Speaker 1: Tom Fitten joining us on the line. Tom, We've been
Speaker 1: talking about all this legal stuff all day. You are
Speaker 1: our legal fighter for openness clarity in the government. What
Speaker 1: you're seeing, I mean, you're seeing the situation in Spain.
Speaker 1: You know, what are some of the cases that you've
Speaker 1: been working on trying to get full disclosure on how
Speaker 1: we opened our borders here.
Speaker 2: Well, one of the issues is what's the consequence of
Speaker 2: it to our elections? For example, And I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: sure you all been covering the New Jersey crisis with
Speaker 2: the thousands of non citizens on the rolls, hunters voting.
Speaker 2: We just got some new information from Virginia. They had
Speaker 2: sixty five hundred confirmed or excuse me, declared non citizens.
Speaker 2: So these are people who said we're non citizens, they
Speaker 2: found out they were on the rolls, they had to
Speaker 2: remove them, sixty five hundred and this is just over
Speaker 2: two years, between twenty twenty four and June twenty twenty
Speaker 2: sixth and so they had this process. You go to
Speaker 2: get your driver's license, you check, no, I'm not a citizen.
Speaker 2: They send that information to the state elections officials and
Speaker 2: they cross check it and they confirm that the person's
Speaker 2: on the registration or of registration lists or not, and
Speaker 2: then they cancel them. And so what's going on is
Speaker 2: they're finding out they have all these non citizens on
Speaker 2: the roles and they're having to remove them. Only it
Speaker 2: looks like by chance of them having applied for driver's licenses.
Speaker 1: Tom fitting the president of Judicial Watch. Obviously, when we
Speaker 1: first wanted to have you on here, I mean, I think,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for weighing in on the voting
Speaker 1: aspect of the legal immigration, but obviously we want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about this faucy stuff which you've been
Speaker 1: all over for a long time, for many, many years.
Speaker 1: And you know, a couple of days ago to see
Speaker 1: this guy who couldn't talk in front of Mike's enough.
Speaker 1: By the way, when when the COVID first hit, I
Speaker 1: was working at a very small, small station, and I
Speaker 1: couldn't believe how easy it was for me to book
Speaker 1: Anthony Fauci on a moment's notice that I couldn't.
Speaker 3: I was the first one. Yeah, I had Anthony Fauci
Speaker 3: on early January January twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the stuff he said there, I mean, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, Tom Fitten, you've been on the paper trail of
Speaker 1: what he's been trying to cover up. He basically he
Speaker 1: tried to flood the zone with other verbiage. And now
Speaker 1: he's not talking at all.
Speaker 4: Oh, he's talking. He just had one hundred eleven times
Speaker 4: that I take the fish.
Speaker 1: I'm doing the David Chappelle bit.
Speaker 4: That's one of my never videos.
Speaker 2: He never stopped talking, right, and uh, you know, it's
Speaker 2: pretty clear. Let me go to the beginning here. They
Speaker 2: knew early on that the operations in Wuhan were in
Speaker 2: violation of their alleged rules against gain of function. Literally,
Speaker 2: they said, they're creating mutant viruses. Now, you know, when
Speaker 2: we first started talking about gain of function, it never
Speaker 2: occurred to me to say, well, they're creating mutant viruses.
Speaker 2: That's what I wish I had figured that out. You know,
Speaker 2: they knew, but they had the perfect word for it
Speaker 2: years prior to us knowing about what they were doing
Speaker 2: it doing it was they were funding mutant viruses. So
Speaker 2: Fauci's agencies knew years before COVID emerged that Wuhan was
Speaker 2: creating mutant viruses. And Fauci pretends, well, just because they
Speaker 2: were working on viruses doesn't mean that we funded gain
Speaker 2: of function research specifically on COVID, Like, well, that doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense. You're teaching them the technique that is
Speaker 2: applicable all around. So they created that. They had this
Speaker 2: technique being used in Wuhan to create game a function
Speaker 2: making viruses worse. And you know that's what he's held
Speaker 2: his hanging is. He's hanging his hat on in terms
Speaker 2: of saying Identical commit perjury, because that's the current big
Speaker 2: legal issue he's facing, whether he committed perjury. The second
Speaker 2: legal issue is whether he was pardoned sufficiently in a
Speaker 2: way that protects him from prosecution. I think the pardons
Speaker 2: are null and void, not only because the president autopen,
Speaker 2: but because the pardon itself is for nothing. You can't
Speaker 2: have a pardon for nothing, right you can when you
Speaker 2: say there's a pardon going back for two till twenty fourteen, Well,
Speaker 2: what what can a judge do in terms of ascertaining
Speaker 2: what it covers? To say it covers everything means it
Speaker 2: covers nothing. And I think we should be tested in court,
Speaker 2: and I would argue you can prosecute him is if appropriate,
Speaker 2: even if the pardon is valid, but you can't put
Speaker 2: him in jail, okay.
