Blog

A Stuttering Jack Smith Says He Can’t Remember Who Swore Him In as Special Counsel

Former special counsel Jack Smith appeared for a testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday as GOP lawmakers probed his efforts to interfere with President Trump’s 2024 election.

Merrick Garland, US Attorney General under Biden, appointed Jack Smith to investigate Trump in November 2022, just one day after Trump announced a 2024 White House bid.

In June 2023, Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate, which was protected by Secret Service agents.

In a separate case in Washington DC, Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

During Thursday’s hearing, Jack Smith said he could not remember who swore him in as special counsel.

It is required by law to be sworn in and take an oath of office.

GOP Rep. Lance Gooden grilled Jack Smith about this and suggested he was an illegitimate prosecutor.

In November 2022, Jack Smith was supposedly sworn in as special counsel.

However, 11 months later, Merrick Garland curiously administered a second oath.

Jack Smith repeatedly claimed he ‘couldn’t recall’ or ‘couldn’t remember’ executing an oath of office.

At one point, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan interjected, asking Jack Smith which oath of office counted.

Jack Smith did not give Chairman Jordan a straight answer.

Keep reading

Senior FBI Official Describes ‘Surreal’ Call Where Kash Patel Dictated Social Media Strategy Right After Kirk Assassination

In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination in September, FBI Director Kash Patel prioritized social media strategy over the bureau’s response to the killing, according to a senior FBI official.

On Thursday, The New York Times published accounts of Patel’s tenure from 45 people who either currently work at the FBI or left during President Donald Trump’s second term.

“Beginning with Trump’s selection of Patel, our sources narrated the events that most troubled them over the last year,” the Times stated. “Many details of what we learned are reported here for the first time.”

Kirk, the conservative activist and founder of TPUSA, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. In an unusual move for an FBI director, Patel traveled to the crime scene that day. Previously, it had been reported that Patel refused to get off the FBI plane in Provo until he was given a medium-sized raid jacket. In its report on Thursday, the Times cited an anonymous “senior executive” in the bureau who described a conference call on the day of the killing.

The official said Patel prioritized social media strategy over next steps in the investigation:

Whenever there’s a critical incident, one of the first things that happens is a conference call with everybody — all the executives, most of the field offices dial in. The director rarely speaks, because someone with situational awareness is leading the call. They’ll say: Here’s what happened. Here’s what we know. Here’s what we need. But we get on, and it’s just Kash berating the special agent in charge in Salt Lake. He’s super emotional.

And then it turns surreal. He and [then-Deputy Director Dan] Bongino start talking about their Twitter strategy. And Kash is like: I’m gonna tweet this. Salt Lake, you tweet that. Dan, you come in with this. Then I’ll come back with this. They’re literally scripting out their social media, not talking about how we’re going to respond or resources or the situation. He’s screaming that he wants to put stuff out, but it’s not even vetted yet. It’s not even accurate.

When I was an agent, I did hundreds of these cases. The initial information that comes in is always wrong. There’s too much coming in, and it takes time to vet. And it was obvious that Kash can’t understand that and doesn’t want to understand that.

Everyone on the call is just like: This guy is completely out of control. On another call, he said: When a crisis happens, the only thing you need to do is call me. The most important thing in any crisis is controlling the narrative. I was like: No, no, no. We actually have to do some work here. We’re going to have to investigate, to solve this.

Hours after Kirk’s assassination, Patel posted on X that the shooter was in custody, but later said the person had been released. The next day, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson turned himself in to authorities.

Keep reading

Canadian woman was euthanized ‘against her will’ after husband was fed-up with caring for her

An elderly woman was euthanized within hours of her husband claiming she changed her mind after insisting she wanted to live.

Canada‘s Medical Assistance in Dying laws allow patients to request a painless death if an assessor agrees their terminal condition meets certain requirements.

Patients often wait weeks, but it can happen the same day the application is lodged if judged to be medically urgent by a MAiD provider.

