Deletes emails Fauci Intelwars Kristian andersen Twitter

Scientist who told Fauci COVID-19 possibly engineered — then argued the opposite — deletes Twitter account

A virologist who co-wrote in March 2020 arguing against the lab-leak theory regarding COVID-19’s origins has deleted his Twitter account amid scrutiny after unearthed emails show he told Dr. Anthony Fauci just weeks prior that “some of the features” of the virus “(potentially) look engineered.”

What are the details?

Virologist Kristian Andersen, a professor at Scripps Research Institute, has fallen under the microscope after a trove of emails from Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, were obtained by the media last week through Freedom of Information Act requests.

As TheBlaze previously reported, Andersen wrote Fauci on Jan. 31. 2020, that “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered."

NBC News reported that just four days after that email to Fauci, Andersen wrote in another email that suggestions that the virus was engineered were “crackpot theories,” adding, “we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”

A few weeks later on March 17, 2020, the journal Nature Medicine published an article by Andersen and four other researchers wherein they argued, “We do not believe any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

Upon the emergence of emails between Andersen and Fauci, people began calling out Andersen on social media and urging him to explain himself on his apparent about-face on the origins of COVID-19 in such a short period of time. Others criticized the NIH funding Andersen and Scripps received following his public dismissal of the lab-leak theory, and several users accused the virologist of deleting thousands of tweets following the emergence of the emails. He ultimately deactivating his account altogether.

Newsweek reported that before Andersen deleted his account he defended himself, tweeting in response to a question on his email to Fauci, “we thought — on preliminary look — that the virus could have been engineered and/or manipulated. Turns out the data suggest otherwise — which is the conclusion of our paper.”

He continued, “As I have said many times, we seriously considered a lab leak a possibility. However, significant new data, extensive analyses and many discussions led to the conclusions in our paper. What the email shows is a clear example of the scientific process.”

Andersen told Newsweek, “Conspiracies have created a narrative where we all dismissed it [the lab-leak hypothesis] out of hand. That’s absurd and couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s just that the data don’t support the hypothesis.”

Anything else?

A Twitter spokesperson confirmed to Fox News that Andersen deleted his own account, but Andersen did not immediately reply to the outlet’s request for comment on him leaving the platform and his emails to Fauci.

Big tech Change my mind COMEDY covid Crowder Crowder bits Crowder bits playlist1776 Crowder clips Crowder confronts Crowderbits CURRENT EVENTS Dr. fauci email leaked emails fake news Fauci Fauci emails Funny conservative How to debate How to debunk Intelwars Leaks liberal libertarian Louder with crowder Lwc Mug club news pandemic Politics Stephen Crowder Steven Crowder Video

Steven Crowder says Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Bezos see themselves as ‘kings’

In this clip, Steven Crowder laid out his theory that could explain why Big Tech initially censored the voices of those who dared to question whether or not COVID originated in a lab in Wuhan, China.

“If Facebook , YouTube and Twitter decide they do not want you to hear a story, then you won’t hear the story,” Crowder said. “These people [Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos] see themselves as kings,” he continued.

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request uncovered a March 15, 2020 email that was sent from Zuckerberg to Dr. Anthony Fauci asking how he [Zuckerberg] could help Fauci get his message out.

Crowder wonders why Zuckerberg would reach out to Anthony Fauci instead of Chinese scientists who blew the whistle on the lab leak. Crowder appealed to his audience and asked if we as a country would be better off today if Facebook had consulted with whistleblowers instead of censoring a theory that Facebook has since deemed possible? Here’s Crowder with details.

Want more Crowder? Download the podcast here to catch up on missed episodes.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Advantageous anthony fauci emails Intelwars Jen psaki WHITE HOUSE

Psaki calls Fauci an ‘undeniable asset,’ but dodges when asked for comment on emails

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki referred to Dr. Anthony Fauci as “an undeniable asset” in America’s fight against the coronavirus on Thursday, but refused to weigh in on the controversy over newly-emerged emails of the doctor’s from last spring.

Fauci has been blasted in recent days by critics who say the emails show he was misleading to the public on a number of issues relating to the pandemic.

What are the details?

A reporter questioned Psaki about an email exchange Fauci had with another doctor from early 2020, dismissing the “lab leak theory” that COVID-19 was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The journalist asked, “Is that the position of the [Biden] administration and their top health experts that this was not engineered, or is that still an open question?”

“Well, I think we’ve spoken to this pretty extensively from here,” Psaki replied. “Let me just say on Dr. Fauci and his emails — he’s also spoken to this many, many times over the course of the last few days — and we’ll let him speak for himself.”

The press secretary went to call Fauci “an undeniable asset in our country’s pandemic response,” adding, “but it’s obviously not that advantageous for me to re-litigate the substance of emails from 17 months ago.”

Psaki went on to reiterate that the Biden recently asked the intelligence community to “redouble” efforts to investigate the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory.

The theory has gained mainstream traction in recent weeks, despite several scientists and media outlets calling it a “conspiracy theory” in the early days of the outbreak.

Fauci’s leaked emails were published Tuesday after being obtained via FOIA requests by the Washington Post and Buzzfeed News.

The Washington Examiner reported:

In some of the most scrutinized communications, EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, whose organization has been involved in research at the Wuhan laboratory at the center of inquiries into the coronavirus’s origins, thanked Fauci after he publicly dismissed the idea that the coronavirus may have been created in the lab. In another, [Fauci] dismissed the efficacy of wearing masks in an email sent to Sylvia Burwell, a Health and Human Services secretary under former President Barack Obama.

Fauci has defended himself in reaction to his unearthed emails, telling CNN on Thursday that criticisms over his exchange with Daszak are “nonsense.”

