Talk:Judicial Watch

Shouldn't this have a citation?

"The organization has described climate science as "fraud science"" RVHatcher (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mueller investigation

The criticism of Tom Fitton for characterizing the Mueller investigation as a coup needs to be retracted. It is now clear that Hilary Clinton and the DNC paid for the creation of the Steele dossier and knew its contents were false. The FISA warrants issued to investigate President Trump and associates were based on knowing misrepresentations and falsehoods. The efforts of Clinton and the DNC and media cohorts were designed and intended to overthrow the Trump Presidency. These efforts meet the definition of a coup. 2600:4040:A009:9300:3D61:A987:DB17:BBAA (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the word coup in the article, warrants were not issued on Trump, he wasn't under investigation until he fired Comey, the dossier was never deployed during the campaign, and it's all related to 2016 so it can't be a coup because he wasn't president. soibangla (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Claims on COVID-19 origins

Judicial Watch has released a report claiming that they have received proof of United States funding gain-of-function coronavirus research at The Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not this is true, this should definitely be included in the article, c'est non?

It would require a reliable source. --Weazie (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Fraud science

The article says The organization has falsely described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government climate scientists. The sole source is a blog post on the Guardian site by lawyer Lauren Kurtz saying Judicial Watch claims climate science is a "fraud science". There's no indication there what the whole sentence was. It might be a mangling of this on judicialwatch.org: “We suspect fraud ‘science’ behind the Obama EPA’s claims in the Clean Power Plan, which is a scheme to end coal energy under the guise of combatting alleged global warming,” said Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton. Since the sourcing is vague and context-free, and the only thing I could find with "fraud 'science" is about a specific case not climate science as a whole, I favour removal, leaving only that the organization has filed lawsuits against climate scientists. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A week has passed, nobody stated other opinions, I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)