This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats and other extremists long have insisted the January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol were an "insurrection."
And they continually blame President Donald Trump, who urged its supporters to protest "peacefully" that day.
They've even tried to use their assumption of an "insurrection" to try to keep Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.
That stunt reached full fruition at the Colorado state Supreme Court, where an all-Democrat panel decided to go for it, before being summarily blocked and reprimanded by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Actually, those events were a protest that got out of control, with the result being vandalism damage to the Capitol and hundreds and hundreds of protesters jailed for months by anti-Trump prosecutors.
But now there's new evidence of an "insurrection."
Actually, constitutional expert Jonathan Turley describes it as more of a "mutiny."
It came in a commentary in the New York Times by Barack Obama administration officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson.
They seemed to write that the U.S. military should disobey the commander in chief, President Donald Trump.
Their sentiments were that they were counting on the military to overthrow the president and they now are disappointed that that apparently won't happen.
The dispute arose over Trump's agenda to crack down on crime, including the rampant violence in Washington, D.C., by using the National Guard to keep order there.
Turley explained, "The NY Times seems to have changed its mind on insurrections. Former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson wrote the bizarre column, 'We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' Only the last three words are demonstrably true…"
He added, "There is no question that Trump has the authority to order the National Guard into Washington, a federal enclave. Yet, the column decries how 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities'…
"So, let's get this straight. A President issued clearly lawful orders for deployment and the NY Times and these Obama officials expected them to simply disregard his orders. In fairness, that is not exactly an insurrection; more like a mutiny."
Commentary postings at Twitchy first said, "At this point in our Twitchy lives, you'd think nothing would bother or shock us, and yet The New York Times found a way to do just that. Hey, we get it, they hate Trump, they're not big fans of America in general, and the idea of 45-47 doing something to help Americans struggling is somehow triggering to these people, but still. Whining because the military hasn't overthrown our duly elected president. Really, you guys? That's low and stupid, even for you."
And Twitchy pointed out the headline soon was changed: "Somebody at the Times eventually thought that was saying the quiet part a little too out loud, so the title of the op-ed was changed to 'How the military became another instrument of Trump's power.' That's still ridiculous, especially considering that Trump is the Commander-in-Chief of the military."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Little Sisters of the Poor still are on the battlefield in America to protect the pro-life beliefs of Americans who object to government-ordered funding for the destruction of unborn children, which Barack Obama tried to force on the public some 14 years ago.
They won the protection of the U.S. Supreme Court, but that wasn't good enough for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which continue even today to try to force the state governments' secular faith about abortion, abortifacient and contraceptives on parts of the population that are Christian.
It was Wendy Beetlestone, a federal judge who was unable to issue her opinion without spelling or typographical errors embedded, who issued a ruling that sided with the two states in their "years-long effort to force the Little Sisters of the Poor – an order of Catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor – to either provide abortion and contraceptives in their healthcare plan or pay tens of millions of dollars in fines."
"The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty," explained Mark Rienzi, a lawyer for Becket who is representing the Little Sisters.
"It's bad enough that the district court issued a nationwide ruling invalidating federal religious conscience rules. But even worse is that the district court simply ducked the glaring constitutional issues in this case, after waiting five years and not even holding a hearing. It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue. We will fight as far as we need to fight to protect the Little Sisters' right to care for the elderly in peace."
The judge claimed that the federal agencies establishing the rules for mandated payments, or fines, earlier claimed that contraception was safe and effective, then changed their position to include that its safety and effectiveness is suspect.
That ruling ignored the basic constitutional protections for freedom of religion.
Worse yet, she made it a "nationwide ruling."
The fight has been going on for 14 years, since Obama launched his own barrage against people of faith in America, by including in Obamacare a demand that employers, including Christians who oppose contraception and abortion, must pay for it.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 affirmed a federal rule protecting the Little Sisters and other religious groups from the "contraceptive mandate," as the ideology soon was dubbed.
