Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Scientists with close ties to China and the U.S. government is now saying that risky experiments he proposed—which some experts believe could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2—may have been done, deviating from earlier statements.

Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, testifies before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in Washington, on May 1, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

Another scientist involved in the proposal also says he doesn’t know if the work was done.

“To the very best of my knowledge … the work hasn’t been done,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, told a congressional panel this week.

Mr. Daszak, however, admitted that he doesn’t know whether scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China have done the proposed experiments.

“Do you know if the WIV started this work?” he was asked during a U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing in Washington.

“No,” Mr. Daszak replied.

“Then you can’t say that the work was not done,” Mitch Benzine, the staff director for the panel, said.

“There is no evidence of the work being done. There is no evidence that WIV started it,” Mr. Daszak said.

Has he ever asked Shi Zhengli, a top scientist at the WIV, whether she carried out the proposal?

“No,” Mr. Daszak acknowledged.

The proposal in question, dubbed Project DEFUSE, was submitted in 2018 to the U.S. government as EcoHealth and its partners, including WIV, sought to take viruses from bats, reverse engineer them, and add features. Some outside scientists say the proposed work could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) declined to fund the proposal, expressing concerns that adding features to coronaviruses could create a dangerous virus.

After the proposal was leaked to the public in 2021, Mr. Daszak and EcoHealth have said definitively that the proposed experiments never took place.

“The DARPA proposal was not funded. Therefore, the work was not done. Simple,” Mr. Daszak told The Intercept in 2022.

“The proposed research was never done,” EcoHealth added in a recent statement.

Ralph Baric, a University of North Carolina virologist who was also listed in the DEFUSE proposal, also said in newly disclosed testimony that he did not know whether the proposed experiments were conducted.

“Certainly not by my group,” Mr. Baric told the subcommittee. “I don’t know what China did.”

Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi have created chimeras, or combination viruses, among other work together.

“There was no evidence that they were doing this kind of work,” Mr. Baric said. “Well, there was evidence that they were building chimeras using WIV1 as a backbone, so they were doing some discovery work about the functions of spike genes of zoonotic strains that they discovered later on, but I don’t know if they did any of the engineering or anything.”

WIV1 is a bat coronavirus that was found in China.

Mr. Baric also claimed he had forgotten about DEFUSE so he didn’t discuss it while meeting with Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top U.S. government official, on Feb. 12, 2020.

Mr. Daszak said Wednesday that DARPA later returned to EcoHealth “to try and fund portions” of DEFUSE, but no lawmakers pressed him on that disclosure.

‘They’ve Always Been Truthful’

EcoHealth separately for years funneled grant money from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Wuhan researchers, including money that funded experiments that increased the virulence of a bat coronavirus.

Asked how his group verified information about those experiments, Mr. Daszak acknowledged it relied on statements from the WIV. “I have no other way to verify,” he said.

The scientists in Wuhan “have always been honest with us,” he added later. “They’ve always been truthful. There’s never any untoward, underhand things going on. I have no reason to think that they were under pressure to lie. There’s no indication of that.”

After the pandemic started, WIV researchers refused to hand over laboratory notebooks and other files to EcoHealth after the U.S. government asked for the records, resulting in the government debarring WIV from receiving U.S. grant money.

“Nearly two years have passed since the NIH first requested that WIV provide the requested information and materials, and yet WIV has still failed to do so,” a debarment official wrote to Ms. Shi.

In comments on a draft of the DEFUSE proposal, Mr. Daszak said that some of the work would be done at the Wuhan lab.

“If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Mr. Daszak wrote in one comment. “Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well.”

Mr. Daszak told Mr. Baric in a May 27, 2021, email released by the subcommittee that Ms. Zhengli said culturing of animal viruses was being done under biosafety level two conditions, or one level below that applied in many other countries.

“We checked with Zhengli, who let us know that she used ‘BSL-2 with negative pressure and appropriate PPE.’ I also know that they are stricter now on SADS-CoV… ever since you showed it was able to infect human airway epithelial cells,” he wrote.

Mr. Baric responded by saying Mr. Daszak was “being told a bunch of [expletive].”

