News

RFK Jr. Announces Major New NIH Policy, Calls Out Media Malpractice After Fauci Hearing [WATCH]
News

RFK Jr. Announces Major New NIH Policy, Calls Out Media Malpractice After Fauci Hearing [WATCH]

/

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director of misleading the public on multiple issues, funding gain-of-function research, and contributing to the suppression of dissenting medical opinions.

Kennedy also pointed to a new National Institutes of Health policy that he said is intended to prevent federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research in the future.

According to Kennedy, several physicians who questioned the government’s COVID-19 response faced censorship and professional consequences.

“You know there was, there were doctors like Peter McCullough and Robert Malone and Pierre Kory, who were saying from the beginning they were looking at the data and saying, yeah, this this causes myocarditis, it causes blood clots, it causes myocardial pulmonary infarctions,” Kennedy said.

He argued those doctors were punished rather than heard.

“And they were being censored, they were being vilified, marginalized, demonized, delicenced, publicly scolded by the press.”

Kennedy said the media played a central role in shaping public perception during the pandemic.

“The media malpractice is really what I think we should focus on because they were anybody who questioned Dr. Fauci was put in was like put off on an island. They were pariahs, and they were the media every day was telling us trust the experts.”

Kennedy then turned his criticism directly toward Fauci, arguing that the government’s messaging on COVID-19 repeatedly proved inaccurate.

“Well, he was the expert, and we now know he was lying about everything.”

Kennedy listed several areas where he alleged Fauci misled the public.

“He was lying about mass. He was lying about social distancing. He was lying about lockdowns. He was lying about natural immunity. He was lying about the ability of the vaccine to prevent transmission and and prevent infection.”

Kennedy also referenced Fauci’s own experience with COVID-19 after vaccination.

“He got the vaccine and he immediately got COVID 19 and then he got a pulmonary infarction.”

He further alleged that Fauci concealed information about the origins of the virus.

“He was lying about the origins from day one.”

Kennedy then explained why he believes Fauci misrepresented the issue.

“Why was he lying? Because he funded those studies at the Wuhan lab, and he funded the studies at the University of North Carolina that developed the techniques for weaponizing COVID-19.”

Kennedy said the research was later transferred to scientists in Wuhan.

“And then gave those Ralph Baric, his funded scientist at the University of North Carolina, gave those to Zachley, the scientists, the Bat Lady scientist in the Wuhan lab.”

According to Kennedy, the research involved a technique designed to alter viruses while concealing evidence of laboratory manipulation.

“And he taught her a technique that Anthony Fauci had paid him to develop, called seamless ligation, which is also called nosium.”

Kennedy described the technique as “a way of manipulating the virus to make it deadly to human beings, and then covering up the evidence of human manipulation.”

He questioned why taxpayer-funded research would support such work.

“And why would anybody spend NIH money developing that kind of technology? It’s bio weapons technology. It has nothing to do with public health. It’s the opposite. It’s the inverse of anything you would want to do with public health.”

Kennedy also alleged that the research was transferred to a Chinese military laboratory.

“Well, he’s taking. He took that and he gave it to the Chinese military lab at Wuhan.”

Concluding his remarks, Kennedy pointed to what he described as a policy change at the National Institutes of Health aimed at preventing similar research from receiving federal funding in the future.

“So these are, and as you mentioned at the beginning of this, we today NIH has now issued a policy to make sure these kind of experiments can never happen again.”

He added, “That NIH will never again pay for a dangerous gain-function experiment.”

WATCH:

Tulsi Exposes the Truth: Fauci’s Arrogant Silence Screams Guilt on COVID Cover-Up [WATCH]
News

Tulsi Exposes the Truth: Fauci’s Arrogant Silence Screams Guilt on COVID Cover-Up [WATCH]

/

In the wake of Dr. Anthony Fauci pleading the Fifth Amendment 111 times, former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard pointed to her earlier release of what she described as previously undisclosed communications and documents that she says detail Dr. Anthony Fauci’s involvement in intelligence assessments related to COVID-19, the virus’s origins, and U.S.-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Gabbard made the announcement on what she described as her final day serving as Director of National Intelligence, saying the document release was consistent with President Donald Trump’s transparency initiative.

“Before the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic,” Gabbard said.

She said the newly released materials were intended to reveal what she described as Fauci’s role in shaping intelligence assessments and public understanding of the pandemic.

“Now, in support of President Trump’s maximum transparency mandate, today on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents that expose exactly how Fauci worked with politicized career leadership in the intelligence community to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’s lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for this dangerous research that caused immeasurable harm and countless lost lives.”

According to Gabbard, the documents show that Fauci influenced intelligence community conclusions while later denying those interactions before Congress.

“Now, these documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19, and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 when, under oath, he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research.”

