DOJ Deals Fulton County CRUSHING BLOW in FINAL Brief over 2020 Ballots!

Added: 2026-05-13

[00:00:00]They've asked for all sorts of records.

[00:00:01]The board was constituted to investigate these things. And the Fulton fraudsters won't even comply with the Georgia State Election Board. Trickery, misrepresentations, or deceit. But they never turned anything over. Nobody deceived them because they didn't give us anything. Even if there were some smoke filled room where a decision was made to seek criminal process rather than civil process, that would be lawful. We presented it to a judge. The judge approved it. A neutral judge. Take it up with them. Final briefs submitted in the pallets full of ballots Fulton County fraud case. We know that Rob Pittz and the Fulton County fraudsters sued the United States government after the FBI seized all of the 2020 election materials. Very unhappy that they did that even though Chay Alexander, the clerk of the court, said that you could make paper airplanes for all of the ballots. The clerk of something for all I care. And they didn't need them. But now they need them desperately back because it's just the same as a murderer who needs the murder weapon back so that they don't go to prison for the rest of their lives. So the judge, as we know, ordered the final updates on this fight today. Both of them came skidding in here and we've got now the petitioners, the Fulton fraudsters with their 13page filing. Once again, the Fulton people can't handle this on their own. So why Sujo probably office of Fulton County Attorney is joined by the same suspects Abby Lel and Norm Eisen's group called the democracy defenders fund saying we must have these ballots back judge give them to us or else we're in big trouble.

[00:01:32]So what is their argument before the DOJ comes out and slams them calls them conspiracy theorists for trying to make stuff up as they are? Here's what they said. We now submit this briefing to the court and we confirm that they did not open their criminal investigation until January 14th, 2026 from the fraudsters.

[00:01:51]They say this new disclosure shows this is an abuse of power. It's disregarding our rights. There was no criminal investigation in 24 or 25. Instead, it shows that all of this was a pretext.

[00:02:03]Okay, Har Dylan and the civil rights division, they were filing civil cases and things were not going so well according to these petitioners. So they had to escalate this and turn this into a criminal investigation. All of this was pending and the record shows that the only ongoing activity in 2025 was a coordinated effort by the Georgia State Election Board and the DOJ to get their records. And the Georgia State Election Board has also been not complied with, right? They've asked for all sorts of records. The board was constituted to investigate these things and the Fulton fraudsters won't even comply with the Georgia State Election Board. So now the criminal investigation, their main argument, which we've seen many times before, was that it was only initiated after they were losing in the civil cases, saying it was a probe for a back door to circumvent these other judges and then to just go quickly seize the records. They quote Har Dylan and they say all of this is a civil case that is now maturing into a criminal case and that is inappropriate. Saying they coordinated to try to get these records all throughout 2025. nothing had to do with a criminal case. Then they went and presented it to a judge. Then the judge gave them the search warrant which they then executed. They said, "We would give you some records, but you got to pay a bunch of money and they were on notice.

[00:03:16]They had to go through this one judge.

[00:03:18]And this one judge McBurnernney was giving them a difficult time." And he made clear that they can't produce the records unless the state election board paid for the production. And the judge was going to continue to oversee the whole thing. So then the DOJ opened up a criminal investigation. Right? They say it's a fraudulently criminal invest.

[00:03:33]It's not really criminal. That's why we need our murder weapon back. They say the investigation was not in response to any new allegation of wrongdoing. And Kurt Olsen, the same lawyer who worked with Carrie Lake, serves at the pleasure of the president. And they say the FBI just as soon as Mr. Olsen snapped his fingers, they jumped right into it. Now, the DOJ responds to all of this, but these are not parallel proceedings, right? They're not saying that a civil case is also happening with a criminal case. They're saying that the civil case was failing, so they had to escalate it into a criminal matter. We've seen these arguments hashed out before. Now, the court should grant our motion. Give us the files back, all of them. They say, "We don't want them to have any of the original records, and we don't want them to have the digital copies." Okay? Cuz it's the murder weapon. If you give us the murder weapon back, then you can't run any analysis on it, and you can't introduce it as evidence against us or show it to the jury. Oh, this is this the gun? Are these the gloves? Rather than allow Mc Bernie to conduct an orderly process for these things, this has laid waste to all of this and jeopardize the integrity of the records.

[00:04:31]So now if we get the records back, their argument is going to be that the DOJ perverted those records and that it is now the fraud was inserted by them.

[00:04:40]Okay? Any problems were not because of Fulton County. It's because the DOJ did it. So all of this says, "Give us our files back. Give us our murder weapon back." They submitted that in today. The DOJ responded to all of this accordingly. And here's what they said.

[00:04:53]All right, judge. This is a civil case.

[00:04:54]Remember, they say, "Here's our supplemental brief." If they say, first of all, these Fulton fraudsters and their inquiries about timing are categorically irrelevant under binding 11 circuit case law. Doesn't matter when the criminal investigation started, doesn't matter when the civil case concluded, whatever. It's not relevant.