"But Pennsylvania and New Jersey have continued to fight in court to strip the Little Sisters of that protection. Today's ruling keeps that effort alive, and the Little Sisters have vowed to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit," Becket reported.
The origination of the war was with the federal Department of Health and Human Services when it was setting rules for Obamacare.
The "mandate" demands employers provide contraceptives like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans, including some that can cause abortion.
"The original mandate exempted plans covering tens of millions of people for administrative convenience and 'grandfathering,' but did not provide a religious exemption for groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who have served the elderly poor for nearly 200 years," Becket reported.
The Supreme Court ruling then provided that protection for the Little Sisters, and others, and the two states have been on a campaign ever since to take away their rights.
In fact, their cause has been before the Supreme Court multiple times already, and they have won in each case.
"As Little Sisters of the Poor, we dedicate our lives to caring for the elderly poor until God calls them home," said a representative for the group, Mother Loraine Marie Maguire.
"We will continue to fight for the right to carry out our mission without violating our faith, and we pray Pennsylvania and New Jersey will end this needless harassment."
Beetlestone admitted in the ruling her own earlier decisions in the case, while affirmed then by the 3rd Circuit, were reversed by the Supreme Court.
She claimed the procedures were not followed properly in allowing additional groups to be exempted from the "mandate," but admitted, the Supreme Court "held that defendants had done all that was required of them."
She claimed to walk back the case back so that she could further deliver her own agenda.
"This court did not address … whether the agencies exercised their statutory authority properly in accordance with the APA's requirement the agency action not be 'arbitrary [or] capricious.'"
That dispute, she claimed, is the one for which she now is providing "resolution."
In its original ruling, the Supreme Court found that the "mandate" violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
But Beetlestone was especially upset that President Donald Trump, during his first term, addressed a resolution to the dispute by issuing an order regarding "Free Speech and Religious Liberty" and told agencies to consider amending regulations to address "conscience-based objections" to the contraceptive demands.
Those rules were adopted, and Pennsylvania sued to stop them, later being joined by New Jersey.
Beetlestone claimed the rules adopted are "invalid," even though the Supreme Court said the "Final Rules were not procedurally invalid."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A published report describes the situation as "chilling" as it explains a public high school in Virginia has come under investigation for allegedly arranging and paying for abortions for underage students, without even letting their parents know.
The Washington Stand explained the scandal is in Fairfax County Public Schools, which is investigating reports Centreville High School was promoting abortions back in 2021.
"The news, first revealed by the W.C. Dispatch Substack, has sparked outrage among parents, pro-life advocates, and concerned citizens, raising serious questions about parental rights and school overreach," the report said.
It quoted WJLA as confirming one of the two girls involved was only 17 years old. And it continued:
"One girl underwent the procedure at 17; the other, five months pregnant and pleading to keep her baby, bolted from the clinic after social worker Carolina Díaz allegedly told her she 'had no choice.' Principal Chad Lehman, the girls insist, knew — and taxpayers footed the bill. … A handwritten statement from the first student, translated for clarity, lays out how Díaz scheduled the appointment, paid the clinic's fees, and swore her to secrecy."
The report continued, "That alone would be enough to raise the hair on the back of a patriotic taxpayer's neck, but there is more. A second Centreville minor, five months pregnant and wavering, was allegedly told by the same social worker that she 'had no other choice.' The girl, terrified, ultimately bolted from the clinic rather than go through with the procedure. She later confided in her teacher, Mrs. Zenaida Perez, who allowed her name to be used on the record and provided The W.C. Dispatch a recording of the family confirming that no one at the school had ever informed them of the intent to terminate their daughter's pregnancy."
The district said it had no prior knowledge of the scheming, and is investigating.
Supt. Michelle Reid stated, "I want to stress that at no time, would the situation as described in these allegations be acceptable in Fairfax County Public Schools."
State law, in fact, demands parental consent and notification for minors seeking abortions. The school's policy also has requirements to encourage students to discuss their situation with their parents.