Gabbard also said her office received testimony from multiple whistleblowers within the intelligence community.

“We also received testimony from multiple intelligence community whistleblowers who reported retaliation for challenging the intelligence community’s manipulation of intelligence on the virus’s origins, once again revealing a clear pattern of suppressing dissent, silencing critics, and burying the truth.”

She argued that Fauci’s relationships within the intelligence community enabled him to play multiple roles throughout the pandemic.

“Dr. Fauci’s close relationships with the intelligence community enabled him to assume three key roles that shield him from scrutiny.”

Gabbard alleged that Fauci funded gain-of-function research tied to pharmaceutical interests while simultaneously influencing intelligence assessments about the virus’s origin.

“First, Dr. Fauci funded dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to big pharma and their pursuit of universal vaccines worth trillions of dollars.”

She continued, “Second, Dr. Fauci was the behind-the-scenes advisor who, alongside his hand-picked so-called experts, pushed the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin to hide his dangerous gain-of-function research that he funded using taxpayer dollars. All of this in a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth and shift the blame and attention away from Fauci’s own actions.”

Gabbard further alleged that Fauci influenced both intelligence officials and public messaging during the pandemic.

“Third, Dr. Fauci became the nation’s pandemic pundit, and he publicly pushed lies, disinformation, and censorship using every platform available.”

She said emails included in the release showed intelligence officials regularly relied on Fauci’s recommendations.

“Now, according to hundreds of reviewed emails, which are included in this release, the intelligence community almost always incorporated Fauci’s recommendations.”

Gabbard also claimed Fauci promoted research that intelligence officials later treated as authoritative.

“He promoted a fraudulent paper, whose publication he helped prompt, as legitimate information for intelligence community consideration.”

She added that, according to the documents, “Senior analysts praised Dr. Fauci not as a policymaker, but as what they called an unbiased guide to the real coronavirus experts, while deliberately ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives.”

Gabbard again accused Fauci of providing false testimony before Congress.

“Now Fauci didn’t stop there; he blatantly lied to Congress under oath during his 2024 testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, denying that he ever spoke to any intelligence agency about COVID.”

She said the newly released correspondence contradicts that testimony.

“Now, the correspondence I’m releasing today directly contradicts his sworn testimony.”

Gabbard also described allegations made by intelligence community whistleblowers concerning retaliation against analysts who questioned prevailing conclusions.

“Now, we received statements from multiple whistleblowers revealing that the intelligence analysts who dared to challenge Dr. Fauci’s COVID origin conclusions faced threats of retaliation, marginalization, and many suffered career setbacks.”

She cited examples that included a contractor who “was terminated just days after coming forward to ODNI as a whistleblower” and said analysts supporting the lab leak hypothesis “were reminded by their managers that leadership would determine which analysts would be promoted and which would not.”

“The message was clear: go along, or be punished,” Gabbard said.

She also alleged that senior officials compromised whistleblower protections by removing anonymity and requiring managers or attorneys to attend meetings with whistleblowers, creating what she described as “an atmosphere of intimidation.”

Concluding her remarks, Gabbard said the pandemic’s impact warrants full public disclosure and accountability.

“The COVID pandemic caused tremendous hardship and pain for millions of our fellow Americans and countless people around the world.”

She added, “Now, after years of lies and censorship and cover-ups, the American people deserve transparency, truth, and accountability.”

Gabbard argued that “The tactics that were used to hide the truth are straight from the deep state playbook,” and accused “Politicized self-serving leaders like Dr. Fauci” of covering up wrongdoing, manipulating intelligence, lying to Congress, and undermining President Trump.

“It’s time you know the truth,” Gabbard said.

WATCH:

Trump Gives a Surprising Response to Fauci Pleading the 5th 111 Times [WATCH]
News

Trump Gives a Surprising Response to Fauci Pleading the 5th 111 Times [WATCH]

/

President Trump weighed in Wednesday after Dr. Anthony Fauci delivered a spectacle on Capitol Hill that looked less like accountability and more like a master class in self preservation.

Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, where Senate Republicans pressed him over the COVID pandemic, his shifting claims, and the long list of statements Americans were told to accept without question.

Instead of clearing the air, Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right 111 times.

That is quite a performance from the man the left spent years treating like a lab coat version of Mount Rushmore.

Senator Rand Paul announced that the committee is expected to vote next week on holding Fauci in contempt.

Paul also suggested Fauci’s repeated refusal to answer may not have been legally proper under the circumstances.

Trump was asked at the White House whether Fauci should be held in contempt.

He did not directly call for punishment, but he made clear he remembers exactly what dealing with Fauci was like.

“Well, I watched the whole thing today, but more importantly, I was a part of the whole Fauci. I inherited Fauci. He was here from the 1980s, so I had him for a period of time, and I disagreed with him on a lot,” Trump said.

