Governments across Europe, Asia, North America and elsewhere are increasingly urging citizens to stockpile food, drinking water, medicine and other emergency supplies in case ordinary services suddenly become unavailable.

The warnings cover everything from war and extreme weather to power outages and cyberattacks. But there was an odd report that came out late Thursday night that gives us a clue about what may be coming.

Read more

Newly obtained internal documents show the Biden administration had ambitions far beyond policing speech about COVID vaccines.

Read more

Read more

The Minnesota Democrat has denied wrongdoing and accused the Trump administration of politically targeting her. But investigators are reportedly examining immigration records, questioning relatives, and scrutinizing discrepancies involving her reported date of birth. The inquiry could have consequences extending far beyond Omar’s political career.

Now, according to a bombshell new report, federal authorities are threatening to revoke Omar’s U.S. citizenship.

Read more

President Trump calling for a new Ukrainian president is a watershed moment in the U.S.’s diplomatic relationship with the Eastern European country.

Read more

Barack Obama is warning that artificial intelligence is moving dangerously fast in “private hands” and is clamoring for government oversight of AI.

The alternative, of course, is that AI could kill us all.

This is a familiar ‘crisis’ narrative coming out of the Democrat Party. And it’s one that shouldn’t fool the American people for a second.

Meanwhile, some of the most powerful companies building this supposedly dangerous technology are sounding the alarm themselves.

Read more

A Democratic candidate just abruptly dropped out of a state House race after serious questions emerged about her past and whether she was legally eligible to hold office.

Read more

But it was the way he ended the speech that may have delivered the clearest message of all.

Read more

Juror Paula Devlin has already generated controversy by publicly describing the Clancy case as a potential “turning point” that could improve things for other women, saying jurors wanted to “get a conversation started” about postpartum illness.

But her latest interview contained an even more startling admission.

According to Devlin, some jurors were discussing doing a joint media interview about postpartum issues while jury deliberations were still taking place.

The implications for this admission are simply explosive.

Read more

A remarkably consistent message is suddenly coming from researchers, major AI companies, politicians, advocacy organizations and the media: Artificial intelligence may be advancing too quickly, the consequences could be catastrophic, and governments need to intervene before it is too late.

Any one of those warnings could be taken at face value. Taken together, however, the timing and connections are worth examining.

I’ve been following this story closely, and what initially looked like a series of disconnected AI-safety stories has increasingly developed into a much larger policy battle.

In my VIP report at RedState, “Second Anthropic Researcher Abruptly Quits — His Next Move Is a Major Red Flag for AI,” I take a critical look at the departures of researchers Jacob Coxon and Joe Benton from Anthropic.

Both issued stark warnings about the potential dangers posed by increasingly capable AI systems. But I also examined reporting about the organizations and policy infrastructure surrounding those warnings, including Benton’s move to METR, an organization involved in evaluating the safety of advanced AI systems.

That raised a question that has followed this story ever since: What happens if today’s voluntary AI-safety organizations become tomorrow’s government-mandated gatekeepers?

Then came the politics.

Read more

That’s what happened when Democrat operative David Axelrod was busted live on-air with a flashback to an episode in American history that he was directly a part of.

Read more

As I reported at RedState, juror Paula Devlin made a remarkable admission about the deliberations that ended with an 11-1 deadlock and a mistrial.

Rather than describing the case strictly in terms of the evidence, Clancy’s mental state, and the deaths of her three children, Devlin said jurors believed they had an opportunity to make things “better for other women.”

That immediately raised a much bigger question: Was this jury deciding the fate of Lindsay Clancy, or trying to advance a cause?

Devlin’s comments were particularly striking because she spoke about the case as a potential “turning point.” My argument at RedState was simple: Whatever one thinks about postpartum mental illness or the insanity defense, a criminal trial cannot become a vehicle for advancing feminism, raising awareness, or sending a broader social message. Jurors are supposed to decide the case in front of them.

And then Devlin doubled down.

Responding to criticism of her earlier remarks, she denied that bias drove the verdict but told Fox News Digital that jurors understood they had a chance to “get a conversation started” about women’s mental health and postpartum-related illnesses.