“BSL-2 w[ith] negative pressure, give me a break,” he wrote, adding later, “You believe this was appropriate containment, if you want but don’t expect me to believe it. Moreover, don’t insult my intelligence by trying to feed me this load of [expletive].”

The 2024 World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), was released today. This year, the agency highlights a “worrying decline in support and respect for media autonomy and an increase in pressure from the state or other political actors.” This is based on the fact that, of the five indicators used to compile the ranking, it is the political indicator that has fallen most, with a global average decline of 7.6 points.

Out of the 180 countries and territories analyzed, some 138 places had a majority of their respondents say that political actors in their countries were involved in disinformation or propaganda campaigns. This involvement was described as “systematic” in 31 countries.

The report writers also highlight the lack of political will on an international level to enforce protection of journalists, with particular reference to the war in Gaza, which has been marked by a record number of violations against journalists and the media since October 2023. According to the report, more than 100 Palestinian reporters have now been killed by the Israel Defence Forces, including at least 22 in the course of carrying out their journalistic activities.

Taking a look at wider trends, this chart, via Statista’s Anna Fleck, shows that 36 countries were listed in the worst category in the index – where there exists a “very serious” situation of the press.

You will find more infographics at Statista

49 countries fall under the “difficult” category and 50 in the “problematic” group, while 45 have either a “satisfactory” or “good” situation. Norway is once more at the top of the list, ranking in first place for the eighth year running, followed by Denmark and Sweden.

The final trio, considered the most repressive countries for the press, are Afghanistan (position 178), Syria (179) and Eritrea (180). The report states: “The last two countries have become lawless zones for the media, with a record number of journalists detained, missing or held hostage.”

The United States ranked 55th in 2024, having dropped ten positions. RSF notes that the country is experiencing growing distrust in the media, partly driven by antagonism from political officials, while there have also been cases of local law enforcement having raided newsrooms.

Reporters Without Borders have compiled the index annually since 2002. The agency devised a new methodology in 2021 with the help of a panel of experts from the media and academic world. This year, 180 countries and territories were analyzed based on five indicators covering political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context and safety.

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times,

One of the world’s favorite brews may hold the key to keeping muscles strong and healthy as we age.

According to recent research, a natural compound found in coffee could be the secret weapon against age-related muscle loss.

The Muscle-Preserving Molecule

Mitochondria, the powerhouses of our cells, play a crucial role in muscle health. An issue linked to sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is that these cellular components generate less energy as we get older. Compounding this problem, levels of the crucial substance NAD+ (which stands for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), a coenzyme that helps cells regenerate and protects them from damage, also decline with age.

Researchers already know that NAD+ levels can be boosted using various dietary precursors, including the essential amino acid L-tryptophan and different forms of vitamin B3, such as nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, nicotinamide riboside, and nicotinamide mononucleotide.

In a recent study published in Nature Metabolism, scientists investigated whether an alkaline compound called trigonelline could help reverse these age-related changes in muscle health.

The researchers analyzed trigonelline levels in the blood of mice and worms and found that high levels of the substance were positively associated with muscle strength and function.

Conversely, low trigonelline levels were linked to sarcopenia, the typical loss of muscle size and strength that occurs with aging.

Trigonelline Promoted Healthy Longevity

Trigonelline is structurally related to vitamin B3 and is produced naturally in the body, in addition to being found in certain foods.

“We discovered that older people with low endogenous levels of trigonelline in their blood lose more muscle mass and strength during aging,” Katharina Fischer, research and development and scientific communications manager at Nestle Research in Switzerland, where the study was conducted, told The Epoch Times. “We also discovered that trigonelline is a precursor to NAD.”

Providing trigonelline promoted longevity in test animals by activating cellular energy production in mitochondria and increasing muscle strength and function during aging, according to Ms. Fischer.

These findings open new opportunities to test the clinical efficacy of increasing trigonelline consumption through food products or supplements to improve muscle health, she noted.

Foods That Contain Trigonelline

Trigonelline is an alkaloid compound found in various plant sources. While it may not be as well-known as some other beneficial plant compounds, trigonelline is present in a variety of dietary sources. About 5 percent of the niacin we consume is converted into trigonelline.