Trump added that “I would have had to close down the whole country if I listened to him.”

That line alone captures the divide between the bureaucratic panic machine and the Americans who still had bills to pay.

“I went the Federalist way, which is basically let the governors decide, and generally speaking, the Republican governors did very well.

The Democrat governors did not very well,” Trump continued.

The president also reminded the press that Fauci’s guidance was anything but steady.

One day masks were unnecessary, then came the era where the public health crowd seemed ready to wrap everyone in cloth from head to toe.

“But Fauci wanted to have nobody wearing masks, if you remember, and then everybody had to wear five masks, as many masks as you could get. I mean, made a lot of mistakes, and he wasn’t a big factor for me. He was a very big factor for Biden, and if you remember, even though we were sort of prime time in terms of that whole disaster of COVID, far people died fewer in the Trump administration than in the Biden administration.”

Then came the wrinkle that had conservatives raising eyebrows.

Lindell TV’s Cara Castronuova asked Trump whether the Justice Department should revisit Joe Biden’s auto pen pardons and challenge whether they were legitimate.

Trump, who previously declared documents, executive orders, and contracts signed by Biden’s auto pen to be “null, void, and of no further force or effect,” sounded far more cautious this time.

He described the pardon power as “the most powerful thing a president has.”

“So, he was pardoned by Biden, and I respect that. I know how powerful it is,” Trump said.

WATCH:

That answer landed with a thud among those who want a full accounting of the COVID years.

If Biden’s auto pen operation deserves scrutiny, Fauci’s pardon would seem like one of the first places to start looking.

Trump did leave the door open slightly, noting there may be questions about whether the person operating the auto pen knew what was being approved.

“Maybe there’s something on the auto pen. Other than that, the power of pardon is very powerful.”

Later, Trump was asked why Fauci refused to answer questions even though he had a pardon.

His answer was simple, and it pointed right at the legal choreography surrounding the hearing.

“Look, I’ve never been a big fan of Fauci. Why he did that was very simple. His lawyer told him to,” Trump said.

“I don’t know if he would have been better off not doing it. There were a lot of questions that I guess he could have answered, and some maybe he didn’t feel comfortable answering, but his lawyer told him to do that.”

For millions of Americans, that will not be good enough.

They remember the mandates, the school closures, the censored doctors, and the smug lectures from the same expert class that now suddenly discovers silence when accountability comes calling.

DCCC Chair Dodges DSA Denunciation While Claiming Democrats Are United [WATCH]
News

DCCC Chair Dodges DSA Denunciation While Claiming Democrats Are United [WATCH]

/

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene tried to steer clear of a growing headache for her party on Tuesday, after being asked whether Democratic leaders should denounce the Democratic Socialists of America platform.

Appearing on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” DelBene did what seasoned party operatives often do when the left flank gets too loud for comfort.

She changed the subject to affordability and insisted Democrats are united, which is a neat trick when the question is about socialists pushing ideas that sound like they were drafted in a faculty lounge after midnight.

Guest host Manu Raju put the issue directly in front of her by playing remarks from Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who has been increasingly willing to say the quiet part out loud about his own party’s radical wing.

Fetterman criticized democratic socialist positions of “abolish the Senate, … abolish the presidency, abolish the border, abolish prison, and the presidency.”

He also argued that Democratic leaders should call out those ideas instead of pretending they are just harmless chatter in deep blue enclaves.

Raju then asked DelBene the obvious question: “So, Congresswoman, should you call out the democratic socialists and police your kind of ranks and repudiate the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America?”

DelBene responded by shrinking the issue geographically, as if radical ideology becomes less radical when it is confined to a few safely liberal zip codes.

“First of all, I think you’re talking about some races in bright blue districts in a few parts of the country. The folks in Iowa who want representatives to stand up for them aren’t interested in who is running for election in New York City.”

That answer may satisfy consultants who live by polling crosstabs, but it does not actually answer the question.

Voters in Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia might be very interested in whether the party seeking control of Congress is willing to draw a bright line against the abolish everything crowd.

Raju pressed again, asking, “But what about Democratic leaders? Should you guys repudiate it?”

That was the moment for a clean answer, but clean answers are apparently in short supply when the activist left is listening.

DelBene continued, “The path to the majority is through these swing districts across the country. And having candidates who are talking about the issues that matter, who are focused on the issues they hear from their communities, is what makes the difference. And so, absolutely, we are united in making sure that we’re addressing the number one issue we hear from folks across the country. Families are struggling, affordability is the top issue. Housing, food, healthcare, childcare, energy costs, rising gas prices. We need a Congress that’s going to stand up for people across the country. That’s our priority, and that’s what we’re going to do when we have the gavels. And we will have gavels in November.”