Read more

As if the Missouri politics weren’t crazy enough, we have a mind-bending legal showdown over its midterm Congressional map heading to the Supreme Court. Again.

And Justice Brett Kavanaugh? It looks like he’s in no mood to play.

Read more

And the timing couldn’t be more significant.

The Justice Department is escalating a criminal investigation into the origins and conduct of the Trump-Russia probe, with prosecutors now issuing subpoenas compelling former government officials to testify before a federal grand jury in Florida.

Read more

An Army doctor is working with the Trump administration to investigate whether COVID-19 vaccines contributed to deaths among U.S. service members following the military’s Biden-era vaccine mandate.

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the first new investigation shortly after Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“Fauci’s lack of candor to Congress is unbelievable,” Uthmeier wrote on social media. “My office is launching an investigation into Dr. Fauci. It’s past time we get the truth of what happened during COVID.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill later announced that her office would join Florida and Alabama in reviewing whether Fauci committed offenses that could be prosecuted under state law.

“Fauci lied,” Murrill wrote. “Louisiana and Missouri deposed Dr. Fauci. At the time, he claimed to not recall many key details of his own actions and now we are discovering contemporaneous records he kept.”

“Louisiana will join Alabama & Florida in investigating Fauci and whether he committed any other offenses that could be pursued in our State courts,” she added.

Share

The state-level investigations could become significant because former President Joe Biden’s pardon of Fauci applies only to federal offenses.

On his final day in office, Biden issued Fauci a full and unconditional pardon covering any federal crimes he may have committed or participated in between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 19, 2025, in connection with his government service.

The pardon does not prevent state prosecutors from investigating conduct that may fall within their own jurisdictions.

It also does not establish that Fauci committed a crime, and none of the three attorneys general has publicly announced charges.

The investigations follow Fauci’s July 29 appearance before the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Rand Paul.

Leave a comment

Fauci inappropriately invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times while lawmakers questioned him about the origins of COVID-19, federal funding for coronavirus research, the government’s pandemic policies and his previous testimony before Congress.

He declined to answer even basic questions, including inquiries about the color of his tie and the carpet in the hearing room.

The chairman said the committee would vote on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress.

The hearing followed Paul’s release of more than 1,000 pages from Fauci’s pandemic-era diary.

Republican lawmakers contend that the entries reveal discrepancies between Fauci’s private writings and his public statements about pandemic policies, COVID-19’s possible origins and his influence within the federal government.

Florida, Louisiana and Alabama are examining whether state laws provide an avenue for pursuing allegations that Biden’s federal pardon cannot reach.

Subscribe now

The disclosures arrived as Fauci prepared to appear before Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director faced renewed questioning about gain-of-function research, the government’s handling of the pandemic, and his previous congressional testimony.

In a video announcing the release, Gabbard said the documents detail Fauci’s alleged role in “providing millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute”—research she said is now “widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic.”

The newly released files focus on Fauci’s congressional testimony in 2024.

According to Gabbard, the records contradict Fauci’s sworn statement that he had not communicated with U.S. intelligence agencies—including the FBI, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—about viral research connected to COVID-19.

When asked by lawmakers whether he had spoken with those agencies regarding coronavirus research before, during, or after the pandemic, Fauci responded:

“Not to my knowledge about COVID.”

Gabbard contends the newly released documents tell a different story.

The document release immediately drew praise from one of Fauci’s most persistent critics on Capitol Hill.

“Thank you to Tulsi Gabbard for her leadership and service in pursuing the truth, even when it wasn’t politically convenient,” Rand Paul wrote on X.

Paul has spent years arguing that Fauci knowingly misled Congress regarding National Institutes of Health funding that ultimately flowed through EcoHealth Alliance to coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci has consistently denied lying to Congress and has maintained that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan as defined under applicable federal policies.

Paul also questioned whether former President Joe Biden’s sweeping preemptive pardon of Fauci should survive legal scrutiny.

“He not only destroyed records, but he would send emails to others and say when you read this destroy it,” Paul told The National News Desk. “So, he’s guilty of multiple crimes and someone needs to have the guts to indict him. He needs to be investigated.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) similarly argued that Biden’s pardon may not foreclose every possible avenue for legal accountability.

