks:

Over the last couple of days, Janssen has bombarded us with emails regarding their booster dose studies.

***

I am also very concerned that companies (such as Pfizer and Janssen) are trying to put pressure on OVRR [Office of Vaccines Research and Review] by way of PR [public relations]. We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and, for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense (e.g., Sep 20)…. It appears that at least Pfizer’s data will not be aligned with this approach and the ‘n’ [test numbers] they have is grossly insufficient. Obviously, we have to review the data but we have taken a peak and have serious concerns.

Lastly, and this is my personal opinion, data we have seen so far from various companies (Pfizer, Janssen, Moderna) appear to suggest that boosters are not needed.

 Through FOIA requests and lawsuits, Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:

• Heavily redacted HHS records showed that just two days prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine a discussion was held between U.S. and UK health regulators regarding the COVID shot and “anaphylaxis,” with the regulators emphasizing their “mutual confidentiality agreement.”
• Judicial Watch obtained HHS records regarding data Moderna submitted to the FDA on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicated a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also revealed Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.
• Heavily redacted records from the FDA regarding the COVID-19 booster vaccine detailed pressure on COVID booster use and approval.
• HHS records detailed internal discussions about myocarditis and the COVID vaccine. Other documents detail adverse “events for which a contributory effect of the vaccine could not be excluded.”
• Judicial Watch uncovered HHS records detailing the extensive media plans for a Biden administration propaganda campaign to push the COVID-19 vaccine.
• HHS records revealed previously redacted locations of COVID-19 vaccine testing facilities in Shanghai, China. The FDA had claimed the name and location of the testing facilities were protected by the confidential commercial information exemption of the FOIA.
• NIH records showed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
• Texas Public Information Act (PIA) records showed the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc, warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.
• HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines showed how a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
• Records obtained from HHS through a FOIA lawsuit related to hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 revealed that a grant to EcoHealth Alliance was cancelled because of press reports that a portion of the grant was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
• HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
• NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
• HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”
• HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
• HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
• HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
• Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

###

The post Judicial Watch: Former NIH Director Francis Collins Emails Reveal British Physicians and Scientists Group Recommended Ivermectin for Preventions and Treatment of COVID-19 appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that after 16 months, it has finally received 3 pages of budget records from the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning the operations of the Office of Special Counsel John Durham that show its fiscal year 2022 budget was over $8.5 million.

 The document production comes in the March 2022 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 2021, request for records of communication between Special Counsel John Durham and Attorney General Merrick Garland, and all budget records related to the operations of the office of Special Counsel (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:22-cv-00734)).

Durham was appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice on October 19, 2020:

The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, Ill.

The Department of Justice initially produced budget records responsive to the Judicial Watch lawsuit on June 3, 2022, but redacted the actual budget numbers. Judicial Watch challenged the withheld information, and the DOJ now has re-released the documents without the redactions.

The supplemental response includes an unredacted June 30, 2021, memo from Assistant Attorney General Lee Lofthus to Attorney General Garland with the subject line “Fiscal Year 2022 Special Counsel’s Office Budget Request,” showing a previously withheld estimated budget of $8,627,629.

Attached is the John Durham Special Counsel Office Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 budget plan.  The Justice Management Division has completed its review under 28 C.F.R. 600.8(a)(1). The FY 2022 budget estimate is $4,463,525 which, after Office of Management and Budget technical adjustments for the mandatory sequester, totals $4,209,104 in available operational funds. [Emphasis supplied for previously redacted numbers]

In a line-item breakout of costs for FY 2022 attached to the memo, DOJ has now released figures indicating that total income paid to “Full Time Permanent” personnel, including benefits, was $1,874,193. Non-reimbursable costs totaled $2,334,911, for costs such as travel ($457,207), rent ($306,350), and “Other Contractual Services” ($1,297,054). The budget also indicates there was one direct position, 11 “Reimbursable Detailees” and three “Non-Reimbursable Investigative Staff,” for a total of 15 personnel. [Emphasis supplied for previously redacted numbers]

“Special Counsel Durham has spent millions in tax dollars to investigate the worst government corruption scandal in American history – the abuse of Trump – to little good end,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That we had to file a federal lawsuit to get basic budget information about this historic investigation speaks volumes. And that the Garland DOJ is still hiding documents adds to the scandal.”

 

###

The post Judicial Watch: Justice Department Records Show Special Counsel Durham’s FY 2022 Budget over $8.5 Million appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a court hearing will be held before U.S. District Court Carl J. Nichols on Thursday, March 9, 2023, in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of a meeting set up by then-Chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Fraud Section Andrew Weissmann between the DOJ, FBI and reporters from The Associated Press (AP), in which Weissmann allegedly provided guidance to reporters investigating Paul Manafort, and which may have led to the raid of Manafort’s storage locker (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00879)).

The hearing will be held:

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023

Time: 1 pm ET

Location: E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse

333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

 Judicial Watch has explained to the court that the search for attorney Shreve Ariail’s records remains at issue. At the time Ariail was assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. He subsequently became deputy general counsel for litigation and investigations at the CIA, and is now in private practice. Ariail was among the three U.S. attorneys who attended and emailed about the meeting with at least one AP reporter and Andrew Weissmann. (Weissmann was hired to work on Robert Mueller’s special counsel operation against President Trump. Weissman then reportedly spearheaded the subsequent investigation and prosecution of Manafort.) The DOJ refused to search Ariail’s records until it was ordered to do so by the court in March 2022. During this process, new information has come to light that casts doubt on the DOJ’s obligation to retain Ariail’s records during Judicial Watch’s pending lawsuit.

Judicial Watch contends that the DOJ’s response about its retention of Ariail’s records raises critical questions about potential deletion of records that require the court’s immediate attention.

###

The post Judicial Watch: Federal Court Hearing Scheduled in Lawsuit Seeking Details of Meeting Between DOJ Lawyers and AP Reporters Regarding Trump Associate Paul Manafort appeared first on Judicial Watch.