Happy Easter!
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[Header]

Happy Easter!

JUDICIAL WATCH LAWSUIT FORCES RELEASE OF NASHVILLE SCHOOL SHOOTER
“MANIFESTO” RECORDS

[[link removed]]

We just received 112 pages
[[link removed]]
of documents of the “manifesto” of the March 27, 2023, shooter at
The Covenant School in Tennessee. The records were an interim release
in response to our FOIA lawsuit (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:23-cv-01483)).

The records detail the shooter’s violent thoughts, the targeting and
planning of the shooting attack on the Covenant School, and
transgender-related distress. The records show she considered an
attack on a mall but did not pursue it because of the facility’s
security measures.

The Covenant School killer’s ‘manifesto’ records are exceedingly
disturbing but should have been released long ago. We appreciate the
Trump administration’s transparency. These records may help
Americans understand and perhaps better prevent and protect their
schools and other targets from mass shooters.

Separately, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf of
retired Hamilton County Sheriff James Hammond and the Tennessee
Firearms Association, Inc. (“TFA”) (_Hammond et al. v.
Metropolitan Govt of Nashville et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 23-0538-III)). The lawsuit is on appeal after a lower court
upheld efforts to keep all the records secret.



WHITE HOUSE REVISIONS TO BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
REVEALED

Joe Biden’s handlers, including his White House lawyers, bent over
backwards to prevent the American people from learning that he
wasn’t up to the job.

We’re adding to the evidence.

Judicial Watch received 52 pages
[[link removed]]
of documents from the U.S. Department of Justice showing White House
staffers suggesting edits to transcripts of President Biden’s
interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur regarding his handling of
secret documents.

We received the documents thanks to our FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Department of Justice for records of communication between
the agency and White House regarding the altered transcripts of
Special Counsel Robert Hur’s October 2023 interviews of President
Biden in the criminal investigation into Biden’s theft and
disclosure of classified records (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department
of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-02176)).

In a separate lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a federal
court ordered
[[link removed]]
the Department of Justice to declare whether it intends to continue
denying Judicial Watch’s request for the full audio of former
President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. The
Trump Justice Department has until May 20, 2025, to report its
position on the release of the videotape. (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00700))

Also, previously in that lawsuit, we forced
[[link removed]]
the
Biden administration to confess that the transcripts of the audio
recordings have been altered and are not accurate.

The new documents provided in this case include a chart of suggested
changes by Biden White House and personal lawyers to the transcript.
Also included are emails that detail Biden lawyer Bob Bauer’s
requesting access to interview exhibits and a meeting with the special
counsel to discuss the case. Justice Department official Marc
Krickbaum confirmed most White House revisions to the transcript were
accepted, including minor clarifications and changes potentially
masking Biden’s confusion, such as correcting who said “Yeah” or
altering references to Biden’s Delaware garage and President
Biden’s seeming inability to recall the name of the Defense
Secretary.

These documents provide an extraordinary insight into a cover-up of
the White House of Biden’s cognitive challenges. The Bondi Justice
Department should follow up with the full release of the actual audio
of President Biden’s disastrous interview with the special counsel
on his document theft and mishandling.

On October 12, 2023, Bob Bauer, personal attorney to Biden and White
House Counsel for President Obama, writes
[[link removed]]
to Marc Krickbaum, then-Deputy Special Counsel, and others, including
several White House staffers:

> Gentlemen:
>
> Now that the interviews of the President have concluded, we would
> like to discuss with you the written presentations that we are
> preparing to aid in the resolution of this matter, as well as the
> schedule for their timely submission. To this end, we request a
> meeting for the purpose of hearing from you where matters stand in
> the case, which would enable us to focus our presentations on the
> issues it would be most helpful for us to address. The meeting would
> include both personal and White House Counsel.
>
> ***
>
> As you know, we also have an outstanding request for copies of the
> exhibits you provided in your interview of the President. We have
> noted that these exhibits would be necessary in our review of the
> transcripts of the interviews to check for any omissions or
> inaccuracies. We believe it is fair that we have access to this
> material at least for this purpose. This is one of the issues we
> would like to resolve at the meeting, along with an understanding
> for our planning purposes of when the interview transcript may be
> available for review in both audio and video form.

