Skip to content

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Because no one
is above the law!

Donate

Tom Fitton's Judicial Watch Weekly Update

More Fauci Agency China Docs

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records on Alleged Transfer of Bank Financial Data of Every Person in Washington, DC Area around January 6
Judicial Watch Sues USPS on Tracking Americans’ Social Media Posts
BREAKING: New Documents Show Significant Wuhan Lab and NIH Collaboration
Judicial Watch Sues Defense Department over the Mistreatment of a War Hero
DC Racial Equity Office Rules Lincoln Statue Will Widen Racial Inequity

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records on Alleged Transfer of Bank Financial Data of Every Person in Washington, DC Area around January 6

The Left, including the Biden administration, seems to be using the January 6 disturbance as an excuse to target, intimidate and abuse political opponents. With those concerns in mind, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of communication between the FBI and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transactions made by people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-01216)). Last week, the FBI refused to confirm or deny any such records exist.

We sued after the FBI failed to respond to a February 10, 2021, FOIA request for:

All records of communication between the FBI and any financial institution, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, Discover, and/or American Express, in which the FBI sought transaction data for those financial institutions’ debit and credit card account holders who made purchases in Washington, DC, Maryland and/or Virginia on January 5, 2021 and/or January 6, 2021.

Bank of America reportedly ‚Äúactively but secretly engaged in the hunt for extremists in cooperation with the government‚ÄĚ and, following the events of January 6, gave the FBI financial records of their customers who fit the following profile:

  1. Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5 and 1/6.
  2. Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after 1/6.
  3.  Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between 1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day.
  4.  Airline related purchases since 1/6.

Here’s how the FBI is playing games with our investigation:

On June 8, 2021, the court overseeing the lawsuit ordered the FBI/DOJ to respond substantively to our request within 30 days.

On June 17, 2021, the FBI responded to our request, stating that the request was ‚Äútoo broad‚ÄĚ and asked for ‚Äúfurther clarification and/or narrowing‚ÄĚ of the request.

On June 24, 2021, we responded to this request by sending a news article detailing Bank of America’s handing over transaction records to the FBI of people in the Washington, DC area around the date of January 6.

On July 1, 2021, the FBI responded to our FOIA request with a letter stating that it accepts our narrowing of the search, but that it neither confirms nor denies the existence of these documents. The FBI states:

The FBI accepts this supplemental correspondence as evidence you are further clarifying and narrowing the subject of your request to records/financial transaction requests from financial institutions pertaining to the alleged riot on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, to include records/financial transactions from January 5, 2021 for the 3 jurisdictions.

Please be advised that it is the FBI’s policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any records which would disclose the existence or non-existence of non-public law enforcement techniques, procedures, and/or guidelines. The acknowledgment that any such records exist or do not exist could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of law.

We want the details on what looks to be an unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of countless innocent Americans by big banks and the FBI. The FBI’s stonewalling and non-denial denial of our request speak volumes.

Judicial Watch Sues USPS on Tracking Americans’ Social Media Posts

Did you know that the Post Office has an Internet Covert Operations Program monitoring your social media posts? That‚Äôs right. This agency, which has lost $87 billion over the past 14 years, has time to look into your opinions, even though it has trouble getting a letter into your mailbox in a timely way ‚Äď or at all.

To learn more about spy operation, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for information relating to the tracking and collecting of Americans’ social media posts through its Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service (No. 1:21-cv-01735)).

We sued after the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) failed to respond to an April 27, 2021, FOIA request seeking access to:

  1. All records from January 1, 2020 to the present identifying criteria for flagging social media posts as ‚Äúinflammatory‚ÄĚ or otherwise worthy of further scrutiny by other government agencies.
  2. All records from January 1, 2020 to the present relating to the Internet Covert Operations Program’s database of social media posts.
  3. All records and communications from January 1, 2020 to the present between any official of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and any official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding the Internet Covert Operations Program.
  4. All social media posts that the Internet Covert Operations Program has flagged and forwarded to other government agencies.
  5. Any analyses outlining the authority of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to monitor, track, and collect Americans’ social media posts.
  6. All records concerning the reasons for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to monitor, track, and collect Americans’ social media posts.
  7. All records of communication sent to and by Chief Postal Inspector Gary Barksdale from January 1, 2020 to the present regarding the Internet Covert Operations Program.