40 Days for Life said, "A Fairfax high school secretly arranged and paid for student abortions — without telling parents. This isn't 'healthcare.' It's state-funded child exploitation. Every official involved must be held accountable."
And Concerned Women for America said it is "an absolutely outrageous affront to parental rights."
Mary Szoch, of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, called the charges a tragedy for students, a violation of parental rights and a "grave overstep" by the school.
"Schools not informing parents, and worse, paying for the killing of a teenager's unborn child is horrific," she said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Saying the American public "is not going to put up with it any longer," President Donald Trump is now providing some details about cleaning up the nation's capital city of Washington, D.C.
On Truth Social on Sunday, Trump said a news conference is slated for 10 a.m. Monday in the White House Press Briefing Room to address the matter.
"I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before," the president began.
"The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong.
"It's all going to happen very fast, just like the Border. We went from millions pouring in, to ZERO in the last few months. This will be easier – Be prepared! There will be no "MR. NICE GUY." We want our Capital BACK."
In a follow-up message, Trump indicated the news conference "will not only involve ending the Crime, Murder, and Death in our Nation's Capital, but will also be about Cleanliness and the General Physical Renovation and Condition of our once beautiful and well maintained Capital.
"We are not going to allow people to spend $3.1 Billion Dollars on fixing up a building, like the Federal Reserve, which could have been done in a far more elegant and time sensitive manner for $50 to $100 Million Dollars. The Renovation would have actually been better, and we would have saved $3 Billion Dollars, Traffic Jams, and never-ending Construction.
"The Mayor of D.C., Muriel Bowser, is a good person who has tried, but she has been given many chances, and the Crime Numbers get worse, and the City only gets dirtier and less attractive.
"The American Public is not going to put up with it any longer. Just like I took care of the Border, where you had ZERO Illegals coming across last month, from millions the year before, I will take care of our cherished Capital, and we will make it, truly, GREAT AGAIN!
"Before the tents, squalor, filth, and Crime, it was the most beautiful Capital in the World. It will soon be that again. Thank you for your attention to this matter – See you tomorrow at 10 A.M.!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A fight to hold accountable a cop who framed a teen for a crime she did not commit and watched her go to prison for two years is being elevated.
The Institute for Justice confirms it is seeking a review by the full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a panel affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights case brought on behalf of Hamdi Mohamud.
She sued St. Paul officer Heather Weyker, "who framed Mohamud in 2011," the IJ explained.
"Because Weyker was working on a state-federal task force and cross-deputized as a federal officer at the time, the court held that Weyker cannot be held accountable for fabricating evidence that put then-teenaged Mohamud behind bars for nearly two years," the IJ charged.
It now will petition the entire 8th Circuit for en banc review so that all active judges may reconsider the panel's decision.
"Today's decision is deeply disappointing," said Patrick Jaicomo, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "Despite clear evidence that Officer Weyker lied to frame Hamdi, the courts continue to grant her immunity. No constitutional right is safe if judges invent or maintain loopholes for officers who flout the law."
The decision being targeted was from a three-judge panel of the court.
"At the heart of Mohamud v. Weyker is a growing accountability gap created when local police officers join work cooperatively with federal officers on task forces. Ordinarily, a federal law known as 'Section 1983' allows victims to sue state and local officers who violate the Constitution. But when those officers work alongside federal colleagues, courts tend to bless them with sweeping immunities that leave their victims with no legal remedy. This long-running is a case in point," the IJ charged.
It reported in 2019, the Eighth Circuit first held that Weyker could not hide behind qualified immunity because "a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation is unlawful," the legal team explained.
Then a year later the court claimed Weyker could not be sued "as a federal officer," but that Mohamud had to show Weyker was acting as a state officer.
The IJ presented extensive documentation describing how Weyker was working as a state officer—on a St. Paul led task force with its mission to benefit Minnesota.
But the decision disregarded the evidence, the IJ said.