WATCH:

There it was, the affordability pivot.

Asked about democratic socialists who want to abolish borders and other basic structures of government, the DCCC chair turned to gas prices, childcare, housing, and gavels.

Nobody doubts that families are struggling with costs.

The problem for Democrats is that many of those same families also remember years of liberal spending, regulatory overreach, energy hostility, border chaos, and the usual Washington lecture circuit insisting that everything was fine.

DelBene’s claim that Democrats are “united” on affordability is also a convenient way to avoid saying what they are not united against.

If the party cannot clearly repudiate a platform that entertains abolishing the border, voters are allowed to wonder what exactly the moderates are moderating.

Fetterman’s comments landed because they tapped into a real political liability for Democrats.

The activist left may dominate online spaces, city politics, and campus style debates, but its wish list becomes a massive burden when candidates have to face normal voters who want safe streets, secure borders, affordable groceries, and functioning government.

Republicans will almost certainly seize on DelBene’s nonanswer as part of a broader argument that Democrats are afraid of their own base.

That message writes itself when party leaders treat socialism like a local zoning dispute instead of an ideological infection spreading through their ranks.

DelBene wants the conversation to be about swing districts, but swing district voters often have strong radar for political evasion.

They know when a candidate is answering a question, and they know when a party boss is trying to hustle them past the uncomfortable part.

The exchange offered a preview of the Democratic strategy heading into November.

Talk about affordability, accuse Republicans of not caring, and hope nobody asks too many questions about the radicals standing just off camera.

That might work on CNN for a few minutes.

It is much harder to pull off when voters start asking why a party that wants the gavels cannot even bring itself to plainly reject the people calling to abolish the border.

Texas Dem Candidate James Talarico Accidentally Proves He Needs a Basic Economics Lesson [WATCH]
News

Texas Dem Candidate James Talarico Accidentally Proves He Needs a Basic Economics Lesson [WATCH]

/

Texas Democrat James Talarico appears eager to audition for the Senate by taking a swing at capitalism, and judging by his latest remarks, he may want to start with a basic economics textbook before heading back to the microphone.

At a Tuesday campaign rally, Talarico told supporters that trickle down economics is not a theory, but theft, then claimed wealthy Americans “have been stealing the wealth that we all created. It’s why everything sucks right now. It’s why people are so angry.”

WATCH:

That is the kind of line that plays well in a room full of activists who think slogans are substitutes for math.

It is also the kind of line that reveals just how casually the modern left blames private success for problems created by government failure.

The theory Talarico attacked is rooted in the idea that policies helping businesses and investors, including lower taxes and lighter regulation, can spur growth, hiring, investment, and consumer activity.

Conservatives can argue over the finer points, but pretending wealth creation itself is theft is not serious economic analysis.

It is campaign theater dressed up as populism. Democrats have found that if they say the word theft loudly enough, they can distract voters from who actually reaches into their pockets every payday.

After all, who takes money from workers before they even see the full fruit of their labor.

It is not some local business owner sending armed agents to your house because you failed to satisfy a bureaucrat.

Government does that. Federal, state, and local authorities take a cut of nearly everything Americans earn, buy, own, sell, inherit, or try to build, and then politicians act shocked when families feel squeezed.

The left loves to portray capitalism as a villain lurking in a top hat, but the average American knows the real shakedown comes with official forms, penalties, fees, and deadlines.

Miss a tax payment and see how quickly the friendly face of government turns into a collection machine.

Civil asset forfeiture is one of the ugliest examples. Law enforcement agencies have seized money, vehicles, and homes from Americans accused of no crime, often without an arrest or conviction, and getting that property back can become a legal nightmare.

Since 2000, agencies have reportedly collected at least 82 billion dollars at the federal level and another 25 billion dollars at state and local levels through that practice.

If Talarico wants to talk about theft, he might start there instead of scolding people who built businesses and signed paychecks.

Property taxes are another fine example of government calling permanent rent by a more polite name.

Americans can spend decades paying off a home, only to learn that ownership still comes with annual tribute to local officials who can take the property if the bill is not paid.

Yes, private lenders can foreclose when borrowers fail to meet terms they voluntarily accepted.

But nobody voluntarily signs up for being taxed forever on land and a house they supposedly own outright.

None of this means corporations are saints or that every wealthy person is noble.

Conservatives do not need to pretend that private markets are perfect in order to recognize that government power is far more coercive and far less accountable.

Talarico’s argument relies on an old progressive trick, blame capitalism for the damage caused by political meddling, reckless spending, inflationary policy, regulation, taxation, and bureaucratic arrogance. Then offer voters more of the same medicine that helped make them sick.

Americans are angry because groceries cost more, housing is punishingly expensive, wages feel stretched, and the ruling class keeps lecturing them about fairness while Washington spends money it does not have.