The FOIA request was prompted by an April 21, 2021,¬†Yahoo! News¬†report¬†that the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been ‚Äúrunning a program that tracks and collects Americans‚Äô social media posts, including those about planned protests.‚ÄĚ Again, according to a document obtained by¬†Yahoo! News, this surveillance effort is known as the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP):

‚ÄúAnalysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant activity regarding planned [anti-lockdown] protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,‚ÄĚ says the March 16 government bulletin, marked as ‚Äúlaw enforcement sensitive‚ÄĚ and distributed through the Department of Homeland Security‚Äôs fusion centers. ‚ÄúLocations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.‚ÄĚ

Did the Biden administration weaponize the United States Postal Service to improperly spy on Americans who object to lockdown policies? Judicial Watch, with your support, aims to get the truth.

BREAKING: New Documents Show Significant Wuhan Lab and NIH Collaboration

We continue to learn that U.S. agencies, including the one run by Dr. Anthony Fauci, collaborated extensively with the Chinese communist medical establishment in Wuhan and elsewhere in China. This collaboration occurred over many years before the pandemic erupted.

We received 301 pages of emails and other records from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials in connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, revealing relationships that began in 2014. These records reveal that Dr. Fauci’s NIAID gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself.

These records also include 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.

Additionally, a World Health Day announcement lists ‚Äúsuccessful activities‚ÄĚ of the US-China collaboration that included ‚Äúdetailed surveillance throughout China and in other countries on the emergence of coronaviruses‚ÄĚ and NIH‚Äôs receipt of influenza samples from China to ‚Äúassess risks associated with emerging variants for pandemic and zoonotic threat.‚ÄĚ

The records further show that, in 2018,¬†Dr. Ping Chen, the NIAID Representative in China, learned of a ‚Äútype of new flu vaccine using nano-technology from China‚Äôs Wuhan Institute of Virology‚ÄĚ and discovered that the Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports on the new technology. This led Chen to write an urgent ‚Äúnight note‚ÄĚ to U.S. government officials. The note said, ‚ÄúThe intranasal nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust immune responses.‚ÄĚ

The documents also include a picture of the Wuhan facility building taken by Dr. Chen.

We obtained the documents through our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records of communications, contracts and agreements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-00696)). The lawsuit specifically sought records about NIH grants that benefitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The agency is only processing 300 pages of records per month, which means it will take until the end of November for the records to be fully reviewed and released under FOIA.

The nine grants to the controversial EcoHealth Alliance include the following:

  • One¬†grant awarded each year between 2010-2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator Jinping Chen of Guangdong Entomological Institute, to study in China ‚ÄúRisk of Viral Emergence from Bats.‚ÄĚ
  • One¬†grant awarded each year from 2014-2017 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator Changwen Ke of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong, in a project titled ‚ÄúUnderstanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.‚ÄĚ
  • A¬†grant was issued in 2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Xiangming Xiao of the East China Normal University, in a project titled ‚ÄúComparative Spillover Dynamics of Avian Influenza in Endemic Countries.
  • A¬†grant was issued in 2018 to EcoHealth Alliance, again working with Ke in the project called ‚ÄúUnderstanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.‚ÄĚ

The records¬†include an email¬†on March 20, 2020, labeled, ‚Äúnavigating politics,‚ÄĚ In which NIH virologist¬†Jens Kuhn¬†forwards to NIH colleagues¬†Cliff Lane¬†(NIAID Deputy Director) and¬†Connie Schmaljohn¬†(senior NIAID official), a 2016 email of ‚Äúhigh importance‚ÄĚ that Kuhn received from Wuhan Institute of Virology Vice Director¬†Yuan Zhiming, with the subject line ‚Äúasking for help.‚ÄĚ

In his 2016 email, Zhiming told Kuhn:

I am writing to you to ask your help. Our laboratory is under operation without pathogens, and we are now looking for the disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and surface decontamination indoor decontamination. We have tried several ones do [sic] determine their antiviral efficacy and corrosion to pipeline and wastewater treatment equipment. Unfortunately, we have found a good candidate. I hope you can give us some help, to give us some suggestion for the choice of disinfectants used in P4 laboratory.