"Today's decision allows Officer Weyker to escape scot-free for framing an innocent teenager. But IJ will continue the legal battle by appealing this case to the full Eighth Circuit and, if necessary, Supreme Court," the IJ said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One would think that an institution called "Aloha High School" might be allowed to honor the first king of Hawaii, Kamehameha, with its logo – but it will no longer be tolerated.
The Beaverton, Oregon, high school received a bit of pushback last year over its longtime logo, which represents the team name, the "warriors."
Here is the former logo, considered "inappropriate" by some, featuring King Kamehameha:
While the school will keep the moniker "warriors," the new symbol representing the name will be a wolf, officially introduced with the new school year.
As KOIN-TV reports, Oregon has prohibited public schools from using Native American mascots and team names, unless they reached an agreement with federally recognized tribes across the state, since July 2017.
While the school's mascot depicts the first king of Hawaii instead of a Native American figure, and "warriors" is permitted as a team name as long as it isn't combined by imagery associated with American Indian Tribes, Aloha High School revealed in spring 2024 that several people had raised an issue with its branding.
Subsequently, a committee was formed to consider replacing the iconic Kamehameha.
Apparently, part of the problem with the king is his "specific gender."
"In the Beaverton School District and at Aloha High School, we believe that all students belong," the district said on its website. "We're committed to ensuring that all aspects of our school culture reflect this inclusivity, including our mascot. As a district, we're moving away from school mascots that depict human figures or specific genders, as these types of mascots do not connect to or represent all students."
The student body eventually voted to approve a new logo depicting a howling "warrior" wolf. It is unclear what gender the wolf identifies as.
While countless schools and professional sports teams have changed mascots to assuage community sensitivities in recent years, the Trump administration is restoring "inappropriate" names of military bases and other facilities that had been 86'd during the Biden years.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is insisting people take MORE COVID shots this year, despite a long list of serious side effects that include cardiac arrest – or death.
The shots were introduced during the pandemic several years ago that circled the globe and killed millions.
They all were introduced under an "experimental" label as manufacturers wanted to start selling them before the ordinary testing procedures were done.
The medical establishment, including such high-profile personalities like Anthony Fauci, the adviser to Joe Biden on COVID who once insisted that arguing with him was arguing with "the science," publicly rejected existing treatments that could, and did, help some people, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, because for the experimental products to be used there was a requirement that other treatments not be available.
Now comes this year's advisory in which the CDC repeatedly demands people get the shots, without a single word about the potentially lethal side effects.
The CDC states: "CDC recommends a 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine for most adults ages 18 and older. Parents of children ages 6 months to 17 years should discuss the benefits of vaccination with a healthcare provider."
It claims, "The COVID-19 vaccine helps protect you from severe illness, hospitalization, and death. It is especially important to get your 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine if you are ages 65 and older, are at high risk for severe COVID-19, or have never received a COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine protection decreases over time, so it is important to get your 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine."
Then it repeats, "Reminder: CDC recommends a 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine for most adults ages 18 years and older. This includes people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine, people who have had COVID-19, and people with long COVID."
It does assure Americans that "COVID-19 vaccines are updated to give you the best protection from the currently circulating strains."
It states, yet again, "Getting the 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine is especially important if you: Never received a COVID-19 vaccine, Are ages 65 years and older, Are at high risk for severe COVID-19, Are living in a long-term care facility, Are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant, or might become pregnant in the future, Want to lower your risk of getting Long COVID."
It concedes if you recently had COVID-19, you may delay getting a shot … "for 3 months."
But it threatens, "Certain factors could be reasons to get a vaccine sooner rather than later."
The National Library of Medicine, run by the National Institutes of Health, however, reviewed "adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines," and found that while COVID-19 includes "fever, cough, headache, exhaustion, difficulty breathing, and a decreased sense of smell and taste," the shots' side effects include myocarditis, and that "remains a potential adverse effect that individuals should be aware of in making informed vaccination decisions."
