COVID-19
Freedom Convoy leaders’ lawyers argue there are five major ‘gaps’ in Crown’s case
From LifeSiteNews
These gaps include ‘the Crown treating the events as a single protest,’ a ‘failure to address the presumption of innocence,’ and an ‘oversimplification of evidence,’ among other things, the Democracy Fund noted
On day 32 of the trial against Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, the defense counsel for the leaders exposed gaps in the Crown’s main argument that the protests were unlawful even though there was no violence during the demonstrations against COVID mandates that took place in early 2022.
Per a day 32 trial update from the Democracy Fund (TDF), which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, Crown lawyers in court last Friday tried to argue that certain text message exchanges from Barber to Pat King, a protestor not related to the main Freedom Convoy, “pointed to a common unlawful purpose” between them.
Counsel for Lich, Eric Granger, identified five gaps in the Crown’s arguments.
“These gaps included the Crown treating the events as a single protest, a failure to address the presumption of innocence, an oversimplification of evidence, misattributing the common design, and erroneously assuming collaboration between Lich and Barber for an unlawful purpose,” stated TDF.
Granger also made an argument against the Crown’s assertion “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.”
When it comes to charges against Lich for blocking streets and roadways, TDF noted that Granger “maintained that these actions could be criminal only if done wrongfully or without police authorization.”
The reality is that Lich and Barber worked with police on many occasions so that the protests were within the law.
Thus far, counsel for the Freedom Convoy leaders have been detailing to the court how text message exchanges from one of the leaders showed he was trying to ensure protesters were as respectful as possible and that he wanted to work with police.
The Crown in court has been holding steadfast to the notion in trying to prove that Lich and Barber had somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak.
To back them up, the Crown has been hoping to use what is called a “Carter application” to help them make their case. The Crown’s so-called “Carter Application” asks that the judge consider “Barber’s statements and actions to establish the guilt of Lich, and vice versa,” TDF stated.
TDF has said that a Carter application is very “complicated” and requires that the Crown prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there was a “conspiracy or plan in place and that Lich was a party to it based on direct evidence,” and as such, the defense is asking the judge to dismiss the application.
Crown hints it might want to change its ‘position’
On Friday in court the Crown hinted that it might be looking to change its position ahead of its Carter application.
Defense counsel for Barber, Diane Magas, as noted by TDF, “stood and informed the court of an email received from the Crown the previous night after 10:54 pm.”
“The email hinted at a potential change in the Crown’s position ahead of the Carter application, pending its progression. Magas emphasized the importance for the defense to be informed about the case to meet concerning the Carter application,” noted TDF.
An agreement was reached between the Crown lawyers and Judge Heather Perkins-McVey.
Magas, when she spoke before the court on Friday, also made a point to highlight her “disagreement with the Crown’s stance on the absence of violence as only an aggravating factor.”
“She clarified that an assembly becomes unlawful only if the peace is disturbed tumultuously,” noted TDF.
As for Granger, he emphasized that the Crown “failed to demonstrate a common unlawful purpose.”
On Day 31 of the trial government lawyers attempted to paint the two as heading a kind of “occupation” in Ottawa, an assertion the leaders’ lawyers swiftly rejected.
During Day 29, Lich’s legal counsel argued that her use of the rallying cry “hold the line” during the 2022 protests did not imply she was calling for people to engage in illegal activity.
In court last week, however, Perkins-McVey reminded the Crown that not everyone involved in the Freedom Convoy was working together. The Crown agreed this was the case.
Lich and Barber are facing multiple charges from the 2022 protests, including mischief, counseling mischief, counseling intimidation and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy. As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for weeks before she was granted bail.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14.
During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, one protester, an elderly lady, was trampled by a police horse, and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister.
Lich and Barber’s trial has thus far taken more time than originally planned. LifeSiteNews has been covering the trial extensively.
COVID-19
‘That Science Should Not Have Been Done’: Former CDC Director Compares Fauci To Oppenheimer
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Mariane Angela
Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield appeared Wednesday on Newsmax to discuss Dr. Anthony Fauci’s preemptive pardon by former President Joe Biden.
“I hope that it gives Fauci an opportunity to try to be more honest and transparent about the decisions that he made and what he did. I’m not confident that that’s going to happen,” Redfield said during an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight.”
“You know, I also think it’s odd for Biden to pardon him prospectively when he hasn’t been accused of any direct crime. I know if I was in that position that I wouldn’t like that because it does imply that I actually did something wrong.”
Redfield also talked about events portrayed in the 2023 film “Oppenheimer.”
The former director said he hopes — similar to J. Robert Oppenheimer’s eventual realization of his impact on global warfare — Fauci might come to terms with the ramifications of his decisions before and during the pandemic.