What kind of disinfectants for decontamination of airtight protective clothes?

What kind of disinfectants for surface decontamination in door?

What kind of disinfectants for air decontamination in door?

What kind of disinfectants for infectious materials indoor?

What is the approval procedure for the choice of disinfectants in laboratory?

I am sorry to disturb you and I really hope you could give us some suggestion and cooment [sic].

Best regards and looking forward to seeing you in Wuhan.

Yuan Zhiming

After the new coronavirus emerged, on March 20, 2020, continuing on this email chain, Zhiming writes Kuhn:

The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is a major challenge for global public health security. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with serious acute respiratory distress syndrome with large number of patients’ hospitalization and relatively high mortality. We had a very hard time in combating the infection in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 in China, and now we can see the situation goes in good direction, with no reported confirmed case, no reported suspected case in last two days here.

My colleagues and I have been working on characterization of pathogens, antiviral screen, vaccine development, animal modeling since the early January this year, and some progresses have been made. I hope our understanding of the virus and the technology could be valuable in the global fighting to the virus.

As I can see from the media, the virus is spreading in your country, and more people are infected during the last days, and the situation worries me a lot. I am confident that we could finally curb the spreading of the virus with our joint effort, and our life will return back to the normal soon. I do not know what I can do for you in the special moment and I hope you could protect you and your family.

Kuhn tells Lane and Schmaljohn, ‚ÄúI know Zhiming for quite some time and also met him personally in Wuhan twice ‚Ķ He used to be responsible for the BSL-4 there.‚ÄĚ

Some of Kuhn, Lane and Schmaljohn‚Äôs follow-on comments about Zhiming‚Äôs emails are redacted under ‚Äúdeliberative process‚ÄĚ exemption.

In an email exchange on August 11, 2014, between Chen and the head of the NIH-funded biosecurity lab at the University of Texas in Galveston, Dr. James Leduc, Leduc provides the initial contact between NIAID (via Chen) and officials at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Leduc¬†told Chen¬†that he had been working on an initiative to ‚Äúform long-term scientific and technical collaborations with the new BSL4 laboratory‚ÄĚ in Wuhan, under the direction of Dr. Yuan Zhiming, with whom Leduc had met ‚Äúrepeatedly.‚ÄĚ Leduc adds, ‚Äúwe are already attempting to build the kind of partnership [with the Wuhan Institute of Virology] that I think is envisioned under the GHSA [Global Health Security Agenda].‚ÄĚ

A chart labeled ‚ÄúNIH Extramural Projects with a Chinese Collaborator, by IC, FY2010-2018,‚ÄĚ indicates NIH provided a total of 2,221 grants between 2010-2018 for projects involving a ‚ÄúChinese Collaborator,‚ÄĚ with Anthony Fauci‚Äôs NIAID providing the most grants among all NIH subagencies, furnishing 490 grants. The remaining 1,731 grants were from 19 different NIH subagencies.

An additional chart shows that the NIAID financial grants increased steadily over those eight years, with a particular spike in 2013; and the number of grants jumped from 34 in 2012 to 61 in 2013.

Another spreadsheet shows the 2,221 grants disbursed among 261 universities, laboratories, and private companies. The vast majority are in the US, but others are in China, the UK, Canada, Thailand, and Australia.