That anger is real, but Democrats keep trying to aim it at job creators instead of the political machine.

If Talarico wants to run as another Democrat who thinks prosperity is suspicious and government control is compassion, he is free to do so.

Voters are also free to notice that his answer to economic pain seems to be more resentment, more government, and fewer people who understand how wealth is actually created.

‘We Are Going to Beat the F**king Sh*t Out of Them’: Trump [WATCH]
News

‘We Are Going to Beat the F**king Sh*t Out of Them’: Trump [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump delivered a blunt warning Wednesday after Iran launched a surprise overnight missile strike targeting American forces in Jordan, making clear that Tehran’s latest act of aggression would not be brushed aside with diplomatic throat clearing.

Speaking to Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump said the United States would respond with force after Iranian ballistic missiles were fired at the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base and the headquarters of United States Central Command in Jordan.

“We’ll be hitting them hard,” Trump said of Iran. “They’re going to get a beating.”

The attack was claimed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to a statement carried by Iran’s state run IRNA news agency.

That detail matters, because Tehran loves hiding behind proxies until the bill comes due.

United States Central Command said all incoming Iranian missiles were successfully intercepted.

Jordan’s military said five Iranian missiles were intercepted and destroyed, and there were no immediate reports of casualties or damage.

Trump said American personnel on the ground had only minutes to react as the missiles came in.

He said he reviewed video of United States forces calling out coordinates in real time while intercepting the incoming threat.

That performance appears to have prevented what could have been a far bloodier outcome.

It also served as a reminder that American troops are still sitting in the crosshairs of a regime that has spent decades exporting terror while pretending to be a normal government.

The strike comes after the Army identified two victims killed in an attack on a Jordan air base, with Trump previously warning that Iran would pay “many times over.”

For a regime used to testing weak Western leaders, the tone from Washington is now considerably different.

Trump also addressed overnight United States and Saudi strikes against Iran backed Shiite militia logistics and weapons sites in eastern Iraq.

The military said the strikes followed alleged drone attacks on Saudi Arabia.

WATCH:

The Saudi Defense Ministry said it “does not seek escalation but will respond to any aggression.”

That is the kind of message Iran’s clerical rulers understand far better than another round of empty international statements.

Trump told Fox News the United States and Saudi strikes in Iraq were coordinated with the Iraqi government.

He described the militias as a “cancer on the world” and said more warnings against Iranian proxies were being considered.

That description will not win applause at a faculty lounge seminar, but it is hard to argue with the substance.

Iran’s proxy network has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and beyond while Democrats and foreign policy mandarins keep rediscovering the magical thinking of appeasement.

The broader regional picture is heating up quickly.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has accused Iran of flying Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel into Yemen as the Houthi threat escalates, further tying Tehran to a web of violence stretching across the Middle East.

Iran’s leadership has long relied on a familiar playbook. Attack through militias, deny responsibility when convenient, celebrate destruction at home, and then complain about escalation when someone finally fires back.

Trump is signaling that this game may be reaching its expiration date.

His message was not wrapped in think tank jargon, but it was direct enough for the mullahs to understand.

Still, the president said talks with Iran will continue.

“We’re going to let them keep talking,” he said.

That line reflects a familiar Trump approach, keep the door open, but do not let talks become a shield for terror.

There is a difference between diplomacy backed by strength and diplomacy used as a sleeping pill for the American people.

Iran’s overnight missile strike also raises fresh questions for Congress about force protection, deterrence, and the security of United States installations across the region.

Lawmakers will likely press the Pentagon for details on the timing of the attack, the intelligence picture before launch, and the readiness of regional air defenses.

For now, the most important fact is that American and allied forces appear to have stopped the missiles before they could kill more United States personnel.

That outcome is a credit to the troops who performed under pressure while the world was asleep.

Tehran gambled that it could fire on American forces and control the consequences.

Trump’s warning suggests the regime may soon learn, once again, that poking the eagle is a very expensive hobby.

Rand Paul Boots Fauci Lawyer From Hearing as Gallery Erupts in Applause [WATCH]
News

Rand Paul Boots Fauci Lawyer From Hearing as Gallery Erupts in Applause [WATCH]

/

Anthony Fauci finally found himself back under congressional scrutiny Wednesday morning, and the scene delivered exactly the kind of accountability moment millions of Americans have been waiting years to see.

The former face of the federal COVID regime appeared before a Senate hearing chaired by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of Fauci’s most persistent and well-informed critics.

Fauci opened with a statement claiming Paul had an “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution,” then promptly invoked the Fifth Amendment.

That move may have kept Fauci from answering direct questions about his record, but it did not spare him from an embarrassing spectacle.

His attorney, David Schertler, managed to become the main event after repeatedly ignoring the rules of the hearing.

