MAJOR:
Dr Fauci Backed Wuhan Lab with $ for Risky Coronavirus Research

Over “200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem..is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident” in

Here’s a detailed 15min video investigation by UK PM David Cameron’s former Downing Street adviser @SteveHiltonx for his @NextRevFNC show on @FoxNews

The investigation is damning & implicates Dr Fauci & others.

Hilton calls for Fauci’s resignation.

https://t.co/aEh2Eb3eJM
Here are some further extracts from the @Newsweek article:

“last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology..for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses”
“Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release”
“with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7m over 6 years for research that included some gain-of-function work.. followed another $3.7m, 5-year project for collecting & studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4m”
“U.S. intelligence, after originally asserting that the coronavirus had occurred naturally, conceded last month that the pandemic may have originated in a leak from the Wuhan lab”
“included additional..gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance..under the direction of..Peter Daszak” (who had co-written a @TheLancet article preempting these claims)
“According to Richard Ebright, infectious disease expert at Rutgers..(the) description refers to experiments that..enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human..and laboratory animals using..genetic engineering. In the wake of the pandemic, that is a noteworthy detail”
“in 2014, under pressure from the Obama administration, the National of Institutes of Health instituted a moratorium on the work, suspending 21 studies.”
“Three years later, though—in December 2017—the NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began.”
My note:
Responses by those implicated deny the virus was *created*.
BUT to imply this was *leaked* from a lab in Wuhan does not necessarily imply it was created. Though it *might* have evolved

Regardless, the working thesis so far is that a natural virus *accidentally* leaked
https://t.co/LVF799qgp3
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT:

In a potential repeat the @NYPost Hunter Biden story debacle, @Facebook has labelled as “FALSE” the entirety of the above Dr Fauci/Wuhan @Newsweek story on my feed

I invite their representative onto my @LBC show to explain themselves:

https://t.co/WtDW9ceeIH
@SohrabAhmari

More from Maajid أبو عمّار

THREAD:
Instead of attacking those of us raising it, why aren’t mainstream “liberal” journalists on here as outraged as we are about how many senior Democratic Party figures seem to have been compromised by Chinese spies?

Genocide is non-negotiable

#TAGG 🧿

See examples:

1) Dem Senator Feinstein’s staffer for 20 years outed as a Chinese spy


2) Dem Eric Swallwell caught in a female Chinese spy’s snare:


3) Dem Senator Boxer registers as a foreign agent for Chinese surveillance firm:


3) Dem Hunter Biden allegedly invests in Megvii, a firm accused of helping to round up Uyghurs using A+++ facial recognition technology
Analysis

The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue

They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations

Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?

Read my THREAD:


1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one


2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)

Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied

ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate

Note: in the key swing states, this is legal


OR:

iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.

3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?

Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis

Trump wins that vote.
Texas is disputing US election results in 4 swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin & Georgia

Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states

Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after

Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules

On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly

But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not


The below is also worth noting:


There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.

More from Politics

THREAD

1)
@SidneyPowell1 reflects on #Iran’s meddling in the U.S. in a recent tweet to U.S. President Donald Trump.

This thread focuses on Iran’s dangerous influence in the U.S., especially through its DC-based lobby group


2)
Why is this important?

@DNI_Ratcliffe "told CBS News that there was foreign election interference by China, #Iran & Russia in November of this year [2020]."

All Americans should be informed about how Iran & its lobby group NIAC are meddling in the


3)
#Iran has been increasingly aiming to interfere in U.S. elections specifically through NIAC.

DNI John Ratcliffe had previously shed light on this vital


4)
NIAC is a lobby group in the U.S. pushing Iran’s talking points.

Listen to this Iranian regime insider explain that NIAC was established by @JZarif, the foreign minister of


5)
@tparsi is the official founder of NIAC in the U.S.

Listen to how Trita Parsi parrots Zarif’s talking
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like