Additional spreadsheets detail the 2,221 grants, including:

  • A grant to Wayne State University, working with Chinese collaborator Xiaoyi Fang, to study in China ‚ÄúVenue-based HIV and alcohol use risk reduction among female sex workers in China.‚ÄĚ
  • A grant to Purdue University, working with Chinse collaborator Yinlong Jin, to study in China ‚ÄúSelenium, other risk factors and cognitive decline in rural elderly Chinese.‚ÄĚ
  • A grant to Peking University, working with Chinese collaborator Yaohui Zhao, in a project in China titled ‚ÄúChina Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.‚ÄĚ
  • A grant to Boston College, working with Chinese collaborator Wei Sun of Renmin University of China, to study in China ‚ÄúThe impact of Long-Term Care Insurance.‚ÄĚ
  • A grant to Florida International University, working with Chinese collaborator Sheng Li of Shanghai Institutes of Biological Sciences, to study in China ‚ÄúRegulation of juvenile hormone titers in mosquitoes.‚ÄĚ
  • A grant to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, working with Chinese collaborator Yue Long Shu of the Chinese National Influenza Center, in a project titled ‚ÄúSoutheast Regional Centers of Excellence for Biodefense & Emerging Infectious Di[seases].‚ÄĚ
  • A grant to Zhejiang University, working with Chinese collaborator Shulin Chen, to study in China ‚ÄúCollaborative Care for Depressed Elders in China.‚ÄĚ

In¬†an email¬†on October 26, 2017, Chen sends a ‚Äútrip report‚ÄĚ to NIH colleagues advising them that she visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She includes¬†a photo¬†of the lab and states,

My contact who helped arrange the visit is Dr. Zhengli Shi, who is a Chinese collaborator on a NIAID grant to EcoHealth for SARS like corona virus project.

The P4 lab is located in a new developing zone about one hour car ride from the current institute location in central Wuhan city. The location will be the new campus for the entire institute in the near future (a lot of construction is going on right now). Since we are not allowed to take photos so only the photo from the outside is attached.

In an email marked ‚Äúhigh importance‚ÄĚ on August 6, 2014, with the subject ‚ÄúHarbin Wuhan China Global Health Security,‚ÄĚ Chen discussed collaborating more with Chinese health officials with her NIH colleagues. Chen states:

I had a meeting with [HHS Health Attache to China] Liz Yuan and Liz updated me with regarding the activities involving Global Health Security Agenda. China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission (Ministry of Health) and China CDC are supportive and should commit to be a part of the network. We do want to expand the Chinese participation in the network to include other partners and sectors, including agriculture and veterinary.

We could not so far identify any direct NIAID collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, from a quick search we found Dr. James Leduc of University of Texas at Galveston and Dr. Jian Han of the Hudsonalpha Institute of Biotechnology at Birmingham recently visited WIV… James Leduc is the head of the national lab at Galveston and I believe NIAID funded the establishment of the lab (biosecurity lab) … And please find if both James Leduc and Han Jian have any NIAID funded grants.

In¬†an email¬†on February 26, 2018, Chen messaged her NIH colleagues to report that she had learned of a, ‚Äútype of new flu vaccine using nano-technology from China‚Äôs Wuhan Institute of Virology‚ÄĚ and discovered that the Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports on the new technology.

Working with the State Department‚Äôs Environment, Science, Technology, and Health (ESTH) officer Sarah Oh, Chen then wrote a ‚Äúnight note‚ÄĚ about this development. In the note she cites Cui Zongqiang, head of the Wuhan research group stating, ‚ÄúThe intranasal nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust immune responses,‚ÄĚ

Chen adds, ‚Äú‚ÄėIn our study, an intranasal nanovaccine worked well against infections of H1N1 and H9N2 virus in mice,‚Äô Cui said.‚ÄĚ NIH official Gray Handley responded to Chen, saying, ‚ÄúThanks, Ping. All quite interesting developments.‚ÄĚ

In a January 20, 2017, report to NIH colleagues, Chen describes the, ‚ÄúGlobal Virome Project,‚ÄĚ which is sponsored by USAID and other organizations, and would be led by the US and China. Chen notes:

The purpose of the project is to identify viruses present in the wildlife with potential crossing over to humans, causing human infection and disease. Following the identification of the viruses is the development of vaccines to protect human population… One of the partners in this project is EcoHealth Alliance. Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance is one of the leaders for the GVP project and he has NIAID grant from RDB looking at the coronaviruses in Bat populations in China in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In an email exchange dated July 14, 2015, Chen, tells NIH colleagues that she has been coordinating projects and visits with the Wuhan Lab.