Schertler had reportedly been instructed not to sit at the witness table because he was not a witness.

He did it anyway, parking himself beside Fauci as the former bureaucratic pandemic czar declined to answer questions.

The attorney then began speaking during the proceedings despite not being recognized and despite not having a microphone.

Apparently, the same crowd that lectured Americans for years about respecting institutions suddenly forgot how hearings work.

Paul was not interested in letting Schertler hijack the room.

The Kentucky Republican cut him off and reminded him that he had no right to take over the proceedings.

“You will respect these proceedings. You were told not to sit at the table. You insist on sitting at the table and we told you you would not be recognized. You are not invited here for testimony, sir. You are being disruptive. Would you behave this way in a courtroom? No, because the judge would put you in jail. I can’t do that today. But I can have you escorted from the premises,” Paul told Schertler.

That should have ended it.

Instead, Schertler kept talking, giving Paul every reason to call security and have him removed from the room.

“There’s a row behind you, sir. That’s where you were told to sit … and now you’re disrupting the proceedings,” Paul said as the attorney continued his performance.

The chairman made clear that the hearing would not be turned into a Democrat friendly sideshow.

Then Paul delivered the line that captured the whole mess. “This is the way Anthony Fauci wants to be remembered: For a lawyer not listening to the rules. That’s the way you want to be remembered, and that’s what you’re going to do.”

As security escorted Schertler out, the gallery broke into applause.

WATCH:

For a public that endured lockdowns, mandates, school closures, shifting guidance, and endless sanctimony from Fauci and his allies, the reaction was not exactly hard to understand.

The moment was made even richer by the fact that Fauci was hardly abandoned.

Paul noted, with obvious dry humor, that Fauci had several other attorneys present, so nobody needed to faint over the idea that the most protected man in pandemic politics had been left alone.

Investigative journalist Catherine Herridge, who was seated in the gallery, shared what she witnessed from inside the room.

Her reporting added to the sense that the hearing had become a revealing snapshot of how the Fauci orbit operates when it is not being treated like royalty.

For years, Fauci presented himself as the embodiment of science while federal power was used to crush dissent, silence questions, and shame ordinary Americans into compliance.

Parents watched their children fall behind, workers lost jobs, churches were treated like threats, and small businesses were flattened while the expert class congratulated itself.

Yet when Fauci had the chance to answer questions under oath, he chose the Fifth.

That is his legal right, of course, but Americans are also free to draw their own conclusions from a man who spent years demanding trust and then refused to provide answers.

Schertler’s removal only sharpened the contrast.

The same political machine that scolded citizens about rules and responsibility could not even follow basic hearing instructions when the spotlight turned back on them.

Paul, who has challenged Fauci for years on COVID policy, federal health power, and research questions, did not allow the hearing to become another carefully managed performance.

He enforced order, called out the antics, and gave the public a rare sight in Washington: someone actually refusing to indulge the protected class.

Fauci wanted to frame the hearing as persecution. Instead, he helped remind the country why so many Americans lost trust in the public health establishment in the first place.

The applause in the gallery said plenty.

After years of lectures from Fauci world, plenty of Americans are ready to see the lecturing class sit down, stop talking, and finally answer for what it did.

‘Who the F**k Do You Think You Are?’: Fauci Gets Torn a New One by Bernie Moreno [WATCH]
News

‘Who the F**k Do You Think You Are?’: Fauci Gets Torn a New One by Bernie Moreno [WATCH]

/

Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio tore into Dr. Anthony Fauci on Wednesday during a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing, laying the blame for pandemic era mandates squarely at the feet of the former White House COVID czar.

Fauci, long treated by the corporate press as if he existed somewhere above ordinary accountability, sat with his attorney nearby as Moreno made clear this would not be another polite Beltway recital.

“Clearly, what you think today is that somehow you’re above reproach.

Somehow you feel like you don’t need to be treated like a normal American,” Moreno said.

The Ohio Republican then walked through the list of views that got ordinary Americans mocked, censored, fired, or treated like public health heretics during COVID.

Many of those supposedly fringe concerns now look a lot less crazy than the experts insisted at the time.

Moreno pointed to Americans branded racist for using terms tied to the virus origin in China, people who questioned the six foot rule, workers punished over vaccine mandates, and parents furious over school closures. That was not conspiracy talk to millions of families, it was lived reality.

He asked spectators in the room to stand if they had been shamed for holding those views.

Several people rose, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

Moreno then pressed Fauci to turn around and look at them. Fauci declined, choosing instead to speak with someone behind him who appeared to be an attorney or aide.

“Look at the people who were absolutely shamed for saying what we know now to be the truth,” Moreno demanded.

“You can’t even look at them.”

The people who paid the price were in the room, while the man who helped shape the national COVID response would not even give them the courtesy of a glance.