Speaker 4: And Tommy is that they're all so? Tom isn't there
Speaker 4: also rule if you you do have a pardon, you
Speaker 4: cannot take the fifth because the consequences cannot cause you
Speaker 4: incarceration or prosecution. Isn't there some sort of a rule there?
Speaker 4: I remember it somewhere reading that you cannot be if
Speaker 4: you can't be prosecuted, you cannot take the fifth at
Speaker 4: these congressional Here.
Speaker 2: Michael, I'll warn you, I'm not a lawyer, but I've
Speaker 2: had more than enough information, more than a well unfortunate
Speaker 2: experience having the battle against those taking the fifth. And
Speaker 2: what happens is if you want to challenge it, and
Speaker 2: you go by if I recall, like even a question
Speaker 2: by question analysis as to whether or not the answering
Speaker 2: the question puts you in jeopardy. And so that's the
Speaker 2: challenge in my view the Senate has, is they want
Speaker 2: to challenge the assertion of the fifth. It's almost a
Speaker 2: question by question analysis.
Speaker 4: Well, all you need is one. I remember there were
Speaker 4: one hundred and eleven one more time, remember there were
Speaker 4: one hundred and eleven or so questions. All you need
Speaker 4: is one in order to get a it's called one
Speaker 4: thousand and one violation, which is line Michael.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, they're not going to
Speaker 3: put him in jail.
Speaker 4: And it's not even about going to l I want
Speaker 4: to know the truth, John, the truth.
Speaker 2: Day he knows, we know because there was fraud. There
Speaker 2: was fraud.
Speaker 3: In my view, beyond that fraud, I think he was
Speaker 3: working for the for money m o any y my opinion.
Speaker 3: For money, he was working with the Chinese.
Speaker 2: Well, it's funny you say that because we are now
Speaker 2: fighting against the HHS for royalty information for NIH employees,
Speaker 2: how much money they were getting in royalties directly from
Speaker 2: inventions they were involved in. And we've been getting this
Speaker 2: stonewall like you couldn't believe from Frankly, this administration. And
Speaker 2: I understand what Kennedy's doing in that regardings. I think
Speaker 2: the deep state's running the operation there in this area.
Speaker 2: But you know, but I think there are aggressive you know. Look,
Speaker 2: I think you're right in sense that I am not
Speaker 2: seeing any evidence of a criminal investigation into what Fauci
Speaker 2: did or even what the agency did. I mean gain
Speaker 2: a function prohibited by the terms of the grant that
Speaker 2: continued suggests that there was fraud so you do a
Speaker 2: grand jury investigation, you bring people in to find out
Speaker 2: what was going on. Fauci in the least as a
Speaker 2: witness should be brought before a grand jury. And this
Speaker 2: to me is like a question of look, Michael, you
Speaker 2: knew you saw directly. What happens when a justice department
Speaker 2: decides they're going to make an issue and it doesn't
Speaker 2: matter what you might have done, it doesn't matter. They're
Speaker 2: going to bring you in and they're going to make
Speaker 2: your life miserable.
Speaker 4: It's called the indictment of the hand sandwich.
Speaker 2: That's right, and I'm not saying it be done in
Speaker 2: this circumstance, but the power of the government to investigate
Speaker 2: criminal activity is awesome and it should be exercised. I
Speaker 2: don't think extremely, but quite reasonably to figure out what
Speaker 2: went on here, Tom Fitting and Jerry looking in to
Speaker 2: gain a function fraud where taxpayers were told we're not
Speaker 2: doing it, but in fact it was done. That's an
Speaker 2: easy thing to investigate, and it's not extreme to say
Speaker 2: we need to investigate that, who was responsible for giving
Speaker 2: the money, what public statements were made about it, Let's
Speaker 2: figure out what went on here.
Speaker 1: Yes, so horrific, Tom Fitting the president of Judicial Watch.
Speaker 1: Tom does two things very well. He fights for transparency
Speaker 1: and he pumps iron. Tom thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 5: Thanks for listening to Sit In Friends in the Morning.
Speaker 5: You can hear sit in Friends in the Morning weekday mornings.
Speaker 3: It's six.
Speaker 5: If you like the podcast, share it with your friends
Speaker 5: and listen anytime at WABC radio dot com and download
Speaker 5: the WABC Radio app. Hit that subscribe button on all
Speaker 5: major podcast platforms. Plus, follow WABC on social on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook,
Speaker 5: and X see you next time for a new episode,
Speaker 5: so you never have to wonder
Speaker 4: What the heck is going on here.