Chen states that she‚Äôs ‚Äúbeen working with Ken [presumably the US Health Attach√© in Beijing Ken Earhart] on preparing for the pre advance team visit in preparation for the possible HHS Secretary visit to China in Sept. 9-11. The pre advance team will be in Beijing this Wednesday. I will meet them on Wednesday to brief on the NIAID activities in China.‚ÄĚ

Chen then identifies the individuals who she has been coordinating with in Wuhan:

I visited three Chinese PIs [presumably Principal Investigators] on NIAID funded projects in Wuhan (I contacted 5 PIs, one was not available and one never responded) last week. Briefly, one PI at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Dr. Shi Zhengli, is known as the bat lady. She studies the viruses carried by the Chinese bats trying to identify the viral reservoirs, particularly focusing on coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS. She has identified bat viruses that are genetically very close to the SARS virus that caused the outbreak in China in 2003. Another PI I visited is Dr. Yang Dongliang … Dr. Yang has one of the one-year programs where he collaborated with US PI on universal HIV vaccine research. His role in the collaboration was to collect HIV isolates from Chinese patients, sequencing the viruses, and close the envelope genes for the US collaborators to screen for conserved epitopes via a novel screening technology. The third PI I visited is Dr. Wu Jiangguo, who is the head of the state key lab of virology in Wuhan University. [Redacted]. George Gao [likely top Chinese CDC official George Fu Gao] is a close collaborator with the lab. In addition to basic research on virology, the lab also does translational research in antivirals, vaccines and reagents with industry partners.

In a previous March 16, 2015,¬†email¬†update to NIH colleagues, Chen informed them that ‚ÄúFirst week of May, visit Wuhan Institute of Virology with Ken to see its BSL4 lab and talk about common interests. While in Wuhan, I will meet the Chinese PIs on NIAID grants.‚ÄĚ

In a report dated January 12, 2015, Chen advised her NIH colleagues on her attempts to get an invitation to the ceremony of the completion of the BSL4 lab:

I sent a request to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for invitation to attend the BSL4 laboratory completion ceremony. I got a message from the contact I have that limited number of international people outside France will be invited to the ceremony as it is the French who helped with the construction of BSL4 lab. I just received a reply that I won’t be able to attend the ceremony but will have the opportunity to visit the institute at a later time.

I received a message from ESTH [the State Department‚Äôs¬†Environment, Science, Technology and Health Office] asking the representatives from US Fed agencies to provide information on China‚Äôs biosecurity. The message says: State‚Äôs office that deals with biosecurity has sent to Embassy Beijing the email below regarding China‚Äôs policies, capabilities, and activities related to a range of biological threats and risks: including infectious diseases, biosecurity, biological weapons, and bio-terrorism.‚ÄĚ

In a¬†proposed program¬†that Chen provided to NIH colleagues for an upcoming virology conference which was to be held on March 9-10, 2015 in Beijing, titled ‚ÄúAdvancement in Our Scientific Understanding of Avian Influenza and MERS as Emerging Respiratory Threat to Public Health in Asia and Beyond ‚Äď From Viral Evolution to Animal and Human Hosts,‚ÄĚ one of the scheduled speakers was Matt Frieman of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who was going to address the topic ‚ÄúRepurposing FDA Approved Drugs for Coronavirus Infection.‚ÄĚ Another speaker, Xinquan Wang, of Tsinghua University, was going to address the topic, ‚ÄúPotent Neutralization of MERS-Cov by Human mAbs to the Viral Spike Glycoprotein.‚ÄĚ

