In this Saturday Recap, Jenny Beth Martin highlights one of the most important conversations of the week — a deep dive into the escalating lawfare targeting everyday Americans who challenged the 2020 election. Mike Howell, founder of the Oversight Project, explains how coordinated federal–state prosecutions, mounting legal bills, and political weaponization are being used to crush citizens, activists, and electors. He breaks down the legal foundation behind President Trump’s pardons, exposes the coordination between the Biden White House and state prosecutors, and reveals why the fight for election integrity and accountability is far from over. This powerful recap uncovers the stakes for the rule of law, the constitutional process for resolving contested elections, and the urgent need to defend Americans facing political prosecution.
In this Saturday Recap, Jenny Beth Martin spotlights a critical conversation with Mike Howell, founder of the Oversight Project — a team of former federal agents, investigators, and attorneys working to expose political weaponization inside the federal government.
This episode breaks down:
Mike Howell also details how the Oversight Project is defending citizens who cannot afford the massive legal costs that come with politically motivated investigations — and why this fight is essential to restoring the rule of law.
Whether you’re concerned about election integrity, federal overreach, or the future of constitutional protections in America, this recap delivers the facts you won’t hear anywhere else.
Narrator (00:14):
Welcome to the Jenny Beth Show.
Jenny Beth Martin (00:18):
In today's weekly recap, I want to bring to you one of the most important, and frankly one of the most revealing conversations we had all week. America is in a battle for the rule of law, not in Washington talking points, but in the lives of real people, ordinary citizens who are being targeted, prosecuted, and financially crushed for doing nothing more than participating in their own elections. This week I sat down with Mike Howell, the founder of the Oversight Project, a team of former federal agents, investigators, and attorneys who are uncovering what the political establishment desperately wants to keep hidden from the coordinated law fair against the 2020 electors to the truth about the pardons to the auto pin scandal inside the Biden White House, to the unanswered questions surrounding the attempted assassination of President Trump. Mike reveals the hard facts and the stakes facing our country right now. This next segment is one every American needs to hear. Let's roll it. What are some of the kinds of things you're doing when you talk about defending?
Mike Howell (01:20):
Absolutely. So Jeff Clark's an absolute hero. I'm sure anyone who's watching this podcast knows and appreciates what he did. Something related to that, it's not directly on Jeff Clark, but it's certainly affected him, is we worked very hard on the pardons that recently came out for the contingent electors or the Les calls, the fake electors. The people still prosecuted in state court for standing up for election integrity in one of the most corrupt elections in the history of this country, the 2020 election. And so working with our friends and government, we laid the intellectual and legal foundation for this novel argument. A lot of people say, it doesn't matter, the president can't pardon state offenses, but the groundwork we laid was these were always federal cases. It was a federal constitutionally protected right to assert your views and challenges on election integrity in the federal context.
(02:17):
Now, these people were charged in state courts, but how many instances have we seen of cooperation between the various state and law fair entities and the federal government in Merri Garland? And so one example is working on those pardons, and I'm happy to say the president ultimately agreed with our advocacy, legal analysis, and Ed Martin as the US party attorney, was able to get that across the finish line. And so that's one example of a way behind the scenes in Washington DC We worked to defend our friends. There's a lot of other examples and we don't, the frustrating part about this is you don't always name your clients. We have a lot of people who the consequences come with publicity. People who were involved in January 6th and associated things are professionally persecuted, they're financially persecuted, they're legally persecuted. So we do what we can to help those people.
(03:09):
I personally started a pro bono law firm in the advent of January 6th because I saw that the so-called conservative legal movement looked at the Patriots that were charged for misdemeanor offenses only as sources of income. And I thought that was wrong. I thought that was upside down. And so we found a way to help them. Another area that I can talk about is South Carolina, the Freedom Caucus down there, which is basically their conservative contingent of state officials are being attacked by the establishment. Think Nikki Haley and her political team, think of the donors and the lobbyists there. They're trying to extinguish the Freedom Caucus. So they're doing that through a bogus ethics investigation. And so were there lawyers in that. And so we are the law firm that steps into that space in between the establishments and patriotic Americans and either their representatives or their activists or their advocates and provides the legal resources that are required, whatever the situation may be in this environment where unfortunately, lawfare is the most important thing in politics.