“You know, when I watched the ‘Oppenheimer’ movie and I watched the scenes when Oppenheimer finally realized what happened with the science that he gave to the world, particularly when President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb a second time, and he realized that he had opened up really a big problem in terms of giving science to create a weapon that could kill hundreds of thousands of people. I don’t know if Tony realizes, and he’s very sensitive to this issue,” Redfield said when asked if Fauci recognized his responsibility.
Redfield said he wonders whether Fauci acknowledges the full extent of his actions, particularly what Redfield said was Fauci’s role in funding gain-of-function research.
“I do think Tony did mislead the nation, and he did mislead the Congress. He did make some bad decisions when it came to funding the research and gain-of-function research in China,” Redfield said.
Redfield said he hopes Fauci would act transparent and accountable in his actions.
“I think it’s really important. If one good thing comes from this is we get a moratorium on gain-of-function research. I do hope Tony takes advantage of this opportunity to basically be more transparent and let people understand why he made the decisions he did and also admit some accountability for the negative consequences of those decisions,” Redfield said, adding “that [that] science should not have been done.”
During the last hours of his presidency on Monday, Biden issued preemptive pardons to Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, and the members of the Jan. 6 committee and said that they should not be subjected to “unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.” The pardon spans back to 2014, encompassing Fauci’s role on the White House Coronavirus Task Force and his position as the chief medical advisor to Biden.
Accusations against Fauci include lying to Congress and circumventing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Fauci has consistently described COVID-19 as a “natural occurrence” and denied any link between his agency’s subawards to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of the virus. Several experts have accused Fauci of committing perjury during his congressional testimonies, particularly in his denials that the viruses he supported could have evolved into COVID-19.
Brownstone Institute
The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
From the Brownstone Institute
Anthony “I represent science” Fauci can now stand beside Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon in the history books as someone who received the poison pill of a preemptive pardon.
While Nixon was pardoned for specific charges related to Watergate, the exact crimes for which Fauci was pardoned are not specified. Rather, the pardon specifies:
Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong – and in fact have done the right things – and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated and prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.
In other words, the dying breath of the Biden administration appears to be pardoning Fauci for crimes he didn’t commit, which would seem to make a pardon null and void. The pardon goes further than simply granting clemency for crimes. Clemency usually alleviates the punishment associated with a crime, but here Biden attempts to alleviate the burden of investigations and prosecutions, the likes of which our justice system uses to uncover crimes.
It’s one thing to pardon someone who has been subjected to a fair trial and convicted, to say they have already paid their dues. Gerald Ford, in his pardon of Richard Nixon, admitted that Nixon had already paid the high cost of resigning from the highest office in the land. Nixon’s resignation came as the final chapter of prolonged investigations into his illegal and unpresidential conduct during Watergate, and those investigations provided us the truth we needed to know that Nixon was a crook and move on content that his ignominious reputation was carve d into stone for all of history.
Fauci, meanwhile, has evaded investigations on matters far more serious than Watergate. In 2017, DARPA organized a grant call – the PREEMPT call – aiming to preempt pathogen spillover from wildlife to people. In 2018 a newly formed collaborative group of scientists from the US, Singapore, and Wuhan wrote a grant – the DEFUSE grant – proposing to modify a bat sarbecovirus in Wuhan in a very unusual way. DARPA did not fund the team because their work was too risky for the Department of Defense, but in 2019 Fauci’s NIAID funded this exact set of scientists who never wrote a paper together prior or since. In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan with the precise modifications proposed in the DEFUSE grant submitted to PREEMPT.
It’s reasonable to be concerned that this line of research funded by Fauci’s NIAID may have caused the pandemic. In fact, if we’re sharp-penciled and honest with our probabilities, it’s likely beyond reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a consequence of research proposed in DEFUSE. What we don’t know, however, is whether the research proceeded with US involvement or not.
Congress used its constitutionally-granted investigation and oversight responsibilities to investigate and oversee NIAID in search of answers. In the process of these investigations, they found endless pages of emails with unjustified redactions, evidence that Fauci’s FOIA lady could “make emails disappear,” Fauci’s right-hand-man David Morens aided the DEFUSE authors as they navigated disciplinary measures at NIH and NIAID, and there were significant concerns that NIAID sought to obstruct investigations and destroy federal records.
Such obstructive actions did not inspire confidence in the innocence of Anthony Fauci or the US scientists he funded in 2019. On the contrary, Fauci testified twice under oath saying NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research of concern in Wuhan…but then we discovered a 2018 progress report of research NIAID funded in Wuhan revealing research they funded had enhanced the transmissibility of a bat SARS-related coronavirus 10,000 times higher than the wild virus. That is, indisputably, gain-of-function research of concern. Fauci thus lied to the American public and perjured himself in his testimony to Congress, and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has referred Fauci’s perjury charges to the Department of Justice.
What was NIAID trying to preempt with their obstruction of Congressional investigations? What is Biden trying to preempt with his pardon of Fauci? Why do we not have the 2019 NIAID progress report from the PI’s who submitted DEFUSE to PREEMPT and later received funding from NIAID?
