US split on origins of Covid-19, according to intelligence report

US intelligence services have concluded that, while there is no direct evidence of Covid-19 being released from a Chinese laboratory, the potential of it being a natural or artificial origin is still plausible. Their evaluation also suggested that the virus was not deliberately altered or manipulated. This point has been strongly refuted by China and has caused considerable controversy in America.

As a result of a bill passed by Congress in March, US intelligence was given 90 days to declassify the information it had about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on Friday night. "The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, since both (natural and lab) hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting," said the 10-page report.

>

As a result of the findings, four agencies believe that the virus spread from animals to humans, while two other agencies - the Energy Department and the FBI - maintain that the virus spread from a laboratory. Despite the findings that the US intelligence community still couldn't rule out the possibility that the virus came from a laboratory, the report states that Covid-19 wasn't developed as a biological weapon.

The report stated that the WIV and Chinese army had collaborated on coronaviruses for public health, but not on infections that could have been the source of Covid-19. According to the report, scientists at the WIV have created "chimeras," or combinations of coronaviruses, and used reverse genetic cloning to conceal intentional changes.

According to the report, some researchers did not take adequate biosafety precautions before the pandemic. However, US intelligence does not know if there was a specific biosafety incident at the Wuhan lab that led to the outbreak of Covid-19. A number of researchers there became ill in autumn of 2019, but their illnesses could have been caused by a number of diseases, and some of their symptoms were not consistent with Covid-19, according to the report.

Why Covid lab-leak theory is so disputed by FBI Chief

John Ratcliffe, who served as US Director of National Intelligence under former President Donald Trump, responded to the report by accusing President Joe Biden's administration of "continued obfuscation". He said in a statement: "The lab-leak is the only theory supported by science, intelligence, and common sense." The WIV - which is situated just 40 minutes away from Huanan wet market - has raised eyebrows since it is where the initial Covid cases emerged late in 2019. Additionally, the 2021 joint China-World Health Organization investigation found this theory to be "extremely unlikely", however many felt this report had caused more confusion than resolution. Consequently, some experts feel we may never know the real source of Covid-19 which has sadly taken nearly seven million lives worldwide.

 Hunter Biden's IRS whistleblower testimony was kept secret by Democrats

Democratic Rep. Jason Smith said they would regret their vote

All House Democrats on the committee that released the whistleblowers' testimony about the Hunter Biden tax probe voted to keep the information out of public view on Thursday. The two IRS whistleblowers said that President Biden's son was given preferential treatment during U.S. Attorney Weiss' investigation, leading to a plea deal that should see him avoid prison time. Hunter Biden admitted guilt in relation to two misdemeanor tax-related charges, despite claims from the whistleblowers of deliberate stalling by the Department of Justice.

The chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, Jason Smith, R-Mo., said Republicans acted "in good faith" while accusing Democrats of 'sidestepping' the two whistleblowers.

Smith said on Friday, "Democrats will regret their vote as more facts come to light and are weighed in the court of public opinion. Justice cannot be skewed in favor of the wealthy and the politically connected."

BIDEN BRIBERY DOCUMENT NEVER MADE IT TO IRS INVESTIGATORS, WHISTLEBLOWER EXPLAINS: 'INFLUENCED BY POLITICS'

In a 25-18 party line vote, his committee, which gathered the testimony, decided to make the nearly 400 pages public. During our committee meeting, Democrats sidestepped the whistleblowers' damning testimony about misconduct and special treatment in Hunter Biden's alleged tax crimes," Smith said. During the whistleblower interviews, Republicans shared information and treated Democrats equally.

On Friday, Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., said that his Democratic counterparts' "no" votes amounted to "covering" for Hunter Biden.

GOP WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIMONY: DOJ, FBI, IRS INTERRUPTED HUNTER BIDEN PROBE

As Hern pointed out, "The evidence presented to committee members was clear. The Biden administration weaponized the federal government to protect the president's son from the consequences of his illegal actions." It's hard to believe anyone would vote to cover up those crimes, but that's exactly what every Democrat member of the committee did."

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., said after the vote that his party opposed the GOP's "process" rather than public disclosures.

WHISTEBLOWER: FBI, IRS OBJECTIONS TO HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATORS' QUESTIONS ABOUT 'DAD' AND 'BIG GUY'

Several witnesses were never contacted. There was no clear legislative purpose to the discussion," Neal told reporters after the closed-door meeting to discuss the documents' release.

 Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg say they are ready for a cage fight

Business rivalry apparently isn't enough for two of the tech industry's best billionaires. Now Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg say they want to make their decision in a cage fight.

The Twitter owner and CEO of Tesla ( TSLA ) and Musk recently said they are "getting ready for a cage fight" with the CEO of Meta and Zuckerberg. In an Instagram post on Wednesday, Zuckerberg posted a screenshot of Musk's tweet in response to a post with the caption: "Sent me the location".

Musk then responded to a tweet from tech news website Verge editor Alex Heath about the fight with "Vegas Octagon" — a reference to the Las Vegas arena that hosts the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

I have this great initiative.

CNN has reached out to Meta for comment. A company spokesperson told The Verge: "[Instagram] speaks for itself."

It's clear that Zuckerberg and Musk aren't on target.However, who will win the cage fight remains to be seen. Musk is physically bigger than Zuckerberg, but Metta Chief practices jiu-jitsu, a Brazilian martial art, and won gold and silver medals at a tournament in May.