WATCH:

Moreno also recalled a pandemic news story about a mother and her children being arrested for not wearing masks outside while watching a football game.

He said that episode helped push him toward public service.

“When that story broke, I said to myself, ‘I cannot stand idly on the side and watch this happen,’” Moreno told Fauci.

“It was about six years ago today that I decided ‘I’m going to give up my businesses, sell them all, run for office, run for the United States Senate.’”

Moreno then delivered the central accusation, asking in blunt terms who Fauci thought he was to help impose such sweeping decisions on Americans.

WATCH:

It was a rare moment in Washington when the fury outside the marble halls actually made it into the room.

When Moreno tried to question Fauci, the doctor repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.

The report said Fauci did so roughly 1111 times during the hearing, an astonishing figure for a man who spent years speaking with supreme certainty into every available camera.

Republicans on the committee repeatedly tried to draw him out with pointed questions.

Fauci declined again and again, relying on constitutional protection despite having already received a full pardon from then Joe Biden.

Moreno also noted Fauci’s decision to hire David Schertler, a high powered lawyer who represented former Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey in the bribery case that ended with the Democrat’s conviction.

The senator needled Fauci over whether his legal situation was more serious than he wanted to admit.

At one point, Moreno asked whether Fauci would apologize to the people harmed by his actions. “Do you have the dignity to just say you’re sorry?” he asked.

Fauci again invoked the Fifth Amendment. For Americans who lost jobs, watched kids fall behind, or were treated like second class citizens for questioning the official line, that answer spoke volumes.

Committee Chairman Rand Paul of Kentucky later said the panel will vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt for refusing to answer questions. Contempt charges can carry penalties of 1 to 12 months behind bars and fines of up to $100,000.

WATCH:

The hearing was not just about relitigating the pandemic.

It was about whether powerful officials who helped crush livelihoods, close classrooms, and shame dissenters will ever face real accountability, or whether Washington will simply hand them lawyers, pardons, and another round of applause from the usual media choir.

Newsom Affair Bombshell Exposes Kamala Harris Advice to Keep Quiet [WATCH]
News

Newsom Affair Bombshell Exposes Kamala Harris Advice to Keep Quiet [WATCH]

/

Ruby Rippey, the woman at the center of Gavin Newsom’s infamous 2007 affair scandal, has now offered a detailed account of the episode that once rocked San Francisco politics and exposed the messy private conduct behind the polished Democratic brand.

In a Vanity Fair essay published Tuesday, Rippey described her affair with Newsom, who was then Mayor of San Francisco, while also revealing that Kamala Harris privately advised her to stay quiet after the scandal became public.

At the time, Rippey was married to Alex Tourk, Newsom’s campaign manager, and she worked in City Hall as the mayor’s appointments secretary.

That made the situation more than just a personal failure, no matter how hard political professionals may try to file it away as ancient history.

Rippey wrote that Harris, who was then serving as San Francisco District Attorney, gave her direct advice after the affair exploded into public view.

According to Rippey, Harris told her, “I wouldn’t say anything right now, Ruby. Just pause. More time will give you better perspective,”

That advice sounds rather familiar in the world of Democratic damage control.

When a scandal threatens the right people, the preferred strategy always seems to involve silence, time, and the hope that voters will move on before anyone asks too many questions.

The essay also revisits Rippey’s struggle with alcoholism, the collapse of her marriage, and her eventual path to sobriety.

She presents the affair as part of a darker personal period, while also raising questions about how Newsom and his circle later framed the scandal for public consumption.

Rippey took issue with Newsom’s memoir, saying it wrongly suggested that he was the one who “came clean” to her husband.

She said she had already confessed to Tourk, meaning Newsom’s version appeared to give him credit for a confession that was not his.

When Rippey later asked a Newsom adviser whether the governor “tells the truth” in the book, she said the adviser replied, “Well, we all remember things differently, don’t we, Ruby?”

That is quite a line from the political class, where convenient memory appears to be an occupational skill.

Rippey described the beginning of the affair while working in City Hall and recalled nights in hotel rooms, visits to Newsom’s Russian Hill penthouse, and private moments that blurred personal weakness with political power.

WATCH:

Her account paints a picture of proximity, status, and dysfunction inside the orbit of a rising Democratic star.

She wrote that the relationship was not simply about sex, adding, “There is sex, but it isn’t the point.”

In her telling, the deeper pull involved access to power and the feeling of being noticed by someone whose public profile was growing fast.

Rippey also reflected on the imbalance between a powerful mayor and an employee inside his administration.

Though she said she participated willingly, she later came to view the situation differently, writing that “power does not need to coerce. It only needs to exist.”

The scandal broke after Rippey sent an email confession to her husband while he was still working for Newsom.