In a follow-up email, he corrects himself: “…the reference to
‘video’ can, of course, be disregarded.”

On December 21, 2023, Krickbaum writes
[[link removed]]
to Rachel F. Cotton, Deputy Counsel to the President in the Office of
the White House Counsel, and others showing the court reporter
rejected some of the proposed edits to the Biden transcript

> Dick and Rachel,
>
> We had the court reporter who prepared the transcript review your
> suggested revisions. She accepted most of them. This table lists
> your revisions and then describes whether we did or did not make
> changes.
>
> We may have to send the transcript itself on the high side
> [classified] next week. I will let you know when we do.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Marc

Some proposed transcript edits detailed
[[link removed]]
in a chart produced by the Justice Department suggest that the Biden
White House changes to the transcript might be considered an effort to
cover up Biden’s mental confusion. White House suggests:

> PRESIDENT BIDEN: The date is 4-20-09. Was I still Vice President? I
> was, wasn’t I? Yeah. Yeah.
>
> Mr. Bauer: Yeah.
>
> President Biden: Yeah.

On this entry, the White House attaches a note: “Audio indicates
that ‘Yeah’ was said twice in succession by President Biden. Mr.
Bauer did not say ‘Yeah.’

The court reporter records:

> PRESIDENT BIDEN: The date is 4-20-09. Was I still Vice President? I
> was, wasn’t I? Yeah. Yeah.
>
> UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
>
> PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yeah.

Other changes also seem significant. One seems to refer
[[link removed]]
to Biden’s garage at his Delaware home, where secret documents were
found.

The White House proposed this change:

> were delivered my the garage
>
> The court reporter records:
>
> were delivered to the – my garage.

At another point, Bien might have been confused about the name of the
Secretary of Defense. The White House proposed
[[link removed]
change:

> Secretary of Defense? Gates
>
> UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Gates.

A White House entry on that notes states: According to the audio,
President Biden says “Gates” prior to the unidentified male
speaker.

The court reporter records:

> Secretary of Defense? Gates?
>
> UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Gates.

The White House responds:

> The court reporter inserted a question mark that is unsupported by
> the audio recording. It is clear that the President said “Gates”
> as a statement rather than a question. We ask that the question mark
> be replaced with a period …

Regarding that last entry and another, on January 3, 2024, Amish
[probably Amish Shah, Senior Associate Counsel in the White house
Counsel’s Office], emails
[[link removed]]
Krickbaum:

> Thank you for sending. We have reviewed and are fine with almost all
> of the court reporter’s responses. However, we ask the SCO to
> reconsider the attached two corrections on Day 2. Both corrections
> are supported by the audio recording of the interview.

On January 22, 2024, Krickbaum replies
[[link removed]

> We will send a revised transcript of the President’s interview on
> yellow [higher security], and attached is a revised list of edits.
> For the two revisions you suggested in your last email, the court
> reporter adopted the second and adopted a slightly modified version
> of the first.

On February 28, 2024, an Executive Officer in the Special Counsel’s
Office emails
[[link removed]]
Free State Reporting:

> Good evening. Would you be able to come back (hopefully, the last
> time) on Friday, 3/1 or Monday, 3/4 (the sooner, the better? There
> are more edits to the President’s transcript. I’ll have an exact
> number tomorrow. I’m getting the computer back so it will be blank
> when you arrive so it will need your software on it again. It got
> wiped when I thought everything was finished. I’ll meet you out
> front with a new parking pass. My apologies for the inconvenience.

It’s not clear what these last-minute changes were.

We have several ongoing FOIA lawsuits about Biden’s document
scandals and the related unprecedented partisan prosecutorial and
judicial abuses of former President Donald J. Trump. I will have
updates for you as events warrant!