In a redacted email dated November 3, 2014, Chen notes to her NIH colleagues that the Chinese government had begun screening people who merely came from Ebola effected regions of Africa:

Chinese government has been screening people who come from the Ebola regions of Africa. Two US CDC people in Beijing were sent to Sierra Leone one month ago and were scheduled to return. Last Friday I was able to help Ken [presumably the US Health attaché in Beijing, Ken Earhart] to acquire the information on the monitoring process and guarantee procedures that are implemented in three Beijing’s infectious disease hospitals through my contacts. The concern is [redacted].

In an email on March 6, 2018, Chen informs NIH colleagues that the US Embassy in Beijing was ‚Äúcollecting US-China collaboration stories in preparation for the World Heath Day on April 7.‚ÄĚ One of the US-China collaborations labeled ‚Äúsuccessful activities,‚ÄĚ was ‚ÄúCoronavirus: NIH-funded investigators are conducting detailed surveillance throughout China and in other countries on the emergence of coronaviruses (such as SARS and MERS-CoV) and studying the dynamics of viral transmission from animals to humans, which may identify potential outbreak threats¬† to the U.S. and other parts of the world.‚ÄĚ

Another ‚Äúsuccess story‚ÄĚ was titled, ‚ÄúInfluenza: NIH receives influenza samples and information on circulating viruses from China and Hong Kong to assess risks associated with emerging variants for pandemic and zoonotic threat and to monitor the prevalence and evolution of the novel H7N9 and H10N8 viruses in China. These strains are otherwise unavailable and they are essential to the development of vaccines needed for a potential influenza pandemic.‚ÄĚ

These documents are of world-wide interest, as they suggest that the Wuhan lab had major bio-safety issues and the American government was carefully monitoring its activities from a national security perspective even while funding it. Dr. Fauci and his colleagues have some more explaining to do.

Also from this lawsuit, in June 2021, we revealed that the NIAID under Fauci gave the Wuhan lab $826,000 for bat coronavirus research from 2014 to 2019.

In March 2021, we¬†uncovered¬†emails and other records of Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from HHS showing that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China‚Äôs terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, ‚Äústrictly confidential‚ÄĚ COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020. Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIAID‚Äôs Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects¬†Cliff Lane.

In a related lawsuit, in October 2020, we received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 300 pages of Fauci emails, including his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

This latest tranche of documents is truly incredible ‚Äď both in content and in the fact that it took a year and a federal lawsuit to disgorge them from the Fauci agency.

Judicial Watch Sues Defense Department over the Mistreatment of a War Hero

Too often, Pentagon bureaucrats mistreat genuine war heroes.

Maj. Fred C. Galvin (USMC, Ret.), commander of an elite U.S. Marine Corps Special Operations unit, was falsely accused of war crimes in Afghanistan in 2007. He was fully exonerated in 2019 but was still denied retroactive promotion to lieutenant colonel by the Marine Corps in 2020 despite an otherwise exemplary service record.

We filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Darker and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Our suit alleges that the military violated the Administrative Procedure Act and another statute in denying Maj. Galvin a promotion (Maj. Fred Galvin v Thomas Harker et al, (No. 1:21-cv-01813)).

On March 4, 2007, Galvin and 29 members of the Marine Special Operations Company Foxtrot (Fox Company), the first combat unit of the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC), passed through the Afghan village of Bati Kot, near the Pakistan border, in a six-vehicle convoy. A suicide bomber driving a fuel and explosive-packed van approached the convoy at a high rate of speed. The van detonated, then fighters on both sides of the road opened fire on the convoy. Fox Company fought back and escaped, returning to their base with only one minor casualty. The Afghan government, numerous media outlets, and others falsely accused Maj. Galvin and the unit of war crimes in responding to the attack, and even the U.S. military, after a horribly flawed investigation, called for Galvin and six other Marines be charged with dereliction of duty and negligent homicide. Maj. Galvin was relieved of command, and Fox Company was redeployed out of Afghanistan.