“You can misconstrue it however you want,” Fauci told the outlet, in response to critics. “That email was from a person to me saying ‘thank you’ for whatever it is he thought I said, and I said that I think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is, at the same time as I’m keeping an open mind that it might be a lab leak.”

Blame Charles Johnson Chelsea Manning Dana Rohrabacher declined Democratic National Convention dnc Donald Trump emails Headline News Hillary Clinton Integrity Intelwars Jennifer Robinson john podesta Julian Assange Pardon Russian hackers Seth Rich Source torture United States WAR CRIMES

Trump Offered Assange A Pardon In Exchange For His Source, Assange Declined

There is still some integrity in the human race.  Julian Assange was offered a pardon from President Donald Trump in exchange for giving up the source of the Democratic National Convention emails that he leaked.  Assange declined the offer refusing to throw his source under the bus.

Assange’s defense revealed the pardon deal to a court in London on Friday, where the WikiLeaks founder is currently fighting extradition to the United States. Should he lose, he will be tried for espionage offenses and could face 175 years behind bars, according to a report by RT. 

Assange has literally declined the offer to stop the brutal torture he’s enduring in London in order to protect his source. Defense lawyer Jennifer Robinson told the court that former US Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and another Trump campaign associate, Charles Johnson, offered a pardon if Assange were to reveal the source of the emails, which are widely considered to have helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election.

“Rohrabacher proposed a ‘win-win’ situation,” Robinson said.

“Assange can get ‘get on with his life’ – a pardon in exchange for information about the source.”

“Information from Mr Assange about the source of the DNC leaks would be of value to Mr. Trump,” she added, paraphrasing Rohrabacher and Johnson. –RT. 

Ron Paul Interviews Julian Assange: “Going After Wikileaks Because They Humiliated the CIA”

The source of the Democratic National Committee emails remains a mystery, however, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest it was Seth Rich who was mysteriously murdered.  Opponents of both Assange and Trump have pinned the blame on “Russian hackers”, yet Assange himself has gone on record as saying that Russia was not the source.

The espionage charges against Assange stem from WikiLeaks’ publication in 2010 of a tranche of documents revealing U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The documents were leaked by former soldier Chelsea Manning, who was imprisoned from 2010 until her sentence was commuted in 2017.

A New Kind of Tyranny: The Global State’s War on Those Who Speak Truth to Power


The post Trump Offered Assange A Pardon In Exchange For His Source, Assange Declined first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Benghazi Deposition emails Hillary Clinton Intelwars judicial watch

Appeals court rules Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to sit for deposition in lawsuit over emails

A panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously on Friday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does not have to sit for a deposition regarding her intentions with using a private email server for government business, after all.

What are the details?

In March, a district court judge ordered Clinton to appear under oath to answer questions for a lawsuit brought by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, saying that her previous written responses “left many more questions than answers.”

But Clinton appealed the decision, and the appeals court agreed, issuing a ruling saying that she has already explained her reasoning before Congress and to Judge Emmet Sullivan — the judge who refuses to drop charges against Gen. Michael Flynn — and therefore “the deposition of Secretary Clinton, if allowed to proceed, at best seems likely to stray into topics utterly unconnected with the instant FOIA suit, and at worst could be used as a vehicle for harassment or embarrassment.”

Judicial Watch also asked to depose Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department, and that deposition will be carried out.

The Washington Examiner explained:

Judicial Watch wants to question Clinton and Mills about the talking points for former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearances on television shows following the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Members of Ansar al Sharia launched a coordinated assault on Sept. 11, 2012, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Clinton, Rice, and others incorrectly blamed the attack on a YouTube video.

The appeals court noted on Friday that Clinton had been long gone by the time the State Department conducted its FOIA-related email search and pointed to the fact that “several executive agencies and a House Select Committee have conducted inquiries” into Clinton’s use of a private email server and that Clinton had “also provided eleven hours of public testimony before the House Select Committee” and “has answered countless media inquiries on the matter.

The basis of the lawsuit all stems from a 2014 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from Judicial Watch, seeking “documents related to the Benghazi attack in 2012 that killed four Americans went unanswered,” the Washington Times reported.

In its decision Friday, the appeals court echoed an assertion made by Clinton and Mill’s attorney, David Kendall, who argued that “the real purpose” of the depositions “is harassment.”

Deposition emails Hillary Clinton Intelwars Judge judicial watch

Judge orders Hillary Clinton to appear for deposition in lawsuit over emails, Benghazi records

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been ordered by a federal judge to appear in person to answer questions under oath as part of a years-long lawsuit over her use of a private email server and records regarding the 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, during her tenure in the Obama administration.

What are the details?

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted the request of government watchdog group Judicial Watch on Monday to have Clinton deposed over whether or not she intentionally used a private email server during her time as head of the State Department to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Daily Caller noted:

Several reporters filed FOIA requests for Clinton’s State Department emails while she was in office, only to be told that the agency did not have any responsive records.

Clinton did not provide her State Department emails to the agency until late 2014, in response to congressional requests as part of an investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Clinton handed over only around half of the 60,000 emails that were stored on her server. She claimed that the others were private in nature and did not involve State Department business.

Mrs. Clinton previously answered interrogatories in the case brought by Judicial Watch, which Judge Lamberth acknowledged and wrote in his order, “the Court believes those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.”

Judge Lamberth added, “To avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch—it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

Judicial Watch celebrated the judge’s decision, with President Tom Fitton saying in a statement, “Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal and we’re pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA.”

Anything else?

According to The Hill, the order by Judge Lamberth “is the first requiring Clinton to testify under oath in person on the subject of the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi and the Obama administration’s response at the time.”