Jenny Beth Martin (04:21):
Let's go back and take on the pardons that you did and go through the legal basis for that, that you were just mentioning. And I am so thankful that those pardons happened. But what we're seeing of course, is that since the pardons happened, the Georgia case had the opportunity to just die. And it hasn't continuing that case, it's going forward in Wisconsin. Some of the people who have been indicted in Wisconsin have to go right before Christmas or they're going to have to go be formally charged and deal with the processing that comes with that. And it's not ending, but you make the argument that there's a legal foundation and a legal basis essentially. I would think that you're making that argument that they really should be dismissed at the state levels. And then the counterargument that I keep hearing, especially from people in Georgia who are watching all of this happen, they're like, yeah, but President Trump issued the part and that's great and they appreciate it. And then they say, but these are state charges. So that, pardon, doesn't matter, but you are making the argument it does matter. So would you elaborate on that, please?
Mike Howell (05:37):
Yeah. And it is a very complex and complicated issue, and so I appreciate the questions actually. And I also appreciate the fact that it's not enough and I agree with those folks. And one thing I think people need to understand about how DC works is it's tough. It takes Patriots on inside who never lose sight of where they came from. People like Ed Martin who he's one appointee within the Department of Justice who is fighting against a morass of institutional interests that are there trying to push these things forward, and ultimately President Trump who wants resolution and who acted on these pardons. So before I jump into the pardons themselves, I will say more needs to be done. I absolutely agree. I think restitution needs to be had for the people who have had legal bills pile up. Their tool of the left is they want to stack you with legal bills and force you into submission, and the federal government can solve that problem, and that's what we're pushing for.
(06:40):
And so before I talk about the pardons, I want to say I agree with people who want to see more and we're pushing for more, but the pardons themselves are very important. So there's a couple of key prongs and if for any legal eagles out there, we have issued memos with constitutional analysis and sources and citations. You can dive in and fact check and read up on it. And so I'm going to do a short summary, if you will. There's two major prongs to this. First is this notion that the federal government, the president can only pardon for federal offenses. That's a questionable notion. The federal government didn't challenge that in this instance, but a lot of legal scholars out there are saying, no, actually the president can pardon for anything he wants, state or federal. And so I'm going to put that whole bucket aside.
(07:30):
I think it's fascinating. I think it's interesting, and I think there's good arguments that the president's pardon power exceeds what people traditionally consider it. Okay, so let's go into what the pardons actually do and say the basis for them. Basis number one, federal elections are what? Federal elections. And so you capture the parting power there. It is a constitutionally protected right to vote for the president of the United States and to challenge and participate in that process as you see fit. And there is a long legal history in the United States of basically the House of Representatives being the entity to which you present to those challenges. This goes back 200 plus years, and we list out numerous instances over and over again of the House of Representatives being the deciding body for the political contest related to elections. I mean, everyone famously cites Hawaii and their contingent electors in the JFK case, but there are a legion of examples similar to that.
(08:30):
And so the process by which people who put together alternate slates of electors to preserve their options, when the federal government at the time was saying, we are going to look into election challenges. Now, we famously know Bill Barr did not do that at all, but the context of them putting together in that time was we need to make sure that if the federal government decides there was a lot of fraud, which they didn't look into, there is another slave for when Congress determines that question to preserve that option. And so argument one is this was a federal activity, it's federal the whole way through it was intended for Congress. Now, the federal government is saying there is nothing wrong with it. If there is no victim, there is no crime. The federal government is saying, we not only are saying you did not victimize us by presenting us with this option, what you did was right and it's how it should work.