Tourk confronted the mayor and resigned immediately, turning a private betrayal into a public crisis that City Hall could no longer manage behind closed doors.

Newsom publicly apologized during a 2007 news conference and later announced that he would seek treatment for alcohol abuse.

For a politician who would go on to become governor of California and a national Democratic figure, the affair became one of those stories his team clearly preferred to bury under layers of reinvention.

Harris’s alleged role in advising Rippey to hold her tongue adds another revealing layer.

The same political ecosystem that produced Newsom also produced Harris, and this account places both figures inside the same familiar San Francisco machine when the priority appeared to be containment.

Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to Newsom’s team and Harris’ team for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.

Perhaps silence is still the preferred playbook.

For conservatives watching California’s ruling class lecture the rest of America about morality, equity, and enlightened leadership, Rippey’s account is a reminder that the sermon often looks very different backstage.

The people who present themselves as guardians of decency have a remarkable habit of expecting everyone else to forget the fine print.

Horror on Illinois River as Alleged Drunk Boater Decapitates Woman in Brutal Crash [WATCH]
News

Horror on Illinois River as Alleged Drunk Boater Decapitates Woman in Brutal Crash [WATCH]

/

A horrifying crash on the Fox River in Illinois has left one woman dead, another person critically injured, and a community demanding answers after authorities say a pontoon boat operator was drunk and speeding through a no wake zone.

Richard Stevenson, 45, of Lisle, Illinois, was arrested early Sunday morning after officials say he was involved in a deadly collision between two boats Saturday afternoon near McHenry County.

According to authorities, Stevenson was charged with reckless homicide and aggravated driving under the influence after the crash, which reportedly caused catastrophic injuries to a woman on the boat that was struck.

The details are gruesome, and there is no polite way to dress them up. A woman was killed in a violent impact that witnesses say followed a day of reckless behavior on the water.

Neighbors along the Fox River told local media they had seen the pontoon speeding up and down the river before the fatal crash.

Some residents even captured video of the vessel moving at an alarming speed.

CBS News Chicago reported that neighbors said the pontoon was moving at about 70 miles per hour shortly before the collision.

That is not exactly the sort of casual weekend boating anyone expects in a no wake zone.

Trevor Morris told local media he was outside swinging his daughter when he heard the boat roar past along the river.

Another neighbor reportedly recorded video of the same pontoon just about a minute before the crash downriver around 3 p.m. Saturday.

When residents learned there had been a deadly collision, they said they were not surprised to see that same pontoon at the center of the investigation.

That reaction says plenty about what people nearby had allegedly witnessed before tragedy struck.

Two people were on the boat that was hit.

One person died, and the other was taken to the hospital in critical condition after the vessel suffered extensive damage.

CBS News Chicago reported that the person killed was a woman, although her identity had not been released as of Sunday night.

Her family is now left with the kind of loss no one should ever have to endure because someone allegedly treated a public waterway like a personal racetrack.

Authorities said Stevenson was taken into custody around 4:30 a.m. Sunday.

According to WIFR News, he was found in trees near the shoreline where his pontoon had come to rest.

Two other people who had reportedly been on the pontoon left the scene before law enforcement arrived.

Investigators will no doubt want to know exactly what they saw, what they knew, and why they left.

Stevenson was taken to Northwestern Hospital in McHenry, where testing reportedly showed a blood alcohol concentration of .200.

The legal limit in Illinois is .08.

That number is not a small mistake or a borderline reading.

If authorities are correct, it is more than twice the legal limit, which makes the alleged speeding and reckless operation of a boat even more outrageous.

Witnesses told officers that Stevenson had been drinking throughout the day while operating the pontoon on both the Chain O Lakes and the Fox River at high rates of speed.

The pattern described by witnesses paints a deeply disturbing picture.

WATCH:

Boating is supposed to be a weekend escape for families, not a guessing game over whether some intoxicated thrill seeker is about to come flying around the bend.

Normal people understand that waterways have rules because lives are at stake.

The no wake zone matters for a reason.

Families live along those banks, people fish there, people relax there, and other boaters have every right to expect basic sanity from those sharing the river.

Now prosecutors will have to sort through the evidence, including witness statements, video, toxicology results, and the aftermath of a crash that should never have happened.

Stevenson is entitled to the legal process, but the allegations are chilling.

There is also the heartbreaking reality that a woman went out on the water and never came home.

One person remains critically injured, and a family has been shattered in an instant.

If the allegations prove true, this was not some unavoidable accident caused by bad luck or rough conditions.

It was the predictable result of reckless choices, alcohol, speed, and total disregard for everyone else on the river.

For the victim’s loved ones, the criminal charges will not bring her back.

But if justice is done, the man accused in this case should never again be in a position to endanger innocent people from behind the wheel of a boat.


Scroll to Top