Coffee Beans

Trigonelline is more abundant in coffee beans than in any other food source, and it contributes to coffee’s characteristic bitterness. However, during the roasting process, trigonelline partly breaks down to form nicotinic acid (niacin or vitamin B3), another nutrient with significant health benefits.

Fenugreek Seeds

Fenugreek, a plant commonly used in Indian and Middle Eastern cuisines, contains about 35 percent alkaloids, with trigonelline being the primary one in the seeds.

Other Foods

Trigonelline can be found in a variety of other foods, including barley, cantaloupe, corn, onions, peas, soybeans, and tomatoes.

You can also obtain trigonelline by eating fish, mussels, and crustaceans.

Never Too Late to Address Age-Related Muscle Loss: Expert

It’s natural to lose muscle mass as we age.

“Sarcopenia can occur due to a myriad of factors, such as immobility, lack of proper nutrition, obesity, and lack of physical activity,” Macie Smith, a licensed gerontology social worker, told The Epoch Times. “Since the senior population tends to be more sedentary, you’ll see it show up more prevalently in persons over the age of 65, but the process can begin as early as 30–40 years of age.”

However, while we cannot prevent aging, we can reduce muscle mass loss caused by it.

This can be done through proper exercise; a balanced, nutritional diet; and managing any underlying health conditions.

“It’s never too late to build and strengthen muscle to counter the effects of sarcopenia,” Ms. Smith said. “You can always develop a new exercise regimen that will allow you to become active and to maintain the active lifestyle.”

How much do you trust the government, and its various institutions?

It’s likely that your level of confidence probably depends on a wide range of factors, such as perceived competency, historical context, economic performance, accountability, social cohesion, and transparency.

And for these same reasons, trust levels in government institutions also change all the time, even in the world’s most developed countries: the G7.

Confidence in Government by G7 Countries (2006-2023)

This chart, via Visual Capitaist’s Nick Routley, looks at the changes in trust in government institutions between the years 2006 and 2023, based on data from a multi-country Gallup poll.

Specifically, this dataset aggregates confidence in multiple national institutions, including the military, the judicial system, the national government, and the integrity of the electoral system.

What’s interesting here is that in the G7, a group of the world’s most developed economies, there is only one country bucking the general trend: the United States.

Across most G7 countries, confidence in institutions has either improved or stayed the same between 2006 and 2023. The largest percentage point (p.p.) increases occur in Italy and Japan, which saw +13 p.p. and +11 p.p. increases in trust over the time period.

In the U.S., however, confidence in government institutions has fallen by 13 p.p. over the years. What happened?

Key Figures on U.S. Trust in Institutions

In 2006, the U.S. was tied with the UK as having the highest confidence in government institutions, at 63%.

But here’s where the scores stand in 2023, across various institutions:

Based on this data, it’s clear that the U.S. lags behind in three key indicators: confidence in the national government, confidence in the justice system, and confidence in fair elections. It ranked in last place for each indicator in the G7.

One other data point that stands out: despite leading the world in military spending, the U.S. is only the third most confident in its military in the G7. It lags behind France (86%) and the United Kingdom (83%).

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who received more than one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to contract COVID-19, according to a new study.

A health care worker fills a syringe with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in an undated file image. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)

An analysis of data from Cleveland Clinic employees found that people who received two or more doses were at higher risk of COVID-19, Dr. Nabin Shrestha and his co-authors reported.

The risk of contracting COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher for those who received two doses, 1.95 times higher for those who received three doses, and 2.5 times higher for those who received three or more doses, the researchers found. The higher risk was compared to people who received zero or one dose of a vaccine.

Even after adjusting for variables, the elevated risk remained.

“The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection,” the researchers said in the paper, which was released as a preprint.

Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine researcher who was not involved in the paper, told The Epoch Times that the paper served as “another acknowledgment that the products are not effective or are at very low effectiveness and are contributing to negative effectiveness [down the line].”

He noted that the researchers did not study vaccine safety among the employee population. The COVID-19 vaccines can cause a number of side effects, including fatal heart inflammation, according to the literature and death records.