DID DEMOCRAT ARIZONA AG ANNOUNCE TRUMP ‘INVESTIGATION’ TO SWAY
ELECTION?

Here is yet another example of “lawfare” abuse targeting Donald
Trump.

Our open records lawsuit reveals that Arizona Attorney General Kris
Mayes seems to have used her office for political purposes in
threatening a prosecution of President Trump on the eve of the 2024
presidential election (_Judicial Watch Inc. v. Kris Mayes et al_
[[link removed]]
(No. CV 2025 00675)). Only one document was found (and kept secret)
relating to a criminal investigation, while dozens of
media-related documents
[[link removed]]
were revealed.

In an October 31, 2024, interview
[[link removed]]
with Tucker Carlson at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale, Arizona,
Trump said of Liz Cheney: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put
her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?
Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are
trained on her face. They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in
Washington in a nice building saying, ‘Oh, gee, well let’s send
10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’ “

On November 1, 2024, Mayes, a Democrat, said
[[link removed]]
during the taping of the Channel 12 “Sunday Square-Off” news show:
“I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at
that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death
threat under Arizona’s laws.” She conducted multiple media
interviews within days of the election.

Mayes’ office provided comments
[[link removed]]
to CBS, NBC, CNN, AZ Family, Forbes, Fox, News Nation, Sky View
Networks, Law and Crime News Network, Newsweek, and Reuters in what
appears to be an attempt to paint Donald Trump as a criminal shortly
before the election.

The records show the threatened “investigation” of President Trump
was merely an oral request from the Arizona General Mayes to a top
staffer to evaluate the Liz Cheney statement. The only record of the
investigation that exists is a 3-page memo from the Attorney
General’s criminal division chief back to Mayes, which the Court
reviewed _in camera_ and determined was protected attorney work
product and therefore can be withheld. Presumably (and probably from
media sources) the memo declined to open a more substantial
investigation or initiate a prosecution.

The lack of records further supports our theory that the
investigation—purportedly launched on the Friday before the 2024
presidential election and dropped shortly thereafter—was a sham to
try to influence the outcome of the election in an important swing
state.

Mayes ended the “investigation” on November 13, 2024, telling the
Arizona Republic that Trump’s comment “very likely may have been
an effort to intimidate Cheney” but the investigation showed there
was “no reasonable likelihood that we could obtain a conviction for
Trump’s statements. We think it’s equally likely a reasonable
person could conclude Trump was discussing war, and Liz Cheney not
wanting to go to war.”

We filed our lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona,
Maricopa County, this past January after Mayes’ office failed to
comply with a November 12, 2024, Arizona Public Records Act request
for records regarding Mayes’ office and/or the criminal division
chief analyzing Trump’s statement as qualifying as a death threat;
the determination whether the statement was analyzed to be a violation
of Arizona and/or federal law; the costs to carry out the
investigation; and any documents in which Mayes addresses the limits
of free speech as addressed in the First Amendment.

(Additionally, we asked for records regarding the dismissal of
criminal charges
[[link removed]]
against Arizona citizen Rebekah Massie, who was arrested during an
August 20, 2024, Surprise City Council meeting after she criticized a
proposed pay increase for the city attorney.

Maricopa County Judge Gerald Williams dismissed with prejudice the
trespassing charge against Massie, writing: “No branch of any
federal, state, or local government in this country should ever
attempt to control the content of political speech. In this case, the
government did so in a manner that was objectively outrageous.”)



PUBLIC PRE-K-8 “INCLUSIVITY” BOOKS PUSH GENDER TRANSITIONING, DRAG
QUEENS

Public schools in Maryland, right next door to the nation’s capital,
are definitely promoting left-wing extremist and anti-American ideas
to children as young as pre-kindergarten. Our_ Corruption Chronicles_
blog has the details
[[link removed]].

