The story is so familiar that by now it's a Capitol Hill cliche: Lawmakers from different parties meet in the gym and realize amid the clack of iron weights that they have more in common than not. But the latest version comes with a geopolitical twist. The senator and the congressman who forged a rapport in the House gym quietly collaborated in a way that is making it tougher for Russia to swallow up Ukraine. Rep. Josh Gottheimer is a New Jersey Democrat and Harvard Law grad who once...

For a decade, Walmart has reigned as the nation’s biggest company by revenue. Its sales last year added up to $648 billion—more than $1.2 million a minute. That status comes with benefits. It gives Walmart power in negotiations with product manufacturers and in dealing with government officials over policy issues. It’s also a point of pride: Job postings often tout working at the “Fortune 1” company as a perk. Its reign is looking shaky lately. If current sales trends...

The moment where everything came together. The post The album Sammy Hagar called his peak: “I still love this record today” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The garage side of Fab. The post Jim Morrison’s favourite period of The Beatles: “They were authentic and very raw” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Men weren't the only ones galloping across the range, plenty of females were just as tough.

Men weren't the only ones galloping across the range, plenty of females were just as tough.

Donald J. Trump’s best defense in his ledger-entry case could come from the unlikeliest source: prosecutors. Local and federal prosecutors and law-enforcement officials fathom the stunning shallowness of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “case” against Trump. Why? They repeatedly decided not to prosecute Trump for the actions on which he now stands trial. These prosecutors, who left Trump untouched, include none other than Alvin Bragg himself! (READ MORE: Just How Sleazy Is the Democrat Party? Take a Look at Nevada.) Once the persecution rests, Trump’s legal team should call the following prosecutors and authorities as defense witnesses. I suggest questions to ask them and below, in italics, indicate what they might say, if they told the truth. Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Mr. Williams, do non-disclosure agreements violate federal law? No. To your knowledge, sir, do non-disclosure agreements violate New York state law? No, they do not. So, NDAs are perfectly legal, including when people sign them in exchange for payments not to speak with journalists, as routinely happens with out-of-court settlements and confidentiality agreements. Isn’t that true? Yes, that is true. Your office, that of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, could have filed criminal charges against Donald J. Trump for violating federal election law via the now-infamous “hush money” payment to pornographess Stormy Daniels. Did your office do so, either on your watch or before? No, our office filed no such charges against Mr. Trump. So, Donald J. Trump could have faced federal charges for his relevant actions in 2016 and 2017, but he has not. Isn’t that true, Mr. Williams? Yes, that is true. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Lisa J. Stevenson, Acting General Counsel for the Federal Election Commission Ms. Stevenson, has the FEC investigated the so-called hush-money allegations against Donald J. Trump and his associates? Yes. The FEC probed that question. And on Dec. 7, 2020, the FEC reported its findings. According to page six of the report that bears your name and those of three other attorneys, “the Trump Committee’s payment of those expenses did not constitute the personal use of campaign funds; accordingly, we recommend that the Commission dismiss the allegation that Cohen, Trump, and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b) by converting campaign funds to personal use.” Was that, in fact, your recommendation to the full FEC? Yes. That is what we recommended. And what did the FEC do with your recommendation? The Federal Election Commission met on Feb. 23, 2021, to decide whether to file charges against Trump and his associates. The four voting members of the commission — of whom the Democrats and Republicans appointed two each — reached a stalemate. Absent a majority vote to charge Trump, the matter went no further. So, Ms. Stevenson, is it true that Donald J. Trump could have faced federal civil charges related to this case, but the FEC chose not to file such charges against him? Yes, that is true. Thank you, ma’am. No further questions. Cyrus Vance Jr., Former Manhattan District Attorney Mr. Vance, were you Alvin Bragg’s immediate predecessor? Yes, I was. When did you serve as Manhattan D.A.? I was in that post from 2010 to 2021. During that time, sir, you had the opportunity and the capacity to prosecute Donald J. Trump for the charges that he faces today, in this courtroom. Is that true? Yes, that is true. And, yet, despite (at the time you left) a $458.9 million budget and 4,507 employees, you never filed any charges against Trump related to “hush money,” ledger entries, business records, or anything else pertinent to the case unfolding right here, today. Is that true, Mr. Vance? Yes, that is true. So, how many charges did the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office file against Donald J. Trump? We filed zero charges against Trump. No further questions, Mr. Vance. Mark Pomerantz, Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Mr. Pomerantz, did you once work for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg? Yes, I did. In your tenure, sir, did you encourage District Attorney Bragg to charge Donald J. Trump in the so-called hush money matter? Yes, I urged him to indict Trump. Did Mr. Bragg follow your advice? No. At least while we served together, he filed no such indictment. How did that make you feel, Mr. Pomerantz? Alvin Bragg’s refusal to indict Trump left me enormously frustrated. So, what did you do? I told Bragg that he “was responsible for ‘a grave failure of justice.’” I resigned, along with my colleague, Carey Dunne. Then I wrote a book titled People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account. I hoped that embarrassment and outside pressure would push Bragg to indict Trump. So, is it true to say that, despite whatever arguments and evidence you presented to him, Alvin Bragg refused to indict Trump for the same charges that he faces today, in 2024, an election year. Yes, that is true. And this bothered you so much that you quit your job and authored a book about all of this, in hopes of humiliating your former boss into action? That is absolutely right! Do you believe your strategy of ridiculing Alvin Bragg into action has succeeded? Well, we’re all here today, aren’t we? Thank you very much, Mr. Pomerantz. No more questions. Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney Mr. Bragg, please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury: What statute makes it illegal in New York state to ask someone to sign a non-disclosure agreement? There is no such statute. So, wait a minute: Are you saying that NDAs are legal in this state? Yes, they are legal. Mr. Bragg, please tell the jury what part of the criminal code makes it illegal to pay so-called hush money to encourage someone not to discuss any topic, especially with journalists. There is no such passage in the criminal code. So, is it legal to pay “hush money” in the state of New York? Yes, it is legal. You have charged Donald J. Trump with masterminding a “scheme” to “catch and kill” potentially embarrassing stories by asking his friend, David Pecker, to buy the rights to those stories for the National Enquirer and then not publish them. Is that true? Yes, that is true. Mr. Bragg, please tell the jury the name of the law that this “catch and kill scheme” violated. “Catch and kill” does not violate any law. Now, Mr. Bragg, you claim that Mr. Trump tried to influence the 2016 election via this “catch and kill scheme” that you now concede is perfectly legal. Would you please tell the jury what law is broken when candidates try to influence elections by discouraging news coverage of stories that they might find inconvenient or embarrassing? There is no law against trying to influence an election. Mr. Bragg, you claim that Donald J. Trump falsified business records by logging his checks to his former attorney as “legal expenses.” This included reimbursement for the payment to Stormy Daniels as well as Michael Cohen’s retainer and other legal costs. If not “legal expenses,” what entry should Mr. Trump’s bookkeepers have entered in their records? Um, I’m not sure. Hush money? Porn-star payments? Let me get back to you on that one. Mr. Bragg, is it against the law to record one’s legal expenses in one’s ledger as “legal expenses?” No, that is not illegal. Mr. Bragg, do you believe in time travel? What do you mean? According to your indictment, Donald J. Trump engaged in a hush-money plot to influence the 2016 presidential election. But in the “conspiracy” that your assistants have mentioned in this court (with no actual indictment for conspiracy, by the way), Trump gave no money to anyone until his first reimbursement payment to Michael Cohen. That check was dated Feb. 14, 2017. Subsequent checks from Trump to Cohen bore later dates. Mr. Bragg, how can checks dated on or after Valentine’s Day 2017 influence an election that already had occurred — at least 98 days earlier— on Nov. 8, 2016? Hmmmmm. Let me guess: E = MC²? Mr. Bragg, you indicted Donald J. Trump on April 4, 2023. Unfortunately for you, on Dec. 5, 2022 — 120 days earlier — the statute of limitations expired on the Class E felonies with which you charged him. So, to defibrillate these dead statutes, you claimed that Trump’s actions violated federal law. However, neither the Justice Department nor the Federal Election Commission chose to prosecute Trump for what you consider crimes. Isn’t that true? Yes, that is true. Moreover, Mr. Bragg, according to an April 25, 2023, U.S. Justice Department Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Election Commission, those two federal agencies have “exclusive jurisdiction,” respectively, over criminal and civil enforcement of federal campaign-finance laws. This federal rule gives local prosecutors precisely zero authority to enforce federal election laws. Isn’t that true, Mr. Bragg? I cannot argue with that. You have tried to turn this into a federal case, but you have no power as a local district attorney to prosecute federal campaign-finance laws, do you? Now that you mention it, no. So, to recap: The U.S. Justice Department, Federal Election Commission, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could have indicted Donald J. Trump on these charges earlier. None of them did so. Non-disclosure agreements, “hush money” payments, “catch and kill schemes,” and registering legal expenses as “legal expenses” are all perfectly legal. Mr. Trump’s checks written in 2017 could not influence an election in 2016, unless he owns a time machine. And only Trump’s time machine could save your indictment from getting gobbled by the statute of limitations that expired on the state felonies on which your indictment rested when you filed it four months too late. And the DOJ and FEC left unwielded the federal crime that you hijacked to resuscitate these deceased state felonies. Even worse, as a local prosecutor, you have no legal authority to enforce federal campaign-finance laws. Mr. Bragg, is this true? Yes. It’s all true. Considering all of this, Mr. Bragg, you have no case against Donald J. Trump, do you? Well, I would love to disagree with you, but I am under oath. So, you got me. No further questions, Mr. Bragg. Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor. The post Trump’s Best Witnesses for the Defense: Prosecutors appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Costco's bakery is known for its rotating roster of treats, and one new item seems to be flying off the shelves. What flavor is this new pie, and is it good?