Earlier studies and data have also suggested that people with more vaccine doses are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, including previous papers from the Cleveland Clinic scientists and a study from Iceland.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has repeatedly declined requests to comment on outside research, recommends virtually all people aged 6 months and older receive one of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of how many shots they’ve received, although a meeting later in May is set to discuss whether to update the vaccine formulations to improve protection.

CDC scientists said in a paper published in February in the agency’s weekly report that the latest version of the vaccines, a monovalent targeting the XBB.1.5 subvariant, provided 49 percent effectiveness between 60 and 119 days later when the JN.1 virus strain was dominant. Supplementary data, however, showed that people aged 50 and older who received the previous bivalent version were more susceptible to symptomatic infection.

Authors disclosed no conflicts of interest and acknowledged at least five limitations, including how they used a proxy for infection with JN.1.

Another study, released ahead of peer review in April, estimated the effectiveness of Pfizer’s updated vaccine as 32 percent against hospitalization from late 2023 through early 2024. The research was conducted by scientists from multiple institutions, including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer, many authors reported conflicts of interest, and some of the funding came from Pfizer.

People’s immune systems being trained to react to older virus strains at the expense of protection against newer variants is one theory for why the vaccinated might be more prone to infection.

“Multiple vaccine doses may have the effect of antibody-dependent enhancement or ‘original antigenic sin,’ which increase the infection response disproportionally to antibodies generated from the first vaccine dose, rather than from the current vaccine or the current infection, making the antibody response less effective,” Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Epoch Times in an email after reviewing the paper.

Dr. Shrestha, who did not respond to a request for comment, and the Cleveland Clinic researchers aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the XBB.1.5 shots against JN.1, which displaced XBB.1.5 before the end of 2023.

To do so, they analyzed the incidence of COVID-19 among Cleveland Clinic employees from Dec. 31, 2023, to April 22, 2024.

Among approximately 47,500 employees included in the study, 838 tested positive for COVID-19 during that period.

Unadjusted data showed no difference between people who received one of the updated shots and people who didn’t, but after adjusting for age and other factors, the researchers estimated the shots provided 23 percent effectiveness against infection.

Federal and global guidelines consider vaccines ineffective if they provide under 50 percent shielding.

The number of severe illnesses among the study population was too small to estimate effectiveness against severe illness, the researchers said.

Listed limitations included the inability to separate symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. No conflicts of interest were reported and authors said they received no funding.

The green new deal and switch to “alternative’ energy looks like it’s going exactly as planned: costing the taxpayer trillions of dollars and generally pissing everybody off.

That was the case with a number of solar panel owners who are now finding it difficult to get their panels serviced, according to WBAL TV.

Solar panel installation is touted as offering benefits like reduced energy costs, environmental friendliness, and significant rebates. However, many homeowners have discovered a concerning issue within the industry: addressing technical problems can be exceedingly challenging — if not outright impossible. 

Those interviewed shared experiences with various solar providers, each facing prolonged unresolved issues. 

Tom Lucas, who installed solar panels in 2018, initially saw higher electricity production. Yet, by 2022, 20% of his system failed, leading to considerable losses. Despite having a 25-year warranty from Invaleon Solar Technologies, the issue remains unaddressed.

Lucas commented: “I’ve been totally ghosted. All I want is a working system. To me, even though I’m generating some electricity, it’s not right.”

Lucas added: “They’re a sales-oriented company. All solar companies are. They want to sell the next job. They want to get that installed and move on to the next sale. They’re not service-oriented.”

Steve Pilotte, an early solar adopter, has experienced ongoing problems since 2009. His current provider, Sunrun, has been unresponsive in fixing an inverter issue that started in 2020, despite multiple technician visits.

“Once again, in 2022, I followed up with them. And then 2023. And January 2024. I’m totally lost. I’ve never experienced a situation like this in my life.”

Mike Rice, who leases from Spruce Power, saw his electricity costs drop significantly until 2023 when his meter malfunctioned. Despite the fault, Spruce has not compensated him for the energy lost during peak production times.

“No one called me to tell me my system is out. Not even credits. I’d just take credits so I can offset my future bills, but they won’t do that,” Rice said.

“I think they’re more interested in putting solar up than repairing it,” he concluded. 