> Leftwing activism has run amok in two Maryland public school
> districts with “inclusivity” books for elementary students that
> champion gender transitioning, drag queens and children’s pronoun
> preferences and a high school student suspended for questioning why
> all his classrooms do not have an American flag as state law
> requires. The taxpayer-funded districts are situated about an hour
> apart but practice the same woke ideology that has gripped academic
> institutions throughout the United States, a leftist conditioning
> that President Trump has vowed to abolish. An executive order
>
[[link removed]]
> issued in late January states that federal funding and support will
> be eliminated for indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on
> gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology and that parental
> rights will be protected. “Young men and women are made to
> question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to
> view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed,”
> Trump’s order reads. “These practices not only erode critical
> thinking but also sow division, confusion, and distrust, which
> undermine the very foundations of personal identity and family
> unity.”
>
> The order’s language is especially relevant to the first case,
> which involves Maryland’s largest school district,Montgomery
> County Public Schools
[[link removed]]
(MCPS),
> with about 160,000 students in 210 campuses located a short distance
> from Washington D.C. In 2022 the Montgomery County Board of
> Education announced that students in pre-K through eighth grade
> would use over 20 new “inclusivity” books that promote gay pride
> parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences for kids. One
> book directs three and four-year-olds to search for images from a
> list of words that includes intersex flag, drag queen and underwear
> as well as the name of a celebrated LGBTQ sex worker turned
> activist. Other books promote gender transitioning for children,
> stating that it does not have to make sense and that doctors only
> guess when identifying a newborn’s gender. When education
> officials announced the district would use the pride storybooks, it
> assured concerned parents they would be notified so they could opt
> out their children. A year later the policy changed, so parents
> would no longer be warned.
>
> A group of Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian
> parents sued
[[link removed]],
and a
> federal district court and a court of appeals ruled against them so
> they petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed earlier this
> year to hear their case. A Washington D.C. nonprofit dedicated to
> protecting the free expression of all faiths represents the
> concerned parents and will argue before the nation’s highest court
> on April 22. Upholding parental rights meant that children would not
> be subjected to age-inappropriate instruction against their
> parents’ wishes, but the policy change denies parents the right to
> decide when their elementary-aged children are exposed to books
> promoting transgender and queer ideology, attorneys for the group
> say. “The Board cannot refuse parents who want to opt their
> children out of instruction that violates their religious beliefs on
> sensitive matters,” the nonprofit representing the parents further
> points out, adding that it is “unlawfully coming between parents
> and their kids and targeting them because of their religious beliefs
> about gender and sexuality.” That violates both Maryland law and
> the school board’s own policies as well as the U.S. Constitution,
> the religious freedom charity asserts.
>
> In the other case, a high school student about an hour away in
> Baltimore County was suspended for seven days over his patriotism.
> The 18-year-old, Parker Jensen, who has enlisted in the military, is
> a senior at Towson High School and got punished for questioning why
> all the classrooms in his campus do not have an American flag even
> though Maryland law says every classroom must have one. When school
> administrators failed to provide an explanation, Jensen drove to the
> Baltimore County Board of Education headquarters to ask about the
> flag violation and district officials called the police on him,
> according to a local news report
>
[[link removed]].
> The high school senior was subsequently suspended for seven days.
> This month Jensen filed a lawsuit against Baltimore County Public
> Schools claiming that the district violated his Constitutional
> rights when it suspended him for inquiring about missing American
> flags in public school classrooms. “He was summarily suspended
> without any due process whatsoever, which every student in Baltimore
> County and Maryland has the right to and they stripped him of that
> within five seconds,” said Jensen’s attorney, who assures the
> student’s Constitutional rights were violated.
>
>

HAPPY EASTER!

_“Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won’t stay
there.” ~ Clarence W. Hall_

In this season, Christians around the world are celebrating the
resurrection of Christ. There are no more powerful symbols of hope
than the cross and the empty tomb. From me and mine, I wish you and
yours all the joy of Easter! For those celebrating Passover, I wish
you a Happy Passover, as well!

Until next week,



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[image]
[[link removed]]


RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PERIL

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

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

Order Tom Fitton's Must-Read Today!
[[link removed]]

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2025, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Privacy Policy
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]