Blog

Congress Asked Fauci at Least 111 Questions — Fauci Refused to Answer at Least 111 Times

Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked at least 111 questions today during a contentious congressional hearing on the origins of COVID-19 and his role in leading the government’s response to the pandemic.

And at least 111 times, Fauci said the same thing:

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

Fauci repeatedly invoked what he claimed was his Fifth Amendment right to not answer the committee’s questions — even though former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a preemptive pardon last year, shielding him from federal prosecution for his official actions dating back to 2014.

Immediately following today’s hearing, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced that his office is launching an investigation into Fauci.

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

Legal experts said Biden’s preemptive pardon doesn’t protect Fauci from state-level charges.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said the committee will schedule a vote next week on a resolution to hold Fauci in contempt.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked Fauci to agree to volunteer for a transcribed Senate interview — to which Fauci again invoked the Fifth Amendment.

“Expect a subpoena. Thank you,” Johnson said.

Keep reading

Bureau of Land Management Approves First-Ever AI Data Center on Public Lands

A little over a year ago, on July 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order announcing that “my Administration will utilize federally owned land and resources for the expeditious and orderly development of data centers.”

And indeed, just last month, on June 26, 2026, the Trump administration approved the first-ever commercial AI data center on public land.

The Townsite Data Center would be located on 88.5 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Eldorado Valley. It would sit within the city limits of Boulder City, Nevada, a historic community of fewer than 15,000 people southeast of Las Vegas, often referred to as the “gateway to the Hoover Dam.”

The facility would draw as much as 167 megawatts of electricity—more than Boulder City itself consumes—and place two warehouse-scale buildings, parking lots, an electrical substation, battery storage, backup generators, powerlines, and a brand new road in the middle of desert tortoise habitat.

And yet, Bruce Sillitoe, the BLM’s Las Vegas Field Office Manager, approved the AI data center in June without preparing a new environmental assessment or soliciting any public comment.

Instead, the agency relied on a prior analysis conducted for a completely different proposal: a solar-energy and battery-storage project called Townsite Solar 2, which was first proposed by the same Houston-based company that now wants to build a data center there instead.

The maps below, obtained from the BLM’s Plan of Development, show the location of the proposed Townsite Data Center relative to Las Vegas and Lake Mead, and Boulder City. “Development of data center and AI infrastructure is a top priority [of] the United States Government,” the Plan of Development says.

Keep reading

Coordinated campaign targeting Canadian firms linked to Israel

One week ago, Juno News investigative journalist Melanie Bennet published a report on a pro-Palestinian activist network called Arms Embargo Now and its connections to Palestine Action Canada — a group that has been attacking Canadian companies it believes are linked to Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems, posting CCTV footage of its own crimes on Instagram, and claiming responsibility in the name of political aims.

On the day Bennet appeared on The Ezra Levant Show, a Toronto armoured car company called Incas, which appears on the Arms Embargo Now target map — was shot at. Palestine Action Canada had not claimed responsibility as of broadcast.

But the timing was not lost on either Melanie or Ezra. “Literally every day in Toronto, there’s another shooting,” Ezra said. “Two days ago, two Jewish delis. Yesterday, the U.S. Consulate for the second time. Today, this.”

Melanie walked through the information she’s gathered on the network she had been tracking.

Arms Embargo Now is a coalition of activist groups, including Labour for Palestine, World Beyond War, Palestinian Youth Movement and others, that has built a map of Canadian companies it claims supply Elbit Systems or its affiliates.

On the surface, the campaign involves letter-writing and complaints directed towards MPs. But it is also closely connected to Palestine Action Canada, a domestic branch of a global organization.

In the United Kingdom, Palestine Action UK was designated a terrorist organization after one of its members attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer during a so-called “direct action” campaign. At home, Palestine Action Canada has taken responsibility for attacks on a Quebec company called Devtech and an Ontario company called Don Limited in Vaughan, posting CCTV footage of itself committing the vandalism both times.

Bennet said the legal framing of these incidents matters.

Under the RCMP’s own definition, terrorism includes property damage carried out for political or social aims. Palestine Action Canada has explicitly stated political motivations for its attacks. “That is by definition domestic terrorism,” she said. “And I don’t think we’re taking this seriously enough.”

Interpol’s 2025 terrorism assessment, she noted, lists left-wing and anarchist terrorism — what it categorizes as the “red-green alliance” of Marxist and jihadist groups acting in concert — as the second largest terrorism threat category in Europe after jihadism. Europe is making arrests in this category.

Canada, she argued, has a significant blind spot. 

An access to information request of Canadian security service reporting showed no clear tracking of this kind of domestic terrorism. “Canada has a very big blind spot,” she said. “And those things tend to escalate if they’re not dealt with.”