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Attorneys general representing half of the country on May 1 sued President Joe Biden’s administration over a new rule requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including private sales.

Democratic lawmakers put their arms around one another as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces the final vote count for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in the House of Representatives in Washington on June 24, 2022. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Lawsuits in Florida, Texas, and Arkansas are asking the courts to block a rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that redefines “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms.

Under the new rule, almost every transfer of firearm ownership would require at least one party to have a Federal Firearms License and perform a criminal background check, including private sales.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland signed the new rule on April 10, and it goes into effect on May 10.

According to the 466-page rule, the only requirement for determining whether a person is engaged in the business of selling guns is whether the person is trading to “predominately earn a profit.” Previously, the defining characteristic was whether the dealer worked to earn a “livelihood.”

The new definition is in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), signed into law on June 25, 2022.

In the Florida case, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

According to the lawsuit Ms. Moody filed on May 1, the act was passed to balance gun owners’ rights against public safety concerns.

In the filing, Ms. Moody wrote that the BSCA’s sponsors assured voters that the law clarified that dealers were only those who earned their livelihood from selling guns. Ms. Moody claims that President Biden is stretching the language of the act to fit his political agenda.

“Sensing an opportunity, the Biden Administration now seeks to exploit the minor changes to federal law enacted in the BSCA to implement President Biden’s preferred policies by executive fiat,” Ms. Moody wrote.

The other two lawsuits—filed in the Northern District of Texas and Eastern District of Arkansas—also decry the change as an unconstitutional infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and an illegal attempt to circumvent the U.S. Congress and enact “universal background checks.”

President Biden has called for expanding the criminal background check requirement since his election in 2020.

Each suit asks its respective court to block the rule’s enforcement and find that it violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.

ATF spokesperson Kristina Mastropasqua said the agency had no comment on the lawsuits.

The White House did not respond to requests from The Epoch Times for comment on this story.

A researcher simulates a check done for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) at the FBI’s criminal justice center in Bridgeport, W.Va., on Nov. 18, 2014. (Matt Stroud/AP Photo)

The attorneys general say they are defending their constituents’ rights.

“This lawsuit is just the latest instance of me and my colleagues in other states having to remind the President that he must follow the law,” Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote in a press release on May 1.

Mr. Griffin joined Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in the largest suit, representing 21 states. They say the new rule completely reverses decades of legal precedence that protected the right of private parties to buy, sell, or trade firearms without government intrusion.

“Defendants’ claim of authority to implement this scheme dramatically upends both our constitutional traditions and the federal firearms licensing regime Congress designed,” the lawsuit states.

In addition to Kansas and Arkansas, the plaintiffs in the Arkansas lawsuit include Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Private citizens Phillip Journey, Allen Black, Donald Maxey, and the Chisholm Trail Antique Gun Association joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

They are suing Mr. Garland, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the ATF.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody speaks at a press conference in Brandon, Fla. Nov. 18, 2021. (Jann Falkenstern, The Epoch Times)

“This rule is blatantly unconstitutional. We are suing to defend the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” Mr. Kobach wrote in a press release on his state website.

In Texas, four states, four Second Amendment Advocacy groups, and one individual are challenging the rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo.

That lawsuit was filed on May 1 by the states of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Utah, along with Gun Owners of America Inc., the Gun Owners’ Foundation, the Tennessee Firearms Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Jefferey W. Tormey.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release calling the new rule an affront to the Constitution.

“Yet again, Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Mr. Paxton’s statement reads.

Gun Owners of America Eric Pratt said allowing the rule to stand would send a dangerous message to other government agencies. In the press release, Mr. Pratt wrote that the rule must be struck down entirely.

“Anything less would further encourage this tyrannical administration to continue weaponizing vague statutes into policies that are meant to further harass and intimidate gun owners and dealers at every turn.”

In a recent development, a House Committee subpoena has forced the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reveal details of its parole program designed to allow entry for thousands of individuals from several nations.

The program, established in October 2022, was initially tailored to facilitate entry for Venezuelans who had American sponsors and passed a vetting process. However, the scope of the program rapidly expanded, encompassing individuals from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua as well – eventually flying illegal aliens to more than 45 cities across the United States.

