Pam Bondi HUMILIATED by REPUBLICAN JUDGE in court

The Department of Justice's lawsuit against Georgia, seeking access to the state's complete unredacted voter file, was dismissed by a federal judge. The dismissal occurred because the DOJ filed the lawsuit in the Middle District of Georgia (Macon) instead of the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), where the Secretary of State's offices are located. The judge, a George Bush appointee, had previously signaled this concern, but DOJ lawyers insisted on the Macon venue.

The judge in Macon stated 'absolutely not' to the DOJ's argument that the information being accessible via the internet in Macon justified the filing there. The host notes the judge was 'clearly exasperated.'

State voter files are master databases containing extensive sensitive personal information. This includes full name, current and past addresses, Social Security number, date of birth, race, party affiliation and changes, primary participation, election participation (skipped, mail, in-person, early, overseas), ballot challenge history, and provisional ballot resolutions. The DOJ seeks to create a master database of this information for all 50 states.

The guest details specific data points: 'what your social security number is, what your date of birth is in Georgia. It would also include your racial comp, you know, what your race is. It would include whether you were registered as a Democrat or Republican, whether you ever changed party registration, whether you voted in the Democratic primary or Republican primary for every different office.'

The hosts suggest the DOJ's true motive for collecting this granular voter data is not to find non-existent non-citizen voters, but to enable mass voter suppression, disenfranchisement, or to challenge lawful ballots post-election. They argue this data would provide a 'granular view' to target specific ballots or intimidate voters.

The host states the data 'would allow it if it wanted to engage in mass voter suppression or disenfranchisement or to throw out lawful ballots after the election as part of certification. It would give them a granular view of whose ballot they should challenge, whose ballot they want to throw out, who they might be able to intimidate.'

The DOJ claims it needs the voter data to screen for illegal voters, particularly non-citizens. However, the hosts present evidence from Utah, which conducted its own review and found only one non-citizen on its voter rolls, who had never voted. This suggests the DOJ's rationale is a pretext.

A Democracy Docket headline is shown: 'Utah reviewed its voter roles for non-citizens. It found one who never voted.' The host comments, 'it is preposterous to think that the United States Department of Justice is spending all of this money to find the non-existent US citizens who are on the rolls.'

The hosts highlight a perceived hypocrisy in the DOJ's resource allocation. They note the DOJ's aggressive pursuit of voter data from all states, contrasted with its slow, incomplete, and delayed release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, despite a transparency act being signed into law. This suggests a prioritization of data that could be politically advantageous over legal transparency.

The host states, 'They have all of the resources to go through and look at the voter roles of every single voter in the United States of America... and yet no resources to actually release the Epstein files.' They also mention that 'only reviewed 610 of 1% of all the Epstein files' by January 2nd.