Nobody expects fast food to be healthy, but some fast food chains seem to be in competition for who can pack the most fat, sodium, and sugar into a single meal.

Suspension comes in response to damning Congressional report concluding EcoHealth Alliance "used taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan at the WIV, contrary to previous public statements, including those by Dr. Anthony Fauci." The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has formally commenced debarment proceedings against EcoHealth Alliance from receiving taxpayer-funded government grants over its role in facilitating gain-of-function research in China. In its action referral memorandum published on Wednesday, HHS explained how EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) and its president Peter Daszak skirted government oversight and regulations to conduct risky gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) that led up to the release of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that became COVID-19. “The information in the record establishes EHA did not adequately monitor WIV’s compliance, and, therefore, its own compliance, with the terms and conditions of its grant award,” wrote HHS Suspension and Debarment Official Henrietta Katrina Brisbon. ?BREAKING?Today, based on evidence uncovered in @COVIDSelect‘s recent report, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commenced formal debarment proceedings against EcoHealth Alliance.EcoHealth will now face an immediate, government-wide suspension of taxpayer… pic.twitter.com/gLxg6R3Enw— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (@COVIDSelect) May 15, 2024 “Therefore, given the issues regarding the management of EHA’s grant awards and subawards, I have determined that the immediate suspension of EHA is necessary to protect the public interest.”Power up with Nitric Boost that’s now 40% OFF! This potent formula gives you the massive edge in strength and superior circulation for that unparalleled performance you've been looking for! The HHS memorandum came in response to a damning report issued by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic earlier this month finding EcoHealth Alliance “used taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan at the WIV, contrary to previous public statements, including those by Dr. Anthony Fauci.” The report, which was based on over “one million pages of documents” and testimony from “more than a dozen fact witnesses” also found “EcoHealth violated its grant terms and conditions by failing to report a potentially dangerous experiment conducted by the WIV.” Additionally, the report concluded the National Institute of Health “may not have known about EcoHealth’s actions without proper intervention by former-President Donald Trump and former-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.” Subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) issued a statement Wednesday praising HHS’s move to suspend EcoHealth Alliance from government grants: “EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. “EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide.“The Select Subcommittee’s investigation into EcoHealth and the origins of COVID-19 is far from over. Dr. Daszak and his team are still required to produce all outstanding documents and answer the Select Subcommittee’s questions, specifically related to Dr. Daszak’s potential dishonesty under oath. We will hold EcoHealth accountable for any waste, fraud, and abuse and are committed to uncovering any illegal activity, including lying to Congress, NIH, or the Inspector General.” The nonprofit’s suspension also undermines former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci’s repeated testimony — under oath — that EcoHealth Alliance never facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Fauci vs. Fauci: A compilation of countless lies and contradictions on gain-of-function, lab leak, masks, lockdowns, and vaccine side effects. pic.twitter.com/DVZXxeR5Ce— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) January 8, 2024 Rep. Wenstrup last week also called on the State Department to release all classified documents related to the origins of COVID-19 and claimed the Chinese Communist Party attempted to cover it up. Notably, despite Daszak admitting in 2021 to helping China develop weaponized coronaviruses, the Biden administration awarded EcoHealth Alliance another $2.3 million in government grants for research on bat coronaviruses two years later. John Kirby’s answer to the question of whether Biden thinks conducting Gain of Function research is prudent: “I think that’s a fancy way of saying yes” pic.twitter.com/kNE9ExvlDJ— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 27, 2023 Read the HHS memo: Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds