RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.thefp.com/p/anthony-faucis-deceptions?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

On April 17, 2020, with much of the country still in some form of lockdown and news of overwhelmed hospitals dominating the headlines, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then a member of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force, was asked a question toward the end of a White House press briefing: Was there a possibility that this novel virus came from a lab in Wuhan, China?

“There was a study recently,” Fauci said confidently, “where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve, and the mutations that it took to get to where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” In other words, it wasn’t from the lab.

This moment set the template for much that would follow from Fauci over the next three years. That is, evasion, deception, and misdirection about his support of high-risk virology research and its connection to the possibility that a lab leak in Wuhan caused a worldwide catastrophe.

Fauci, who was the face of the public health community during the crisis, pushed the idea that the evidence strongly indicated that the virus was just a tragic, natural occurrence. He insisted, repeatedly, that an epidemic that started in Wuhan was unlikely to have been the result of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). 

But Fauci had an incentive to arrive at his conclusion about the deadly pandemic that started in Wuhan. The WIV was known for doing high-risk virology research studying and manipulating coronaviruses. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for almost 40 years, had funded such research at the WIV.

Fauci’s posture—dismissive toward the theory of the lab leak, and later, condescending toward those who entertained it—set what became the accepted narrative about the origins of the pandemic. It was a narrative that was parroted by the government, public health officials, and the media, and even enforced by social media platforms at the request of the Biden White House.

But last month, a trove of explosive emails and other documents were released by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. These revealed evidence of Fauci’s and other officials’ behind-the-scenes involvement with scientists and journalists, demonstrating their efforts to quash the lab leak theory.

The recently disclosed private communications, first reported by Public and Racket, lay bare that the “highly qualified” authors of the paper that Fauci had asserted in April 2020 likely disproved a lab leak—what became known informally as the “Proximal Origin” paper—actually had extensive uncertainty about the virus being the result of a natural event. This was grossly at odds with what became their published position.

The paper that Fauci recommended was published on March 17, 2020. But in February, just the month before, Kristian Andersen, one of the paper’s authors, wrote a Slack message to his colleagues saying: “[T]he lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” 

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19871/trump-impartial-jury

What should happen… when it is virtually impossible for the defendant to get an impartial jury in that state or district?

The prosecution of Donald Trump for the events around January 6, 2021 would seem to call for a change of venue. The District of Columbia is the most extreme Democratic district in the country. Approximately 95% of the potential jurors register and vote Democrat. Whereas approximately 5% voted for Trump. Furthermore, the anger against Trump is understandable in light of the fact that the events of January 6th directly involved many citizens of the district. Moreover, the judge randomly selected to preside over this case has a long history of bias against Trump and his supporters, and her law firm has a long history of conflicts and corruption.

It is imperative, therefore, that in a case where the incumbent president has urged his Attorney General to pursue his political opponent aggressively, that all efforts must be made to ensure fairness. Prosecutors must lean over backwards to persuade the public that partisan considerations played absolutely no role in the decision to indict. Agreeing to a change of venue and judge would go a long way toward seeing that justice is done.

Change of venue motions are only rarely granted, as are motions to recuse a selected judge. But this is a case where justice demands that these motions be granted, both in the interests of the defendants and in the interests of justice. The government should not oppose such motions, though they generally do if it gives them a tactical advantage.

It is likely therefore that these defense requests will be denied by the trial judge.

If an unfair trial results in a conviction, the impact will already be felt, even if it is reversed on appeal after the election, as the prosecution likely anticipates.

If the prosecution case is strong, it should have no fear of a jury and judge outside of DC. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said: the job of a prosecutor is not merely to maximize the chances of winning, but to assure that he wins fairly and justly. In order to achieve that goal, the prosecutors in this case should not oppose defense motions for a change of venue and judge. Nor should it oppose an appeal if the trial judge denies these well-founded defense motions.

In all likelihood, prosecutors will vigorously fight all efforts by the defense to assure an impartial jury and judge, because they want every advantage that will help them secure a victory. They will point to defense efforts to secure advantages for their client and argue that the adversary system of justice requires them to do the same. But that is not the law. The Supreme Court clearly delineated a different role for persecutors who represent the government: “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” The prosecutors in the January 6th case should study this opinion before they deny Trump an impartial jury.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/06/joe-bidens-weather-report/

It was only recently that I have come to understand what a deep bench of comic talent the Democrats command.

Consider Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY).

Is there a more accomplished straight man in the business?

A week ago, Devon Archer, bosom buddy and former biz partner of First Son Hunter Biden, testified in a closed-door session before the House Oversight Committee. The subject? Allegations of wholesale bribery, corruption, and influence peddling on the part of the Bidens.

Hunter is said to be the peddler (with Archer in the role of Tonto), dear old dad the product peddled. The details, now available in the transcript that Rep. James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, released last week are eyeopening to say the least.

We now know, for example, that Joe Biden was summoned to the telephone at least 20 times to chat with Hunter’s business partners in Ukraine, China, Romania, and elsewhere. What were they talking about?

According to Rep. Goldman, it was just chit chat.

“How’s it going, Dad?”

“Pretty well, son? How’s the weather there?”

You could almost see Goldman holding his breath as he said that. Would the rubes buy it?

Yes, it was the party line. CNN established that by reporting that what Hunter was selling was only the “illusion” of influence. Unfortunately for The Narrative, folks aren’t buying what they’re selling. The normally understated Jonathan Turley, an independent-minded Democratic commentator, said that Archer’s testimony revealed “the apex of corruption.”

“What we now know,” he said, “is that the President has been lying.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/jonathan_turley_spells_out_how_foul_the_trump_indictment_really_is.html

Every American’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protection. However, if the Biden administration has its way, that protection does not extend to Donald Trump. With his usual clarity and insight, law professor Jonathan Turley spells out just how foul the Trump indictment really is.

As always, when it comes to the latest Democrat “gotcha” against Trump, this one is stink and dangerous, explains Turley. Hidden behind the legal language and statutory citations is a straightforward effort to punish Trump for daring to speak his mind about the chicanery he (and half of the American voters) perceived in the 2020 election:

Trump was not charged with conspiracy to incite violence or insurrection. Rather, he was charged because he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”

In other words, Trump is being accused of challenging the Democrat establishment’s insistence that it won the election fair and square. Any dissenting views must not only be silenced but must be punished, both to keep Trump off the ballot and as a warning to others.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/throw_all_the_bums_out.html

I don’t think the federal government will exist in its current form much longer.  The reason is simple: if Marxist globalists get their way, then sovereign U.S. powers will continue to be unlawfully delegated to the U.N., the WHO, and other international monstrosities until some Obama-type tyrant is ruling over us all from Turtle Bay or a stately castle outside Brussels.  If freedom-minded people succeed in reining in the federal government and reimposing the Constitution’s limited delegation of powers, then the monstrosity that is already with us will radically diminish or disappear.  Either the current beast lording it over us will transform into something even more menacing, or it will be sapped of its blood-thirst for unconstitutional overreach and brought to heel.  For what it’s worth, my vote is for the Price Is Right option: the whole D.C. menagerie should just be spayed or neutered.

As we stand right now, the federal government functions as an extra-constitutional and largely illegitimate system that usurps the individual states’ respective sovereignties, infringes the American people’s personal rights, and betrays the spirit of our country’s foundations in liberty.

Our Union came into existence only because the former colonies were assured that they would maintain their freedom and independence.  Had the Articles of Confederation or their successor, the U.S. Constitution, sought to extinguish the individual states’ inherent sovereignties by replacing their discrete political powers with those of a single new nation, then no agreement to form a Union would have ever been reached.  The colonies did not fight a war for their independence from an empire only to squander their victory and become part of another empire.

Quite the contrary, the individual states maintain a political stature on par with foreign nations such as France and Spain; it is only in the specifically enumerated powers delegated to the federal government that federal authority supersedes the states’ own.  That word “delegated” is important.  The federal government’s power does not spring from thin air, but rather is derived from specifically listed authorities delegated to it from the states and the people.  The American people and the individual states are the origin of all legitimate power, and the federal government exists only so long as the people and the states continue to lend their own innate powers to breathe life into an otherwise powerless system.  Before the Civil War, the idea that an American was a citizen of the United States would have been as absurd as an American today being a citizen of the United Nations.  Americans are citizens of their respective states, and the states belong to the Union.