Share

“The presidential pardon doesn’t impact state charges so there still may be some possibilities there,” Johnson told The National News Desk. “I think where there’s fraud involved, I’m not sure where the statute of limitations apply to all of his potential crimes.”

The latest disclosures were part of a broader effort by Gabbard to declassify intelligence records before departing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Supporters say the releases advance long-overdue transparency surrounding one of the most consequential public health crises in modern history. Critics have argued that intelligence and scientific assessments should not be selectively disclosed or interpreted outside their broader context.

Fauci has not publicly responded to Gabbard’s latest document release.

He has consistently denied allegations that he concealed the origins of COVID-19, lied under oath, or knowingly funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Throughout multiple congressional appearances, Fauci has maintained that his actions were guided by the scientific evidence available at the time and that accusations against him are politically motivated.

Even so, the serious nature of Gabbard’s disclosures are difficult to ignore.

We had fireworks on Capitol Hill when Anthony Fauci testified before the Senate and he pled the 5th 111 times and he was roundly scolded by the senators that were in attendance.

And some of the highlights of this are quite eye-opening because they really told Fauci off and spoke for millions of Americans who want justice over the COVID pandemic response.

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s words, well, they were quite impactful during the entire time. But as we saw with recently released documents that are being referred to as a Fauci diary, the nation’s top COVID doctor was saying things in private that did not match what he was telling the public. This goes towards all sorts of controversial subjects that we don’t need to delve into too far here.

I’m sure people who are watching me are pretty much on the same page that the entire response was botched and faith in science and medical authority was severely undermined. That is something that Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri pointed out in a scathing diatribe. Let’s take a look.

“With your time, you could sit for InStyle magazine, but you can’t answer questions for the American people. You could sit for InStyle magazine, but you’re here taking the Fifth. You could sit for InStyle magazine and get a million bucks in cash awards, but now the cat’s got your tongue. I bet he does.

“I’ll tell you what. Here’s my conclusion from all of this. This was really all about you the whole time. Somewhere along the way, you lost your way. You may have been a good public servant at one time, I don’t know. But I can tell you from reading your emails now, from looking at what you did and how you used your employees, somewhere along the line it became all about you. Your image, your self-aggrandizement, your self-promotion, your personal enrichment. That’s what all this has been about.

“One thing I learned from your email, doctor, is you hate President Trump. You absolutely hate him. It’s all over your emails. It is dripping from every page. You’re entitled to your political views, but what you’re not entitled to do is use your office to punish people who disagree with you politically or to interfere with scientific inquiry because you don’t like the people asking the questions. And that’s exactly what you did.”

“With your time, you could sit for InStyle magazine, but you can’t answer questions for the American people. You could sit for InStyle magazine, but you’re here taking the Fifth. You could sit for InStyle magazine and get a million bucks in cash awards. But now the cat’s got your tongue. I bet he does.

“I’ll tell you what. Here’s my conclusion from all of this. This was really all about you the whole time. Somewhere along the way, you lost your way. You may have been a good public servant at one time, I don’t know, but I can tell you from reading your emails now, from looking at what you did, how you used your employees, somewhere along the line it became all about you.

“You became a narcissist and a megalomaniac and a liar. You’ve lied to the American people, you’ve lied to this body, and you’ve disgraced your profession by doing it. You called yourself the most famous scientist in the world. You’ve done more to harm science than anybody in my lifetime, and I hope you’ll go home and write that in your diary.”

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Now, even more colorful, and laden with some profanity, was the rant of Senator Bernie Moreno from Ohio. He really had the “how dare you” vibe going with this, and it is something that I believe a lot of Americans want to tell Fauci. Where does he get off? Well, let’s listen to Senator Moreno.

“Those policies were put in place because you had moronic politicians that listened to the words of a megalomaniac who was more interested in meeting a Kardashian than the suffering of the American people.”

“Those policies were put in place because you had moronic politicians who listened to the words of a megalomaniac who was more interested in having met a Kardashian than the suffering of the American people. And that is you.