According to the DHS documents, between January and August 2023, the parole program allowed over 200,000 individuals to enter the United States. While the program did not cover the cost of flights for these individuals, it permitted them to enter the country and make travel arrangements independently. Among the program’s participants, Florida emerged as a leading destination, with around 80% of the 200,000 choosing to settle in cities such as Miami, Tampa, and Fort Lauderdale. Other prominent destinations included New York, California, Texas, Nevada, and Georgia.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the program, stating that it provided “a safe and orderly way to reach the United States” and asserting, though without presenting specific evidence, that the program “resulted in a reduction in numbers of those nationalities.” Mayorkas also highlighted its global relevance, noting its role in addressing “the unprecedented level of migration throughout our hemisphere” and suggesting that other countries might see it as a model to manage irregular migration.

That said, the documents revealed that at least 1.6 million applications were still pending as of October 2023. The program currently admits approximately 30,000 individuals per month, granting them work permits and authorizing them to live in the country for two years.

Congressman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, expressed strong criticism of the program, stating, “These documents expose the egregious lengths Secretary Mayorkas will go to ensure inadmissible aliens reach every corner of the country, from Orlando and Atlanta to Las Vegas and San Francisco.” Green labeled the parole program “an unlawful sleight of hand” aimed at concealing the worsening border crisis from the American public.

In response to perceived poor handling of the border crisis, Mayorkas faced impeachment by the House of Representatives in February. This marked the second impeachment of a Cabinet secretary in U.S. history, and the first in nearly 150 years. However, the Senate’s Democratic majority ultimately voted to end the trial without proceeding to a vote on conviction or acquittal, following repeated delays.

The disclosure of the DHS parole program documents has reignited debate over U.S. immigration policy and the handling of migration at the southern border, reflecting persistent tensions on these issues at both the national and international levels.

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former President Donald Trump docketed a brief to support his motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment against him in Florida, citing “selective and vindictive prosecution” on Thursday.

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media in Palm Beach, Fla., on March 19, 2024. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The 43-page filing contends that special counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president “has been motivated by improper political animus.”

It cites “targeted leaks and public statements” by President Joe Biden, “urging others to prosecute President Trump.” This refers to a New York Times report from April 2, 2022, reporting that President Biden told his “inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.”

President Trump’s lawyers contend that the article amounted to presidential pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to “act … more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.”

The motion details a series of events to support the former president’s arguments of a concerted effort by the Biden administration and federal agencies to target him.

It points to statements from officials at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which is responsible for the preservation of presidential records, that the Biden administration’s “current business” was investigating the 45th president. Among other events, it cites a text message from a NARA official dated Feb. 9, 2022, stating that the classified documents have “consumed all of our discussions” with the Biden White House.

“There is evidence of vindictive political animosity focused on election interference in these proceedings, which is part of the reason why the Special Counsel’s Office is wrong in the claim that President Trump ‘does not contend that the Special Counsel himself was motivated by improper considerations,’” President Trump’s lawyers argue.

Smith Refutes Trump’s Claims

In a March 7 filing, Mr. Smith argues against President Trump’s claims that the prosecution team, influenced by political bias, is selectively targeting him for prosecution.

Prosecutors from the special counsel’s office argue that the former president hadn’t identified anyone in his motion who was engaging in similar conduct without being prosecuted and failed to provide evidence that his indictment was solely retaliatory.

“Trump contends … that he has been subject to selective and vindictive prosecution,” the prosecution wrote. “But he has not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result.

“He has likewise failed to provide any evidence that his indictment was brought solely to retaliate against him for exercising his legal rights, rather than because he flagrantly and repeatedly broke the law,” the prosecution continued.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s legal team has given Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, a list of other former government officials who they say engaged in similar alleged misconduct, including the mishandling of classified information.

Among them are President Biden, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and the FBI’s former director James Comey.

However, with respect to the alleged misconduct of these officials, President Trump’s team asserted in a February motion that “no one in the government lifted a finger” to prosecute them.

“Collectively, this history of non-prosecution and leniency for similarly situated individuals and others strongly supports President Trump’s motion based on intolerable and unconstitutional selective and vindictive prosecution,” the motion reads.