Maj. Galvin and Fox Company were eventually exonerated by a Court of Inquiry that, in a¬†historic finding, found the Marines acted properly and instead faulted both the Air Force colonel who investigated the incidents and senior U.S. military leadership.¬†The Court of Inquiry also found that the Air Force colonel’s findings and conclusions ran counter to the weight of the evidence and faulted senior U.S. leaders for being unable or unwilling to respond appropriately to what was described as an ‚Äúenemy information operation.‚ÄĚ

The Court of Inquiry also faulted senior U.S. leaders for failing to stand by Maj. Galvin and Fox Company until competent evidence had been gathered. According to the Court of Inquiry report, ‚ÄúThe redeployment of [Fox Company] was based, in large part, on unsubstantiated allegations related to the 4 March 2007 incident. The decision to re-deploy [Fox Company] was influenced by the high level of command, media, and governmental attention focused on the 4 March 2007 incident.‚ÄĚ A¬†video¬†produced in 2019 documents what happened to Galvin and Fox Company after the ambush and how false charges ruined their reputations.

Galvin was due to be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel in August 2010, and although he was exceptionally well-qualified for promotion as compared to his peers, the board did not select him for promotion. Ultimately, he was forced to retire involuntarily from the Marine Corps.

In 2019, a U.S. Navy panel ordered that adverse fitness reports in Maj. Galvin’s service record regarding the 2007 ambush and a later event, in which Maj. Galvin also was found to have acted entirely appropriately, be removed from his service record. The panel also ordered that a special selection board be convened to consider Maj. Galvin for retroactive promotion to lieutenant colonel. The special selection board denied Maj. Galvin promotion again, despite his having an exceptional service record:

(Maj. Galvin) had served in several key leadership billets, a significant marker for promotion. He had extensive combat experience and had been ‚Äúforward deployed‚ÄĚ for more than three years, which also are significant markers for promotion. He had received multiple awards, including a Bronze Star with Combat V, and received glowing comments recommending him for promotion.¬† Plaintiff also had completed his Professional Military Education promotion requirement by attending the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and completing the Intermediate Level School in 2008.

Maj. Galvin was never provided an explanation ‚Äď a ‚Äúrational connection to the facts found and the choices made‚ÄĚ ‚Äď for why he was not promoted.

The Pentagon’s continued refusal to promote Maj. Galvin is an absolute disgrace. This American hero gave years of his life and his good name to serve our country selflessly and has been denied a well-deserved promotion because of anti-military politics, false narratives, and the cynical choices of his superiors.

We are honored to go to court on behalf of Major Galvin, a brave warrior and patriot who first and foremost acted to protect the lives of the soldiers under his command.

DC Racial Equity Office Rules Lincoln Statue Will Widen Racial Inequity

Racist and anti-American critical race theory is well-established throughout the government. Consider the latest effort to erase history in the name of ‚Äúequity‚ÄĚ in our nation‚Äôs capital, as uncovered by our Corruption Chronicles blog:

A government office launched recently to eliminate racial disparities and achieve racial equity in Washington D.C. has determined that installing an Abraham Lincoln Spirit of Freedom Emancipation Statue at the African American Civil War Museum will widen racial inequity even though the council unanimously voted for it and the mayor supports it. In fact, Mayor Muriel Bowser urged the D.C. Council to pass the resolution, known as PR 24-0238, approving the statue’s installation on the public space adjacent to the museum in the historic Archibald Grimke School at 1925 Vermont Avenue, NW.

In a May 14, 2021¬†letter¬†to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, the mayor refers to the project as ‚Äúcommemorative work‚ÄĚ and writes that the Lincoln statue was delivered in July 2020 and the museum has filed the necessary paperwork to obtain a permit from the Department of Transportation to install it. Bowser reveals the piece was designed to create a sightline across Vermont Avenue from the Memorial to the Museum at Grimke, which is currently under construction, and it will rest on a podium adorned by ceremonial steps. ‚ÄúI urge the Council to take prompt and favorable action on the enclosed resolution,‚ÄĚ Bowser writes, referring to the measure attached to her letter. On June 29, the council passed it by a vote of 13-0.