Ezra noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently convened foreign ambassadors specifically to discuss radical far-left Antifa violence, and that Canada sent the lowest-level delegate possible.

He argued the Trudeau and Carney governments have made a deliberate political calculation: naming jihadist or Antifa violence would alienate their support base, so they fund organizations like the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to redirect attention toward an exaggerated right-wing threat instead.

“These violent people are the street teams of the left,” he said. “And if you’re even a peaceful street team on the right — like the truckers — off to jail with you.”

Melanie’s had a direct warning for Canadians. 

“When you have people who are willing to engage in violence for ideological reasons and it is not dealt with, this tends to escalate,” she said. “The last thing I would want is for somebody in one of these companies that have been shot up to actually get shot — or to start seeing violence against civilians in the street the way we’ve seen in Europe.”

Keep reading

Only the Tip of the COVID Conspiracy Has Surfaced

Dr. Anthony Fauci, now 85 who led the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022, on July 29 refused to answer questions from senators following the release of a diary he compiled while working in government. He took the 5th Amendment to every question. He indeed could to invoke the Fifth Amendment despite receiving a presidential pardon because that covered past events, not perjury in the present.

A presidential pardon generally removes the threat of federal criminal prosecution for past acts. However, it does not automatically eliminate a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The constitutional protection applies if there remains a “realistic prospect of prosecution” from any government—federal or state.

In Dr. Fauci’s case, his legal team identified two specific risks that, in their view, kept the threat of prosecution ver much alive since many would love to see him behind bars.

The pardon was for past actions, but it did not provide immunity for future testimony. If Dr. Fauci gave testimony that contradicted his previous statements, he could face new charges for perjury or making false statements to Congress. A pardon that protects a person from criminal prosecution doesn’t rewrite history. It certainly does not prevent Congress from establishing what actually happened.

The real interesting facet is that his presidential pardon whether by autopen or not, only applies to federal crimes, NOT state crimes. This means there was still a theoretical possibility of prosecution at the state level for related matters. A State governor seeking a presidential run could indict Fauci ro the cheers of many.

Fauci appeared under a subpoena from Chairman Rand Paul. In his opening statement, he cited Senator Paul’s “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution” as the reason he would not testify, stating that he was following his lawyers’ advice to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. Throughout the hearing, he repeatedly responded to questions by stating: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Senator Paul argued that the pardon should have compelled Fauci to testify and that he could still be held accountable for lying under oath because the pardon did not cover perjury committed during the hearing. Senator Paul also stated his intention to pursue charges of obstruction of Congress against Fauci for refusing to answer questions.

Keep reading

WNBA Posts, then Deletes Video Showing Angel Reese and Paige Bueckers Illegally Betting on All-Star Game

The WNBA posted a video of players Angel Reese and Paige Bueckers betting on which team would win the All-Star game but then deleted the video after realizing that the gambling was both illegal and violated league rules.

The video posted to the WNBA’s official X account on Wednesday showed the Atlanta Dream’s Angel Reese — who was dumped by the Chicago Sky after less than two seasons — and Dallas Wings guard Paige Bueckers waving around fistfuls of hundred-dollar bills and laying down bets over which team would win the WNBA All-Star Game.

The video shows Bueckers admitting that the two bet on the game and also features Reese saying, “I’m gonna see you next week on Wednesday. I know y’all gonna lose.”

Bueckers played for Team Spoon while Reese played for Team Coop during the game, with Team Spoon winning the contest 129-122.

The video, though, shocked many. Sportsman and Outkick owner Clay Travis, for instance, noted that “Players in the NFL have missed entire seasons for this. Legit the dumbest move, potentially, in social media history by a sports league to post this.”

The WNBA later explained that the video and X posting was a “mistake” that “missed the mark” and was meant to be a “lighthearted” moment for social media consumption to advertise the All-Star Game.

“While the social media post was intended to be lighthearted, WNBA players are well aware of the league’s policies prohibiting betting on WNBA games and receive training every year reinforcing those policies,” the league said in a statement. “We recognized that the post missed the mark, removed it shortly after it was published, and addressed the matter internally. We will also use this as an opportunity to reemphasize with the players involved that conversations about wagering on WNBA games, even when intended as a joke, can have negative consequences.”

According to the league’s own rules and its agreement with the players’ association, gambling on WNBA games is strictly prohibited, and those caught breaking the rule could be fined, suspended, or even disqualified from ever playing pro basketball again.

The league did not say whether it will place penalties on Bueckers or Reese or their teams. But it is also clear that the video was made in cooperation with the league’s own social media department.

Keep reading

Establishment Democrats Make Last Stand Against Socialist Takeover with Bizarre Rep. Haley Stevens Debate

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed presented Michigan Democrats with sharply different choices Monday during their final Senate debate before the August 4 primary, clashing over outside spending, corporate political contributions, Israel, immigration, health care, and which candidate was better positioned to defeat Republican Mike Rogers.