But a report by the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee raised concerns that safeguards were being eroded that led to questionable deaths.

One case study was that of a woman in her 80s referred to as ‘Mrs B’ who had complications after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

She went into severe decline and opted for palliative care, and was sent home from hospital with palliative support with her husband caring for her.

But as her condition got worse, her elderly husband struggled to care for her even with the help of visits by nurses.

‘Mrs B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf,’ the report read.

Keep reading

Texas AG Starts Investigation Into Vaccine-Related Financial Incentives

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Jan. 21 said he’s investigating incentives related to vaccinating children.

Paxton’s office said in a statement that the probe will cover pediatricians, insurers, vaccine companies, and other entities “engaged in deceptive or unlawful conduct by failing to disclose financial incentives connected to their administration of childhood vaccines.”

It noted that some pediatricians kick out families that refuse to adhere to a vaccine schedule and that doctors can receive bonuses for vaccinating.

An Epoch Times investigation found that insurers have offered bonuses as high as $400 per child as an incentive to vaccinate patients.

Paxton is issuing civil investigative demands for information to companies, including UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer.

“I will ensure that Big Pharma and Big Insurance don’t bribe medical providers to pressure parents to jab their kids with vaccines they feel aren’t safe or necessary,” Paxton said in a statement.

He said that Texans “deserve to have full faith in the recommendations of their medical providers—particularly when it involves the health of their children” and that “any provider or entity whose medical guidance is fueled by financial incentives from an insurance company, Big Pharma, or otherwise will be exposed.”

Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for more information.

UnitedHealthcare had said in a document, which was taken down after The Epoch Times’ story was published, that doctors were eligible for bonuses for patients who received vaccines against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and human papillomavirus.

The Epoch Times reached out to UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer for comment, but they did not respond by publication time.

Studies have found that vaccinations can be profitable, including a 2020 paper. Some doctors have said in surveys that they can lose money on vaccines due to certain factors, such as low reimbursements.

Keep reading

America’s war on…sex toys! Pete Hegseth accused of policing troops’ private lives with Pentagon crackdown on use of intimate devices

As US troops carry out high-stakes missions from Venezuela to the Middle East, the Pentagon has waged an unlikely new battle at home: the war on sex toys. 

In its latest culture-war skirmish, the Daily Mail can reveal military officials recently blocked the delivery of sex toys to troops overseas, igniting ridicule and debate over how far the military should police private life.

First came prohibitions on piercings and nail polish for male military members. Then followed a ban on books with LGBTQ+ and anti-discrimination themes in military libraries. 

Then Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sniped at overweight troops, those with religious beards and chaplains embracing what he deems as new-age beliefs.

Now the Department of War, as Hegseth has renamed the Defense Department, is taking aim at a new target – adult toys. 

In a glaring display of sweating the small stuff, Hegseth’s Navy sent two testy letters to an adult emporium in Toronto slamming it for fulfilling an order to American personnel on a US base in Bahrain.

The items in question: a bullet vibrator and butt plug.

‘Pornographic materials or devices are not allowed into the Kingdom of Bahrain,’ warned one letter sent from the base with the subject line: ‘Adult item identified during X-ray mail screening,’ along with the returned pleasure goods.

Another letter categorized the items as ‘posing an immediate danger to life or limb or an immediate and substantial danger to property.’

The Pentagon has declined comment on the letters, sent over the summer, which the Navy framed as acts of cultural sensitivity meant to avoid offending the conservative Muslim majority in the Persian Gulf island kingdom.

But official customs lists published by Bahrain’s government don’t explicitly list sex toys as forbidden, although they do prohibit the sale and importation of ‘obscene or immoral materials’ that – by either Bahraini or Hegseth’s standards – could apply to personal pleasure devices.

A Navy instructional publication for trainees explicitly states that ‘possession of adult sex toys in the barracks is prohibited’.