Nevertheless, a special D.C. panel created to tackle racism, the¬†Council Office of Racial Equity¬†(CORE), has nixed the idea, writing in a¬†report¬†that ‚ÄúLincoln‚Äôs legacy has long been debated‚ÄĚ and the statue will not increase representation of communities of color. The five-page document, officially called¬†Racial Equity Impact Assessment¬†(REIA), delves deeply into the supposed lack of diversity among statues and commemorative works in D.C. and offers a simple conclusion involving the new Lincoln fixture: ‚ÄúAlthough the overall impact on residents‚Äô lives will be minimal, PR24-0238 would contribute to widening the racial inequity between the number of commemorative works dedicated to white men and those dedicated to Black persons and other persons of color in the District of Columbia.‚ÄĚ

The CORE report seems to scold D.C. officials, stating that ‚Äúcommemorative works should be intentional about who is being honored, why they are being honored, and how that representation will inspire future generations.‚ÄĚ Under the large, bold heading of ‚ÄúRACIAL EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS‚ÄĚ the race council writes that there are at least four statues and commemorative works honoring President Lincoln‚Äôs legacy, ‚Äúwhich has long been debated,‚ÄĚ throughout D.C. It singles out the Emancipation Memorial for being funded by ‚Äúformerly enslaved men and women‚ÄĚ who had no say in the matter. ‚ÄúThere is a severe lack of diversity amongst statues and commemorative works in the District of Columbia,‚ÄĚ the CORE racial equity assessment states. ‚ÄúIn 2019, of at least 115 statues in DC, just six were of American women and only one was of a Black woman, that being Mary McLeod Bethune. Duke Ellington was the only Black native Washingtonian with a statue dedicated in his honor.‚ÄĚ Erecting yet another statue of Lincoln underscores the need to close the existing gap, the panel writes.

CORE was established this year as part of a broader measure called Racial Equity Achieves Results Act (REACH) enacted to establish a racial equity framework across the entire D.C. government. REACH requires mandatory racial equity training for D.C. government employees, the creation of a Commission on Racial Equity, Social Justice, and Economic Inclusion as well as racial equity impact assessment on certain council measures. The law also requires the mayor to include racial equity performance measures in the development of an agency’s annual performance plans and creates a racial equity tool to help all D.C. agencies incorporate racial equity into their operations, performance-based budgets, programs, policies, rules and regulations.

CORE is tasked with eliminating racial disparities and achieving racial equity by determining if proposed D.C. laws and policies advance racial equity or increase racial inequity. The panel accomplishes this by conducting a REIA like the one completed for the new Lincoln statue. REIA is described on the agency‚Äôs¬†website¬†as the careful and organized examination of how different racial and ethnic groups will likely be affected by a proposed bill or resolution. ‚ÄúA REIA can help prevent institutional racism, deconstruct structurally racist policies, and identify historic and structural causes of long-standing racial inequities,‚ÄĚ according to CORE.

Until next week …


Related

New Lawsuit Against ‚ÄúReparations‚ÄĚ

Judicial Watch Sues for Emails of Fauci Advisor on Non-Government Account Judicial Watch Files Class Action Lawsuit over Reparations in Evanston, Illinois Judicial Watch Asks Minne...

Chicago suburb faces federal class action over reparations program

In The News | May 24, 2024
From Courthouse News:  Six people filed a federal class action against the Chicago suburb of Evanston on Wednesday, hoping to scrap the racial component of a local program meant to...

‚ÄėThis Is Very Illegal‚Äô: Experts Say Fauci‚Äôs Top Aide Likely Broke The Law By…

In The News | May 24, 2024
From The Daily Caller: A top advisor for former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci may have illegally taken actions to avoid recor...