The Fox 2 Detroit debate highlighted the divide between Stevens, who is backed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), and El-Sayed, who has endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and the United Auto Workers.

Outside spending and campaign finances dominated much of the debate. Stevens’ campaign and six super PACs backing her have spent more than $61 million on primary ads, according to AdImpact figures shared by CBS. El-Sayed’s campaign and outside groups supporting him have spent more than $15.3 million combined, according to FEC reports cited by CBS.

The New York Times reported that United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s main super PAC, had spent $30.6 million on advertising backing Stevens, while six other super PACs that had not disclosed their donors spent a combined $29.4 million on her behalf. 

El-Sayed repeatedly argued that groups spending tens of millions of dollars to support Stevens would expect something in return.

“Sixty million dollars from outside organizations in this race didn’t just go nowhere,” El-Sayed said. “It’s because those exact same organizations expect something on the other side.” He added that they “expect to own your next U.S. senator.”

He also questioned Stevens’ electability without that financial advantage.

“If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can’t be elected on your own terms,” he said.

Stevens countered that El-Sayed also benefits from Fighting for Michigan PAC, which had spent about $2.4 million as of the debate. She said she did not believe there was “much difference” between super PACs supporting either candidate and pointed to her A grade from End Citizens United and endorsement from Defend the Vote.

The candidates also sparred over contributions connected to DTE Energy and Consumers Energy.

Moderator Roop Raj asked Stevens whether she was taking money from the two utilities for her Senate campaign. Stevens initially deflected, speaking about her transparency and criticism of her voice, before Raj pressed her for a direct answer. She then said no.

The Detroit News reported that Stevens’ House campaign received approximately $63,500 from the utilities’ main political action committees between 2019 and 2025. Her House committee later transferred two $2,500 contributions — one originating from DTE and one from Consumers Energy — to her Senate committee.

After the debate, Stevens said she answered no because Raj had asked specifically about the Senate race. El-Sayed called her response a “frank lie,” arguing that money transferred into her Senate committee had still entered the Senate campaign.

Israel and AIPAC also emerged as central points of disagreement. El-Sayed criticized Stevens for voting against cutting off U.S. aid to Israel and linked the vote to spending by United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s principal super PAC.

“That is the pro quo that comes with the quid of $30 million spent by AIPAC,” El-Sayed said.

Stevens responded by pointing to the super PAC supporting El-Sayed. “I don’t think there’s much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me,” she said.

The candidates also disagreed over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Stevens pointed to her visit to an ICE detention facility and said the agency’s treatment of detainees had become unacceptable.

“I went up to an ICE detention facility to call out and see why people were losing their lives, why they were being held for long periods of time without due process,” Stevens said. “This has been an outrage.”

El-Sayed took a more sweeping position, calling for ICE to be abolished.

“The idea that somehow we can’t say ‘abolish ICE’ because we’re so afraid of what they’re going to say, when we’ve seen ICE terrorize people in our streets, to me, it is exactly the kind of cowardice that we don’t need from Democrats,” he said.

Asked about accusations that he is a socialist, El-Sayed rejected the label and argued that monopolies and oligopolies pose the greatest threat to capitalism.

“I’m not a socialist,” El-Sayed said. “I’m just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works. The biggest threat to capitalism was never the idea of government regulation. It was always monopoly.”

He continued: “I think government ought to be there to regulate on monopolies and oligopolies, so that everybody can actually participate in an economy without having to be forced to pay more or get paid less for the work that they do.”

Elsewhere in the debate, El-Sayed called for eliminating the Senate filibuster, passing the PRO Act, taxing billionaire wealth, strengthening antitrust enforcement, and establishing Medicare for All.

Stevens portrayed El-Sayed as a “celebrity candidate” who viewed the Senate as another step toward higher office, pointing to his podcasts, books, and what she said was a website for a presidential campaign.

Keep reading

One-Third of Democrats Identify as Democrat Socialists

Far-left CNN reports that “about a third of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults identify as democratic socialists,” per the latest polling.

This is a big problem for an increasingly radicalized Democrat Party that continues to move further and further to the left and far out of mainstream thinking on issues like abolishing prisons, abolishing the U.S. Senate, sexualizing and queering little kids, defunding the police, open borders, socialized medicine, annihilating Israel, and outright property confiscation.

The polling shows that 59 percent of these socialists are under age 45 and — surprise, surprise — predominantly white (57 percent). They are also less likely to have a college degree or make over $100,000 per year.

What should truly trouble the Democrat Party is how motivated these loons are to vote — 66 percent are “extremely motivated to vote this year,” compared to just 57 percent of non-socialist Democrats.