The letters have triggered a host of playful social media posts, including sex-toy war stories about which dildos, penis pumps and anal beads current and former US service members have been using to pleasure themselves on overseas bases.

Troops deployed to Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf countries face strict social restrictions and limited interaction with locals.

One of our Pentagon sources notes that maintaining mental health among troops has been a challenge in the region, pointing most notoriously to the 2018 suicide of Vice Admiral Scott Stearney, the commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet based on Bahrain.

Keep reading

Mysterious ‘vehicle of unknown origin’ hidden at US Navy Base raises questions about secret UFO program

A mysterious UFO has been allegedly stored at a little-known US Navy base on the East Coast for decades as the military continues to reverse-engineer its secrets. 

A new report has claimed that Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland, better known as Pax River, has kept an ‘exotic vehicle of unknown origin’ secretly housed there, possibly since the 1950s.

According to anonymous sources tied to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which is headquartered at Pax River, certain military programs at the base have been involved in analyzing and exploiting technology recovered from non-human craft for years.

NAVAIR is a major part of the US Navy, which handles everything related to naval aircraft, weapons, and aviation systems. It designs, builds, tests, buys, repairs, and keeps Navy and Marine Corps aircraft ready for use.

Speaking to the Liberation Times, the unnamed sources claimed that two types of aircraft have been trying to spy on what the US has at Pax River. One is allegedly drones from China, and the other are non-human UFOs.

Recently, this spying activity has allegedly increased and moved closer to land, including right around the Navy base on the Chesapeake Bay.

Although the claims could not be confirmed by the Daily Mail, UFO whistleblower Luis Elizondo stated in written testimony to Congress that a specially built hangar was constructed at Pax River specifically for the transfer of extraterrestrial technology.

Under oath, Elizondo described a plan where this hangar would help major defense contractor Lockheed Martin move non-human technology to another company called Bigelow Aerospace for further study and analysis.

Keep reading

South Dakota Senate Panel Advances Bills To Ban Intoxicating Hemp And Kratom—But Without Recommendations For Passage

A South Dakota Senate panel advanced—but did not endorse—bans on hemp-derived intoxicants and kratom on Wednesday at the Capitol in Pierre.

Both bills were sponsored by Sen. John Carley, R-Piedmont.

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted unanimously to put the two prohibition bills in front of the full state Senate with no recommendation. Committees generally give a “do pass” recommendation to the bills they send out for a floor vote.

The votes came one day after the Senate Judiciary Committee offered its unqualified support for a bill meant to restrict the sale of certain hemp-based products to people older than 21. That bill came from Attorney General Marty Jackley (R).

In testimony about Carley’s bills, business owners and consumers of products like hemp-derived THC seltzers and kratom said they helped people kick opioids or alcohol. They also mentioned sales taxes collected on consumable products and the value of hemp to South Dakota farmers. That led some committee members to oppose the bills and sparked failed attempts to block the proposals. Ultimately, however, the committee opted to let the state Senate weigh in.

“We need to have a conversation about this on the floor,” said Sen. Curt Voight, R-Rapid City. “I think it rises to the level of a legislative decision.”

Possession, sale or use of kratom or THC consumables under each proposal would be a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Tighter rules on hemp products

The first bill, Senate Bill 61, aims to act as an outright ban on the possession, sale or use of any intoxicating hemp products in the state outside of licensed medical marijuana dispensaries.

Such products are typically produced by altering or distilling cannabidiol, or CBD, found in the hemp plant to produce forms of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the intoxicating compound found in greater abundance in the marijuana plant.

Many of the gummies, vape cartridges and other products made using hemp-derived THC variants like Delta-8, Delta-9 or Delta-10 are sold primarily in smoke shops, but THC seltzers are often available at bars, liquor stores or grocery stores.

The products essentially act as a workaround for the prohibition of marijuana in South Dakota by anyone who lacks a medical marijuana card, Carley said. The senator is also a member of the state’s Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, which has taken testimony from medical cannabis providers about the impact the unregulated market has on their operations.