[00:05:12]Unsurprisingly, Fulton, they have never cited a single case that suggests otherwise. Nor is this a unique case except in the sense that they have managed to waste an extraordinary amount of time and resources on an exceedingly premature and otherwise defective rule 41G motion which is the rule they're using to get the files back by any measure this case is not extraordinary in a way that affects the legal analysis. They write if a raid of a former president's personal residence that's Trump's Mara Lago by agents of his political adversaries who sought to imprison him and prevent him from winning 2024. If that did not receive heightened scrutiny, the seizure of records sitting in a warehouse pursuant to a judicial warrant from a clerk who previously sought to destroy those records and who said, "Make paper airplanes with them for all I care. We don't want them. We don't need them. I'm sick of looking at them." Certainly cannot. And we remember nobody gave Trump any benefit of the doubt when his home was raided and those disgusting FBI cretins went through Melania's underwear drawers. The court should deny the motion and dismiss this case. We're keeping the files. Now, here's their argument. Every single week, Abby Lel and Norm Eisen, they offer a new conspiracy theory. Every week, the facts don't support it. And every week, the 11th Circuit's binding precedent still holds that these theories of theirs are categorically irrelevant. At first, they thought it was suspicious that the search warrant in this case was executed only 8 days after the US government filed its opposition to a motion to dismiss in the Alexander case, citing their motion. Right? They're saying, "Wait, in the civil case, we're fighting over this dismissal. You guys realize that we're going to win this dismissal motion and you're going to lose the civil case to get your files." Then you initiated a criminal case. Now in the alternative they say they then argued that there had been a rapid switch to a search warrant when the civil suit was being challenged when the timeline then of the criminal investigation revealed that those theories were completely unsupported by the facts because the criminal investigation started before the motion to dismiss was even filed.

[00:07:14]They then shifted to arguing that the US had viewed the civil proceedings as not moving quickly enough. So their argument changed entirely apart from any motion to dismiss or any opposition there too.

[00:07:24]Ever mind that the Fulton fraudsters themselves suggested in the very same brief that the FBI had been separately investigating these issues by late 2025.

[00:07:33]With each new filing, Abby Lel and Norm Eisen, they spin yet another theory about how they think this case and the civil case came together and how they interact. They will be presumably doing so again in their filing today, which they did. It is all irrelevant, says the DOJ. The 11th Circuit has said in a binding published opinion that civil and criminal investigations often quote proceed at roughly the same time and they share information. Think about OJ.

[00:07:59]Those facts are typical of parallel governmental investigations which are common and generally proper. They cited that from a 2021 case from the 11th Circuit. And the fraudsters in Fulton, they have never cited contrary authority at all. And even if they could, it still would not control over a recent binding 11th circuit opinion which reigns supreme over all of them. And the Supreme Court itself has long said it would staltify enforcement of federal law to require a governmental agency to choose either to forego recommendation of a criminal prosecution if they're seeking civil relief or to defer to civil proceedings pending the ultimate outcome of a criminal trial. It would topsyturvy the whole process. The only possible exception that they might have is a due process problem based on bad faith collusion. What does that mean?

[00:08:47]Well, that generally involves affirmative misrepresentations or trickery or deceit by the authorities to get the defendant to voluntarily turn over the evidence that is relevant to a criminal investigation. Trickery, misrepresentations, or deceit. But they never turned anything over. Nobody deceived them because they didn't give us anything. Nothing was done voluntarily. Nobody tricked them into giving us anything. And even though they keep pointing out this fatal defect, we keep pointing it out. They have never once offered even a colorable response.

[00:09:18]So, how did we trick you there, Normie?

[00:09:20]How did we trick you, Abby? How come you're so confused and feel like there was deceit there, Rob Pittz? You can't even explain it. Now, further, it would be unprecedented to suggest that pursuing a criminal process to get the records, which is a higher burden than obtaining them through the civil process is somehow suspicious. We went to a judge, asked the judge. The judge approved it. Now, these petitioners may be the first parties in history to complain that the government got a warrant from a neutral magistrate rather than using a civil process. So, even if there were some smoke filled room where a decision was made to see criminal process rather than civil process, that would be lawful. We presented it to a judge, the judge approved it, a neutral judge. Take it up with them. And they can, by the way, once they get charged in criminal court, they can have a motion to suppress all of the evidence from an illegal search warrant. We're not there yet. Nobody's been charged.

[00:10:14]They just want the murder weapon back while a pending criminal investigation is already underway. They say, "Looking at the facts here, judge confirms nothing suspicious here." Anyway, Kurt Olsen formally referred the criminal investigation no later than January 5th, 2026 at 9:03 a.m. The motion to dismiss in the civil case was filed on January 5th, same day at 8:36 p.m. after the court was closed. So, the referral could not have come in response to that motion because we filed it before that motion was even filed, let alone in connection with the United States filing of an opposition to that motion more than 2 weeks later. So, the timeline that followed is hardly nefarious or even notable. Agent Evans and his supervisor opened on assessment. This is the first formal trigger authorizing investigative activities pursuant to an authorized purpose on J6, 2026. The investigation proceeded from there with approval for the full investigation authorizing a broader set of activities coming on January 14th. Then agent Evans drafted an investigative summary on January 19th, which he converted into search warrants into an affidavit beginning on January 22nd. The search warrant was then executed on January 28th, a glorious day indeed. None of this supports the Fulton fraudsters and their irrelevant argument that the search warrant was somehow a pretext that served some vague improper purpose. We literally followed the standard operating procedures one by one. Now, they will surely contrive a new theory along those lines based on speculation, logical leaps, vague or out of context quotes, and hyperbolic rhetoric like we're you're killing us. But rather than guess what petitioners will jin up next, the United States is content to let the record speak for itself as we're doing here. So, this court should swiftly rule against these petitioners and dismiss their rule 41G motion. Otherwise, more and more parties will use to this rule to exploit this to conduct many trials at the earliest stages of investigations. All to protect the Fulton fraudsters who realize that if the truth comes out on this, they're in big trouble and the whole election scam may be coming to a crashing close. So, for the foregoing reasons, judge, you should deny the rule 41G motion and you should dismiss this case. signed by senior counsel to the associate attorney general Michael Weisbuck in a very nice filing submitted to the court in order to hand this off to the judge who will now weigh both parties arguments and decide whether the pallets full of ballots are to be returned to the Fulton County fraudsters or whether or not the FBI and the DOJ can rightly contain and keep the materials that are the fruits and instrumentalities of the criminal behavior from the Fultoners.