(09:24):
And so that's argument. One of this is a constitution protective argument, federal activity. The president's power captures it. Argument two is that these various state prosecutions have always been a cat's paw of the federal government. It was a way for Jack Smith and others to maximize legal consequences for a federal activity through a state prosecution. We've seen examples of this derive the entire weaponization period, whether it was Fannie Wallace's boyfriend, Nathan Wade calling the White House meeting with the White House, whether it was all these law firms who were meeting with the White House and meeting with the state prosecutions, whether it was Jocelyn Benson up in Michigan saying it's a united effort of all the state ags to fight against the common enemy. We all are smart enough to know these things are not happening in a bubble. They are coordinated through whatever vehicle, whether it is a federal, state or civil, whether it is media, whether it is professional, whether it is social media, it is all of one entity at its core.
(10:32):
And so we think that breaks down this neat cabin distinction that some of the lawyers would like to say of the federal government can't touch it. I don't see fine lines of delineation between them. So where the rubber meets the road ultimately is how did these play out in the state context? Obviously, these things have progressed so far through that weaponized state context. They're not going to want to hear our argument, right? I don't expect these federal judges to be like, oh, well, Trump said you're innocent. Now I'm out of it. I've been in it forever. But it is another piece of evidence that is of value to the defense, and I hope in some instances it does have impact. I think it legally absolutely should. That being said, I understand it's not a level playing field at all. I want to see DOJ intervene in these cases and start defending these people also that has the other purpose of offsetting their legal defense. These are everyday Americans that are trying to scrap together whatever resources they have against the most powerful people in the country. And so the message is, we think you're innocent. Here's the legal reason. We haven't forgotten about you. We're fighting for you. And this isn't the end. It's actually the beginning of the Trump administration saying, we're going to stand there with you.
Jenny Beth Martin (11:51):
I think that's really important, Mike, and I hope that the defense attorneys use this and are able to help their clients with the pardons, with the arguments that you're making with what we've learned from Arctic Frost about the absolute coordination between the federal government and the seat and local prosecutors. And then on top of that, the fact that what you were saying at the very beginning, I am just making sure that I've got it. Oh, that we need the more needs to be done, that it's crushing the people who are having to defend themselves financially. It's absolutely true. I set up GoFundMe or I guess it's give and Go, not GoFundMe because give and Go would allow us to set it up. And GoFundMe wasn't so friendly to it. But I've set this up for several of the defense people or the defendants, and I maybe haven't said of the actual Gibson Go for several of them, but I've connected them with attorneys, told them what they need to do so they can have their own legal defense fund.
(13:06):
And I know from my own conversations with some of these people that they're talking hundreds of thousands up to over a million dollars in their own personal defense. And these are people at the state and local level. We're not talking about Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows and John Eastman who were involved at the national level with all these different states we're talking about who also have had to deal with massive bills. So I'm not excusing what's happened to them. I'm just saying it's not even people who were in the Trump administration, they're activists who just stepped up and wanted to be an elector and represent their country in this way. And it is just awful what has happened to them. So I'm very thankful that you are working on this, and I agree they need more help from the federal government as well to be able to defend themselves against the state and local governments who are prosecuting them for what amounts to federal crimes that aren't really crimes at all.
Mike Howell (14:13):
No, I greatly appreciate this, and you've been in the thick of it and the people whom I'm speaking of, and they're great value to not only our political movement but our country. There are everyday Americans who saw something wrong and for the right reasons stood up in the right way in a legal way. The left takes to the streets, they call no kings, and they applaud it. They applaud people protesting and obstructing ice, and those people are not arrested. Whereas the people in 2020 after seeing what happened with this highly unusual election, this corrupt election, said, what can we do legally? What are our legal options? And so they put together their legal options and pursued them in the framework that they've been taught since they were a child in elementary school is the process to solve our concerns in the United States of Americas. Those are the people that are being punished.
(15:08):
And I speak to a lot of, well-to-do people who say, now Trump's in charge. Everything's good. The DOJ and FB are in better hands. It's all over. I'm here to say it's not. And the fact that we're speaking in terms of gives and goes or fundees or legal defense proves that it's not, you do not see these left wing activists like Jack Smith or whomever needing that. They never set up crowdsource legal defense funds because they already have it. They have it through the federal government. They have it through the law firms. They have it through their donor class. They have it through every means available to them. People like Vin Min, you think these people paid a cent out of their own pocketbook? Absolutely not. Whereas as a movement, the conservative movement has not evolved to a level where we can protect people from what is an extinguishing exercise of lawfare.