Other potential issues for those taking the shots, according to the NIH, include, "pericarditis, thrombotic events, arrhythmias, hypertension, acute coronary syndrome, cardiac arrest and anemia."
Myocarditis and pericarditis have appeared to target "males younger than 30" who take the injections, the NIH said.
Further possibilities include inflammation, thrombosis, elevated blood pressure, thrombocytopenia.
There were nearly 30,000 admitted cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, arrhythmia and tachycardia, without counting those cases that may have been milder or not accurately diagnosed.
Also, the shots offer a chance of "leukocytoclastic vasculitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, irritable bowel syndrome, lesions, unilateral dermatome populovesicular herpes zoster, pityriasis rosea, recurrent pruritic maculopapular rash, recurring kidney diseases such as immunoglobulin nephropathy, neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies, vasculitis, acute interstitial nephritis, proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and peripheral edema.
There's even documented a a "substantial link" between COVID-19 shots and "acute disseminated encephalomyelitis," a "severe autoimmune disease affecting young individuals" that "results in rapid and unexpected degeneration of the protective covering around the nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord."
Victims suffered unconsciousness and seizures, as well as "foaming around the mouth, ascending paresthesias in the legs, severe spastic tetraparesis, memory decline."
"The COVID-19 vaccine has been found to lead to cognitive deficits and memory loss in older individuals with Alzheimer's disease," the government confirmed.
Then there's Bell's palsy, too.
Heath and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just weeks ago confirmed the CDC "would no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women."
And an online analysis reveals that, "Mortality increased each time they gave a new dose. This kind of dose-response temporal pattern is considered one of the strongest forms of circumstantial evidence in observational epidemiology."
The resistance to the continuation of Big Pharma's campaign to sell millions of more doses, generating billions of dollars in revenue, already has acquired a following across America.
He cited "nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines" and noted those could deliver "contaminant DNA into human cells."
He's called for a halt, and he's been joined by officials in multiple other states.
Kentucky, Idaho and Montana all recently have considered bans on shots, specifically the mRNA treatments. Officials in South Carolina, Texas, Iowa and Washington also have developed at the county level already.
And Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., had called on the FDA to "immediately revoke approval" of shots.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a far-left activist who represents part of New York City, has been handed a rebuke from the House Ethics Committee for claiming her live-in other is her "spouse" but also is not her "spouse."
A report in the Free Beacon noted that AOC considers Riley Roberts her "spouse" when the issue is accepting gifts that normally would be available only the spouses of members of Congress.
Such as a free ticket worth $35,000 to the 2021 Met Gala, or possession of a "spouse pin" that allows him access to non-public areas of the Capitol complex.
But he's not a spouse when it comes to public disclosure of his finances.
That differentiation is according to lawyer David Mitrani, who wrote to the ethics committee justifying her claims.
Actually, the report said, Cortez has "lived with Roberts since 2016 and the pair became engaged in 2022, but there's no evidence the couple has legally tied the knot, and Ocasio-Cortez hasn't been pictured wearing her engagement ring in public since November 2023."
The rebuke from the ethics committee was because she is – and isn't – describing him as her "spouse."
The lawyer noted that she could take a ticket worth $35,000 for Roberts for the 2021 Gala even though that was a perk available only to a "legally-married spouse."
"Roberts is considered a 'spouse'," Mitrani told the committee. With that understanding, Roberts also was able to accept free travel to Japan and South Korea.
But, the report said, Mitrani explained to the committee Roberts is not subject to having its income and financial holdings disclosed, as required for spouses of members of Congress, because for those requirements, he's not considered a "spouse."
"The Ethics Committee rebuked Ocasio-Cortez for her dual-use of the term 'spouse' to define her relationship with Roberts deep in the footnotes of the committee's July report ordering Ocasio-Cortez to repay $3,000 in impermissible gifts she received when she attended the 2021 Met Gala in her infamous 'Tax the Rich' dress," the report said.