“Your advice to communities like that, to idiotic politicians who enforced those rules, arrested that mom for watching a football game with her own family outside.

“When that story broke, I said to myself, I cannot stand idly on the side and watch this happen. 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.

“Here I am sitting in front of you six years later saying, who the fuck do you think you were for doing that? It is a total disgrace what you did to this country. And if my Democrat colleagues are standing there defending you, I hope the voters of the United States of America watch the clips of every one of you doting on a guy who was more interested in being a celebrity than saving American people.”

The narrator continued:

Another outburst didn’t come from a Republican senator during this theatrical display, but from one of Fauci’s lawyers. Dr. Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky, had the lawyer removed by security, and this exchange is definitely worth watching.

The questioning began with the statement, “The benefits of gain-of-function research outweigh the risks.”

Fauci replied, “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

The chairman responded, “The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon. The committee will have to consider after this hearing what appropriate action should be taken against you for failing to testify after being directed to do so.”

“The committee will have to consider, after this hearing, what appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so. It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today.”

Then the hearing turned chaotic.

“Senator Peters.”

“You’re not recognized.”

“You’re not recognized.”

“If you are unruly, you will be removed from the proceeding.”

“You are not recognized.”

“And you are not recognized, sir.”

“Sir, you are not recognized.”

“You are not recognized.”

“Security. We’ll hold off. But 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 that 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. So I would say, sir, sit quietly and don’t say another word. I said sit quietly. You are not recognized. Another word and you’re gone.”

“So, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to hear what the attorney has to say.”

“He is not recognized by the committee or the chair. If he speaks again, he will be removed from the room. This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers. He can advise. His lawyers can give him advice. He’s got a half dozen here. They are all allowed to talk to him. All right? But the attorneys are not recognized. In fact, the attorney was told not to sit at the table, and he’s not obeying that recommendation. There’s a row behind you, sir. That’s where you were told to sit, and you’re not. Now you’re disrupting the proceedings.”

“So look, 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. You are not recognized, sir.”

The larger question is whether anything beyond “strongly worded letters and public theatrics” will come from the hearing. The pardon granted by former President Joe Biden reportedly extended back to 2014 and covered potential crimes that could be brought against Dr. Fauci.

This type of presidential pardon is unprecedented and has not yet been tested in court. Some constitutional scholars question whether such a broad pardon would withstand legal scrutiny.

There is also the issue of whether Fauci was entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment if he had already been protected by a pardon. This could expose Fauci to a contempt of Congress allegation because the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination when criminal prosecution is possible.

Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment could ultimately expose him to a contempt of Congress charge.

If Fauci’s pardon is legally valid, then the Fifth Amendment would no longer protect him from answering questions because there would be no risk of self-incrimination. That could mean Fauci is legally at risk for refusing to testify.

Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times and that is “a lot of contempt for Congress.” Fauci no longer appeared “boastful and arrogant,” but instead seemed to be shaking and looked apprehensive. Fauci’s six attorneys also appeared nervous throughout the testimony.

We will have to wait and see whether, as Senator Rand Paul suggested, the committee will move forward with a contempt of Congress vote the following week.

Such a vote under U.S. law could theoretically lead to a fine and up to one year in prison. This would be “the least” Fauci could face for his wrongdoing during the COVID pandemic response.

Read Fauci’s diary for yourself. Ignore the passages about celebrities, including Julia Roberts, and instead compare Fauci’s private writings with his public statements.

Those two versions are “wildly discordant” and cannot be reconciled into a reasonable understanding of what Fauci truly believed during the pandemic.

The video concluded by asking viewers whether they believed the hearing amounted to useful political oversight or merely political theater. The narrator questioned whether the proceedings could actually result in a contempt of Congress charge against Fauci, while predicting that Democratic members of Congress would oppose such a move. He argued that Democrats do not hold members of their own party accountable and asserted that this encourages further misconduct.

The response to the pandemic demonstrated a lack of respect for the rights of American citizens and that elected officials who supported those policies should be held accountable.

But the man who once called himself “The Science” got some very bad news from Senator Rand Paul after the Senate hearing.