(15:57):
And so that's what the oversight project is at its core. It recognizes there's a massive asymmetry in the playing field, and we're never going to win if the cost of legal protection and the impact of legal consequence is so high that we can't even participate in this country. And so we're not interested in the polite DC things. We're not interested in the panels and the conferences and the fancy papers. We're interested in that particular moment when a subpoena hits an everyday American who is out there doing what they think they should do, what they've told is their option and they're faced with the gauntlet of permanent legal, banishment, reputational and professional consequences, et cetera. We have their back. And it's because no one other polite professional in DC forgot about 'em.
Jenny Beth Martin (16:46):
I think it is just amazing, and I'm so glad that you are out there doing this work. I want to ask you one more thing, and it's a little bit of a history pop quiz. So if you don't know the answer then that's not an issue at all. But you mentioned how the House of Representatives has heard and been the judge and jury for election contests for president, and you mentioned the JFK election. This goes back all the way to the first president after George Washington, right? I mean, there was an election contest between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson that the House of Representatives had to resolve. It isn't new at all. I mean, it has literally been going on since the first president after George Washington. It goes to the house and they have to solve these issues.
Mike Howell (17:39):
You're a hundred percent right. And we put out a memo and we captured as many of those instances as possible, and they weren't hard to find. They'd go back to the origins. America was designed and the left likes to say, defending democracy and all this sloganeering around it, but it is a fiery political contest. And we set up, our founders set up rather a system to hear those contests. And in the same foundational principle in our court system is you zealously advocate from one side, the prosecutor's out there to get you, he's going to say everything terrible. You didn't interpret it the wrong way. And the defense is out there and their lawyers are there to say the prosecution's the worst. And so that's how you arrive at truth through a reason and adversarial process. The same concept was applied to our election system where if you think something wrong happens, you have it out and then the House of Representatives is there to ultimately count the votes, adjudicate what's in and what's out.
(18:38):
And you have supposedly, I know this is broken down, men and women of character in there who can hear these cases and adjudicate them appropriately as statesmen. And that has worked for a long time. It's been used for a long time. Where it stopped working was 2020 where all of a sudden because they wanted to just end the American first movement forever, they turned that constitutional process into a criminal process and they were able to do that. And my core thesis is because the institutional rife, the conservative movement, whatever we want to call it, let it happen. There weren't two sides of this. There was one side and it was that asymmetry, that obvious imbalance, why we decided we got to do something about it and we haven't done it all. And I'm not here to say we've done it all. We are small. We're 15 guys who left various walks of life, people who were at the FBI who realized this thing's too weaponized.
(19:36):
I don't want to be a part of it, or the intelligence community or who were in the administration or who in Congress. A bunch of individuals realize this system is stacked and it's stacked against everyday Americans. We combine forces and we're picking and choosing and charging as hard as we can to try to correct that imbalance. It's a David and Goliath fight, but when you get things like pardons for our state contingent electors who are still facing persecution, is it enough? Nope. Not even close, but is it at least a recognition that maybe we're getting the highest and most powerful people in the government to refocus on the issue? You betcha. And we're there in DC to make sure that people don't forget that. I don't want to talk about the tax rate, I don't want to talk about tariffs. I don't want to talk about any of those things. I want to talk about how the deck is stacked, how the lawfare and weaponization of this country is hurting not only your Jeff Clarks of the world or your Mark Meadows, but your people who work at nine to five who are active and believe in President Trump who stood up and fought for him. The people who were forgotten right after the consequences are applied. We're there to fight for them.
Jenny Beth Martin (20:46):
If you enjoy today's conversation, go ahead and hit like and subscribe. It really helps us reach more people who care about freedom and the Constitution. You can find this and other episodes@jennybestshow.com as well as Facebook Rumble, YouTube, Instagram X in your favorite podcast platform.
Narrator (21:04):
The Jenny Beth Show is hosted by Jenny Beth Martin. The Jenny Beth Show is a production of Tea Party Patriots action. For more information, visit tea party patriots.org.