President Trump’s lawyers argued again on Thursday that, on its face, these specific comparators are enough to establish a case of selective and vindictive prosecution.

The former president’s legal team asked the judge for further investigation through discovery and a hearing to examine the allegations of selective prosecution.

Trump ‘The Exception’

Special counsel Robert Hurr declined to press charges against President Biden in February, despite finding evidence that he retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen.

According to Mr. Hur’s report from February, there is no precedent for prosecuting former presidents or vice presidents for mishandling classified documents from their own administrations, with one exception.

“The exception is President Trump,” the February motion reads.

“The basis is his politics and status as President Biden’s chief political rival,” the motion continues. “Thus, this case reflects the type of selective and vindictive prosecution that cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, further discovery and a hearing are necessary, and the Superseding Indictment must be dismissed.”

President Trump’s legal team cited Mr. Hur’s report in a bid to exonerate him from charges. On the other hand, the prosecution claims that the former president was the only one who participated in a “multifaceted scheme of deception and obstruction” to prevent the safe return of those documents.

The former president argues that the special counsel’s office is trying to influence the general election by pursuing “two lawless prosecutions,” which have been initiated at the urging of the Biden administration.

“[T]he Special Counsel’s Office seeks to ‘become a de facto campaign voice for the Democrats in the general election,’ and Jack Smith is ‘probably less concerned now with whether a Trump conviction will survive appeal than with whether Trump can be convicted ahead of the November 2024 election,’” the February motions reads.

“No sitting President has ever successfully pressed for the prosecution of a former President, and his chief political rival, the way that President Biden did—proudly and publicly—in 2022,” President Trump’s lawyers contend. “NARA has never targeted a former President in the way that the agency targeted President Trump. No law enforcement body has ever raided a former President’s home. DOJ has never even used civil remedies against a former President.”

President Trump’s defense had previously sought to have the case thrown out based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), but Judge Cannon rejected this argument on April 4.

Mr. Smith had indicted President Trump and aide Walt Nauta in June 2023, alleging mishandling of over 300 classified documents. The charges against the former president include 31 counts of violating the Espionage Act, along with various other counts related to obstruction of justice, withholding documents, and making false statements.

The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Smith’s office for comment.

A lawyer who was involved in negotiations between former President Donald Trump and two women denied that payments made to them constituted “hush-money,” and instead used the word “consideration.”

Keith Davidson, who negotiated deals with both Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) and model Karen McDougal, disputed Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’s language during a May 2 court appearance.

“It wasn’t a ‘payout’ and it wasn’t ‘hush money.’ It was consideration in a civil settlement,” said Davidson.

“Would you use the phrase hush money to describe the money that was paid to your client by Donald Trump?” Steinglass shot back.

“I would never use that word,” Davidson replied.

When asked what he would call it, he said it was a “Consideration,” comparing it to a contract in which one pays to have one’s lawn mowed.

Trump attorney Emil Bove pressed Mr. Davidson on his understanding of extortion law, grilling him about previous instances in which he solicited money to suppress embarrassing stories, including one involving wrestler Hulk Hogan.

Mr. Bove suggested to the witness that by the time he negotiated the payments for Ms. McDougal and Ms. Clifford, he would have been “pretty well versed in coming right up to the line without committing extortion.”

“I had familiarized myself with the law,” Mr. Davison replied. –Epoch Times

Davidson also told Steinglass that he worked out the “consideration” deal with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen just days before the 2016 election, but that Trump never signed it.

Avenatti pipes up from prison

Trying to reclaim his 15 minutes of fame from prison, former Trump foe and Stormy Daniels’ ex-attorney Michael Avenatti posted on X that Davidson is a liar – and had in fact tried to extort Trump.

“Keith Davidson is lying,” claimed Avenatti. “After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 – it was a shakedown.”

Keith Davidson is lying. After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 – it was a shakedown. This was one of the many reasons I fired her as a client in Feb. 2019

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 2, 2024

Last month, Trump publicly thanked Avenatti “for revealing the truth about two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!,” referring to the gag orders placed on Trump in his Manhattan trial.