It is deplorable for Biden to preemptively pardon Fauci on his last day in office, with so little known about the research NIAID funded in 2019 and voters so clearly eager to learn more. With Nixon’s preemptive pardon, the truth of his wrongdoing was known and all that was left was punishment. With Fauci’s preemptive pardon, the truth is not yet known, NIAID officials in Fauci’s orbit violated federal records laws in their effort to avoid the truth from being known, and Biden didn’t preemptively pardon Fauci to grant clemency and alleviate punishment, but to stop investigations and prosecutions the likes of which could uncover the truth.
I’m not a Constitutional scholar prepared to argue the legality of this maneuver, but I am an ethical human being, a scientist who contributed another grant to the PREEMPT call, and a scientist who helped uncover some of the evidence consistent with a lab origin and quantify the likelihood of a lab origin from research proposed in the DEFUSE grant. Any ethical human being knows that we need to know what caused the pandemic, and to deprive the citizenry of such information from open investigations of NIAID research in 2019 would be to deprive us of critical information we need to self-govern and elect people who manage scientific risks in ways we see fit. As a scientist, there are critical questions about bioattribution that require testing, and the way to test our hypotheses is to uncover the redacted and withheld documents from Fauci’s NIAID in 2019.
The Biden administration’s dying breath was to pardon Anthony Fauci not for the convictions for crimes he didn’t commit (?) but to avoid investigations that could be a reputational and financial burden for Anthony Fauci. A pardon to preempt an investigation is not a pardon; it is obstruction. The Biden administration’s dying breath is to obstruct our pursuit of truth and reconciliation on the ultimate cause of 1 million Americans’ dying breaths.
To remind everyone what we still need to know, it helps to look through the peephole of what we’ve already found to inspire curiosity about what else we’d find if only the peephole could be widened. Below is one of the precious few emails investigative journalists pursuing FOIAs against NIAID have managed to obtain from the critical period when SARS-CoV-2 is believed to have emerged. The email connects DEFUSE PI’s Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Ralph Baric (UNC), Linfa Wang (Duke-NUS), Ben Hu (Wuhan Institute of Virology), Shi ZhengLi (Wuhan Institute of Virology) and others in October 2019. The subject line “NIAID SARS-CoV Call – October 30/31” connects these authors to NIAID.
It is approximately in that time range – October/November 2019 – when SARS-CoV-2 is hypothesized to have entered the human population in Wuhan. When it emerged, SARS-CoV-2 was unique among sarbecoviruses in having a furin cleavage site, as proposed by these authors in their 2019 DEFUSE grant. Of all the places the furin cleavage site could be, the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was in the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, precisely as proposed by these authors.
In order to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS-CoV, however, the researchers would’ve needed to build a reverse genetic system, i.e. a DNA copy of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is unique among coronaviruses in having exactly the fingerprint we would expect from reverse genetic systems. There is an unusual even spacing in the cutting/pasting sites for the enzymes BsaI and BsmBI and an anomalous hot-spot of silent mutations in precisely these sites, exactly as researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have done for other coronavirus reverse genetic systems. The odds of such an extreme synthetic-looking pattern occurring in nature are, conservatively, about 1 in 50 billion.
The virus did not emerge in Bangkok, Hanoi, Bago, Kunming, Guangdong, or any of the myriad other places with similar animal trade networks and greater contact rates between people and sarbecovirus reservoirs. No. The virus emerged in Wuhan, the exact place and time one would expect from DEFUSE.
With all the evidence pointing the hounds towards NIAID, it is essential for global health security that we further investigate the research NIAID funded in 2019. It is imperative for our constitutional democracy, for our ability to self-govern, that we learn the truth. The only way to learn the truth is to investigate NIAID, the agency Fauci led for 38 years, the agency that funded gain-of-function research of concern, the agency named in the October 2019 call by DEFUSE PI’s, the agency that funded this exact group in 2019.
A preemptive pardon prior to the discovery of truth is a fancy name for obstruction of justice. The Biden administration’s dying breath must be challenged, and we must allow Congress and the incoming administration to investigate the possibility that Anthony Fauci’s NIAID-supported research caused the Covid-19 pandemic.
Republished from the author’s Substack
-
Business2 days ago
Trump, taunts and trade—Canada’s response is a decade out of date
-
Carbon Tax2 days ago
Carbon tax tripping up Liberal leadership hopefuls
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Media Roundtable from Washington
-
Business2 days ago
Opposition leader Poilievre calling for end of prorogation to deal with Trump’s tariffs
-
Business2 days ago
Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy
-
Christopher Rufo2 days ago
Trump Abolishes DEI for the Feds
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Sure-Fire Hacks to Streamline the Process of Writing a Thesis Paper
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
WEF ranks ‘disinformation’ as greater threat to world stability than ‘armed conflict’