When these extremists win primaries, especially in purple states, that gives Republicans a real chance to prevail. Socialist Abdul El-Sayed is less than a week away from winning the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate. The problem for Democrats is that he is a total radical, but he’s a radical who is up over his closest primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, by double digits. However, polling also shows that he is losing to the Republican nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by double digits, whereas Stevens is tied with Rogers.

In Wisconsin, another purple state, socialist Francesca Hong is running away with the race to choose the Democrat nominee for governor. Polls also show that Hong is behind the likely Republican nominee, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, whereas Hong’s closest primary opponent, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, is up by four points over Tiffany.

Between the war with Iran and the high gas prices, not to mention the usual-usual voter bias against any White House incumbent during off-year elections, Democrats should be romping all over the country. Instead, at least as of right now, Republicans look like they will hold on to control of the Senate and have a fighting chance to hold the House.

If forced to bet my life, I’d give the Senate to the GOP and the House to Democrats, but a normal Democrat Party would be coasting to victory in this political environment. Their problem, of course, is that they have a tiger by the tail with these radicals, a tiger they created over the last ten years, where they radicalized their base to oppose President Trump on absolutely everything, including commonsense policies like locking up criminals and deporting rapists.

Keep reading

Fla. AG says his office is opening an investigation into Fauci after Senate hearing

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has announced that his office is opening an investigation into Anthony Fauci, the former White House chief medical adviser, following a fiery Senate hearing.

Emphasizing Fauci’s unwillingness to answer lawmaker’ questions on Wednesday, Uthmeier revealed the move in a social media post.

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

During the hearing, Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 111 times as Republican senators asked him questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and its origins.

Fauci’s appearance before the committee came after Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who chairs the committee, released more than 1,000 pages of his private diary entries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pages appeared to reveal discrepancies between Fauci’s public statements regarding the virus and its impact and his private conversations and information.

In a statement to Fox News, Uthmeier elaborated on his office’s move to investigate Fauci.

“In light of recent reports exposed by Senator Rand Paul, we will investigate any and all potential violations of Florida law involving Anthony Fauci,” Uthmeier told Fox News.

“Our inquiry will focus on what Fauci knew, when he knew it, and how he misled the American people. We will examine the physical and monetary harms to Floridians that may have resulted from his deceptions and determine whether his conduct exposes him to liability under state law,” he continued.

In a 2020 diary entry, Fauci estimated a lower COVID-19 death rate than what he told Congress under oath a week later, as well as other seeming discrepancies. While some view the messaging as inconsistent, others attributed the differences to evolving data.

While speaking on The Benny Show on Thursday, Uthmeier said they would be sending “a plane up to D.C. and get any file they’re willing to share with us.”

“I look forward to working with Senator Rand Paul. I know he’s eager to find accountability,” he continued, adding that it would be likely they would issue subpoenas “as early as next week.”

Keep reading

Musk’s America PAC Reportedly Plans $120 Million Midterm Blitz, Setting Stage For Renewed Left-Wing War On Elon

The New York Times reports that Elon Musk’s America PAC plans to spend as much as $120 million to help Republicans in November’s midterm elections, signaling that the world’s richest man is preparing to reenter the political game with fewer than 100 days until voters head to the polls.

America PAC’s spending surge will likely spark a coordinated opposition campaign from Democratic groups and left-wing NGOs, ranging from protests and activist pressure to sustained negative press coverage of Musk, as well as attempts to damage his brands, including Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI.

The Democrats’ playbook could resemble their coordinated pressure campaign against Musk when he was involved with DOGE and the dismantling of most of USAID. This sparked street demonstrations by left-wing and far-left activist networks supported by left-wing NGOs, along with an aggressive left-leaning media campaign that sought to make him the public face of the administration’s agenda.

The NYT report is based on “two people briefed on the plans,” and like many stories run by left-leaning corporate media. Musk usually denies the reports on X, but if this report is correct, it says Musk authorized America PAC to build a field operation across at least eight states, targeting Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, while considering contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.

Keep reading

Biden’s Pardon Can’t Protect Fauci From Legal Consequences

Dr. Anthony Fauci may have believed his Fifth Amendment marathon at the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday would shield him from prosecution, but he miscalculated.

Before he refused to answer questions from the committee, Fauci did deliver an opening statement, during which he attacked Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and explained his decision not to answer any questions.

“Given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and, recently, his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something – anything – that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,'” Fauci said. “Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”

And so he did, an estimated 111 times, but it won’t protect him completely.

On Jan. 20, 2025, his last day in office, Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon covering any offenses he may have “committed or taken part in” tied to his government roles between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 19, 2025. The broad preemptive pardon Joe Biden handed him on the way out the door covers federal charges alone, and it leaves him exposed to the state charges that may arrive sooner than his lawyers expected.

Florida wasted no time proving the point. State Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) after Fauci declined to answer lawmakers’ questions on Wednesday.

Keep reading