“This actually is harming the licensed marijuana businesses,” Carley said.

Carley had the support of the South Dakota Police Chiefs’ Association, South Dakota Sheriff’s Association and a group called Protecting South Dakota Kids.

Opponents included representatives for hemp retailers and hemp growers and a handful of business owners, who said the bill’s ban on any products with more than 0.4 percent THC by weight would remove many non-intoxicating products from store shelves, including topical creams.

“All this is a hemp and CBD ban,” said Matt Yde, who sells CBD in Sioux Falls but does not offer intoxicating products. “I would have to close my store, because I would have to remove 90 percent of my products.”

Steve Siegel of the South Dakota Trial Lawyers Association said he’s had many friends who’ve switched to THC seltzers from alcohol or pain killers. He said their popularity shows consumer demand, and getting a medical marijuana card can be expensive and onerous.

“These drinks should be regulated. But they’re selling like wildfire,” Siegel said. “They’re a phenomenal alternative to alcohol.”

Carley responded by saying the state shouldn’t be encouraging people to switch from one mind-altering drug to another.

He was “sorry to hear” about people who’d been addicted to painkillers and alcohol, but said instead of switching to a THC alternative, “They need some friends there. They need some church. They need some God in their life, or even ice cream or tea.”

Keep reading

Ancient Cannabis Enzymes Reveal How THC and CBD First Evolved

Scientists are taking a deeper look at the origins of cannabis chemistry by reconstructing enzymes from ancient plants, offering new insight into how cannabis first developed the ability to produce compounds like THC and CBD.

In a recent study published in Plant Biotechnology Journal, researchers at Wageningen University & Research rebuilt molecular structures that existed millions of years ago, revealing that ancient forms of cannabis enzymes were more flexible and robust than those found in modern plants.

The team behind the research says they have successfully traced the evolution of cannabinoid chemistry and identified molecular tools that could improve the biotechnological production of modern medicinal cannabinoids.

The Origin of Cannabinoids

In modern cannabis plants, specialized enzymes are responsible for making individual cannabinoids like THC or CBD. Each enzyme is highly efficient at producing one specific compound. The new study shows that this precision is a recent development in cannabis evolution, rather than something that existed from the start.

Early ancestors of cannabis used versatile enzymes that could create several cannabinoids at once. These enzymes became more specialized over time as gene duplication occurred. This led to the distinct chemical profiles seen in cannabis plants today.

The research team provided direct evidence for this evolutionary process by reconstructing ancient cannabis enzymes in the lab. Their results show that the pathways for creating specific cannabinoids like THC appeared relatively recently and became more specialized over time through natural selection.

Rebuilding Lost Enzymes

The team relied on ancestral sequence reconstruction to study this evolutionary history. They compared DNA from modern cannabis and related species to determine what cannabinoid-producing enzymes looked like millions of years ago.

The researchers synthesized the predicted enzymes and tested their functions in the lab. Many of the reconstructed enzymes converted precursor molecules into several different cannabinoids, unlike the more specialized modern enzymes.

These experiments enabled the team to directly test evolutionary hypotheses that had previously relied solely on genetic comparisons.

Ancient Enzymes as Biotech Tools

The most immediate implications of the study are for biotechnology rather than evolutionary biology. When the researchers expressed ancient enzymes in microbial systems, they found that the reconstructed enzymes were often easier to use than those found in modern cannabis plants.

“What once seemed evolutionarily ‘unfinished’ turns out to be highly useful,” said Robin van Velzen, who led the study with colleague Cloé Villard. “These ancestral enzymes are more robust and flexible than their descendants, which makes them very attractive starting points for new applications in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research.”

Keep reading

Archaeologists: Half a Million-Year-Old Elephant Bone Hammer Wasn’t Made by Modern Humans

Archaeologists from the University of Central London and the city’s Natural History Museum studying a nearly 500,000-year-old elephant bone hammer have determined the ancient tool was made by Neanderthals or another early human ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis, millennia before the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) walked the Earth.