"The Committee further notes that at the same time Representative Ocasio-Cortez was seeking to take advantage of exceptions to the Gift Rule only applicable to spouses and/or certain relatives, she was not disclosing Mr. Roberts's financial interests as is required of Members who are legally married," the committee wrote.
The report said literally no information is available about Roberts, where he works, his business ownerships, debts, assets and stock market trading activity.
"Federal laws that require the spouses of lawmakers to disclose their financial affairs to the public exist to prevent congressional spouses from profiting from their partner's position in Congress or from being used as a pass-through to influence legislation," the report said.
Kendra Arnold, of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, said the evidence raises questions about whether there is something being hidden.
"It is fair to question her inconsistent treatment of Roberts as her spouse, and specifically whether this is in an attempt to not disclose financial information," Arnold explained to the Free Beacon.
Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, of the Project on Government Oversight, said, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck."
"She wants to take advantage of the perks of Roberts being a congressional spouse when it's convenient. They should also comply with the less convenient parts of being a congressional spouse, including financial disclosures."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Louisiana woman is being accused of fraud by investigators who say she was running a multi-million-dollar empire involving several companies and bought a $100,000 Lamborghini but still claimed – and took – Medicaid benefits.
A report from Fox News explains Candace Taylor, 35, from Slidell, is facing felony counts, accused by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill's office of fraudulently taking Medicaid benefits.
"According to arrest records, the investigation began with a complaint from the Louisiana Department of Health alleging Taylor committed Medicaid recipient fraud by underreporting her income to qualify for benefits," the report explained.
She allegedly applied for Medicaid in 2018 under an alias, but was denied benefits. Then months later, she reapplied using the same alias but different information.
In 2024, two months after purchasing the Lamborghini, Taylor allegedly reapplied for Medicaid benefits — this time reporting a $2,000 monthly income and failing to disclose her ownership of any businesses, the report said.
But on Facebook, investigators found posts showcasing her luxury lifestyle.
A report from WVUE said in 2020 alone nearly $481,000 was deposited into her accounts.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
FBI Director Kash Patel found a trove of sensitive documents related to the origins of the Trump–Russia probe buried in multiple "burn bags" in a secret room inside the bureau, reports Fox News Digital.
The FBI reportedly uses the "burn bag" system to destroy documents designated as classified or higher.
According to Fox's sources, one of the documents FBI officials found in a burn bag was the classified annex to former special counsel John Durham's final report, which includes the underlying intelligence he reviewed.
Once the annex is declassified, it is scheduled to be turned over to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who reportedly will release the document to the public.
"Ultimately, the release of the classified annex will lend more credibility to the assertion that there was a coordinated plan inside the U.S. government to help the Clinton campaign stir up controversy connecting Trump to Russia," the source told Fox News Digital.
"Mere days after this intelligence was collected, the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane," the source said. "It's really hard to see how Brennan, Clapper and Comey are going to be able to explain this away."
In a June interview with podcast host Joe Rogan, Patel said that he found a room full of documents and computer hard drives "that no one had ever seen or heard of."
"Just think about this," Patel told Rogan. "Me, as director of the FBI, the former 'Russiagate guy,' when I first got to the bureau, found a room that Comey and others hid from the world in the Hoover Building, full of documents and computer hard drives that no one had ever seen or heard of. Locked the key and hid access and just said, 'No one's ever gonna find this place.'"
According to Fox News, the most recent discovery of documents was pursuant to an investigative request from Grassley.
The senator has requested Patel give him information related to Durham's probe. Durham was appointed after then-special counsel Robert Mueller completed his yearslong investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe – including intelligence community malfeasance during and in the aftermath of the 2016 election.
As the Gateway Pundit reported, part of Grassley's request is for thumb drives that contain unreviewed evidence in the Hillary Clinton email scandal.
Amuse on X wonders who it is within the FBI that tipped Patel off to the existence of the burn bags and hidden room, calling him or her an "unknown hero."