The research team behind the new analysis said that the unexpectedly sophisticated craftsmanship of the elephant bone hammer, the oldest such prehistoric tool ever found in Europe, offers an “extraordinary glimpse” into humanity’s earliest ancestors.

Elephant Bone Hammer Hundreds of Thousands of Years Older Than Previous Finds

According to a statement detailing the new analysis, the tool was originally discovered in the early 1990s at an archaeological site in Boxgrove, near Chichester in West Sussex, England. Numerous ancient tools made from flint, none and antlers have been found at the site, but the hammer is the only tool made from elephant bone.

Elephant bone tools have been discovered in Tanzania, dating back 1.5 million years. The oldest elephant bone tools found in Europe are tens of thousands of years younger, and those were discovered in southern Europe.

To date, very few elephant bone tools older than 43,000 years have been previously identified. As a result, researchers didn’t immediately identify the Boxgrove artefact as a tool until it was studied in detail.

3D Microscopic Analysis Reveals Ancient Tool’s Manufacture and Use

In the team’s published study, the elephant bone hammer is described as triangular, measuring 11 centimeters long, 6 meters wide, and 3 centimeters thick. The researchers said the tool also bears marks that suggest it was “intentionally shaped” for specific utility.

It is mostly composed of cortical bone, which is the dense outer layer of bone tissue. The tool’s density suggests it may have been made from a mammoth, but the fragment is too incomplete to identify the exact species or body part the bone comes from.

Keep reading

Rand Paul Turns Against Section 230, Citing YouTube Video Accusing Him of Taking Money From Maduro

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has long been one of the few refreshing voices out of Washington, D.C., when it comes to free speech, including free speech on social media and elsewhere in the digital realm. He was one of just two senators to vote against FOSTA, the law that started the trend of trying to carve out Section 230 exceptions for every bad thing.

As readers of this newsletter know, Section 230 has been fundamental to the development and flourishing of free speech online.

Now, Paul has changed his mind about it. “I will pursue legislation toward” ending Section 230’s protections for tech companies, the Kentucky Republican wrote in the New York Post this week.

A Section 230 Refresher

For those who need a refresher (if not, skip to the next section): Section 230 of the Communications Act protects tech companies and their users from frivolous lawsuits and spurious charges. It says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” If someone else is speaking (or posting), they—not you or Instagram or Reddit or YouTube or any other entity—are legally liable for that speech.

Politicians, state attorneys general, and people looking to make money off tech companies that they blame for their troubles hate Section 230. It stops the latter—including all sorts of ambulance-chasing lawyers—from getting big payouts from tech companies over speech for which these companies merely served as an unwitting conduit. It stops attorneys general from making good on big, splashy lawsuits framed around fighting the latest moral panic. And it prevents politicians from being more in control of what we all can say online.

If a politician doesn’t like something that someone has posted about them on the internet, doesn’t like their Google search results, or resents the fact that people can speak freely—and sometimes falsely—about political issues, it would be a lot easier to censor whatever it is that’s irking them in a world without Section 230. They could simply go to a tech platform hosting that speech and threaten a lawsuit if it was not removed.

Tech platforms might very well win many such lawsuits on First Amendment grounds, if they had the resources to fight them and chose that route. But it would be a lot easier, in many cases, for them to simply give in and do politicians’ bidding, rather than fight a protracted lawsuit. Section 230 gives them the impetus to resist and ensures that any suits that go forward will likely be over quickly, in their favor.

But here’s the key: Section 230 does not stop authorities from punishing companies for violations of federal law, and it does not stop anyone from going after the speakers of any illegal content. If someone posts a true threat on Facebook, they can still be hauled in for questioning about it. If someone uses Google ads to commit fraud, they’re not magically exempted from punishment for that fraud. And if someone posts a defamatory rant about you on X, you can still sue them for that rant.

Keep reading