Oddspedia, a sports betting platform, compiled odds from several different bookmakers, including Bovada, Bet Online and Ladbrokes, and concluded that Zuckerberg has an 83 percent chance of winning the fight.

Meanwhile, bookmaker Paddy Power is betting the match never takes place, but if it does, both men have an equal chance of winning.

"If this fight actually goes ahead, with a bit of luck, they'll both see each other out," a spokesman for the Irish company said in a statement.

They have history

Ranked first in the Bloomberg Billionaires Index - you've got to be bumped before that. In 2017, a very public reaction to the future of this artificial intelligence

Musk has repeatedly warned about AI's complacency, calling it an existential threat to the human race. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is more optimistic about the theory.

During a Facebook Live broadcast at the time, he dismissed the "doomsday scenarios" as "quite irresponsible".

Musk responded shortly after, tweeting: "I've talked to Mark about this.

Musk overtook Zuckerberg for the top spot on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index in 2020, becoming the world's richest person instantly.

French luxury goods giant LVMH (LVMHF) chairman Bernard Arnault briefly ousted him from the top spot in December, before May regained the title. Zuckerberg now ten green no

 Texas votes against repeat sufferer Angela Shatton in her husband's impeachment trial

The wife of Texas Gen. Ken Paxton is no longer allowed to vote in her husband's impeachment trial as a result of new laws approved Wednesday by state authorities.

The Dallas-area Rep. has previously made a point of not backing down from state candidates and "playing a role" in her husband's impeachment trial.

But after negotiating a bond and bond, the state is following new rules ahead of Ken Paxton's Sept. 5 impeachment trial, which now includes barring his spouse from voting in impeachment proceedings. Is. thing

The resolution states that "a member of the court who is a spouse in a derivative court is considered a conflict under the Texas Constitution." While the rules allow the PML-N to be present in impeachment proceedings, the new rule states, "Such a member of the Court shall not vote on a motion or question, or deliberate on adjournment or To participate in. Not eligible

approved the rules by a 25-3 vote. There was no public hearing before the vote and the names of candidates who voted against any of the resolutions were not immediately available.

BBN contacted Sen. Paxton Wednesday night. Tony Buzby, an attorney who spoke to Ken Pekin, called the impeachment trial a "moot" in a statement Friday after Texas announced its impeachment trial rules.

"We tried to disprove every count of this baseless impeachment," said Ab Buzri.

Absent a unanimous vote, Rep. Lt. Govt. Dr. Patrick, serving as president of the performance when the vote was taken, said he did nothing to "unify" the Republican-controlled chamber with other situations. "You are united in taking an oath so that justice will prevail, that one will do whatever is done in the most just way," Patrick said.

In a separate resolution, Texas officials asked Paxton to appear in person to answer. >

Ken Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives in May last month on charges of misconduct, including allegedly using his office to compromise a prominent donor. He denied wrongdoing. Under the Texas Constitution, Paxton is quietly suspended while the case is pending but will be reinstated if he is acquitted.

BBC previously reported that they are also reviewing an FBI investigation into abuse of office. Also appointed for indictment. Denied all errors and omissions package.

Clarification: Updated to be more precise about the new rule that affects the spouse of the subject of an impeachment trial. Also updated with more answers.

 

Adam Schiff Gets John Durham to Admit Russia Helped Trump

When Republican Special Counsel John Durham gave House Judiciary comments on Wednesday, he thought it was an opportunity to score points on Democrats, particularly Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), for any criticism. of the. Spending years in relationships. .

What they got in return was a brief moment when Schiff found Hum — the man tasked with concluding that the FBI's investigation into Russia's links to the 2016 disease campaign was justified. . — Durham at work.A former manager of the impeachment inquiry against Chef Druze questioned the president's release of information about the 2016 election that exposed Russian hacking. Durham repeatedly insisted that he had no knowledge of this. But in the midst of the exchange, Drumm made it clear that he did not doubt the veracity of any implication that Russia was trying to help — something most Republicans have vehemently denied.

Reuters/Elizabeth Frantz

When Republicans brought Special Counsel John Durham to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, they thought it would be an opportunity to score points against Democrats, particularly Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who has criticized Donald Trump's impeachment inquiry. Criticized Russia. Spent years building connections with

What they got instead was a viral moment when Schiff found Durham — the man tasked with concluding whether the FBI's investigation into Russia's ties to the Trump campaign in 2016 was appropriate. were - Took Durham to work.

Schiff, the former impeachment manager against Trump, questioned Durham about whether President Trump disclosed information released by Russian hackers during the 2016 election. Durham repeatedly insisted he had no knowledge of the matter. But during the exchange, Durham made it clear that he did not doubt the authenticity of the evidence showing Russia was trying to help Trump — something many Republicans have vehemently denied.

"I don't think there's any question that the Russians hacked the system, they released the information," Durham said.

"And it was helpful for the Trump campaign, right?" asked the chef.

After trying to deflect the question, Durham agreed that the Russians had been helpful to the Trump campaign.

"And Trump used it, like I said, didn't he use stolen documents a hundred times during the campaign," Schiff said.

Durham said he "didn't really read the papers, or listen to the news."

"So I don't know that," he said.

"Were you completely oblivious to Donald Trump's use of stolen emails a hundred times during the campaign?" asked the chef. "Did that escape your attention?"

Durham replied that he was not aware of this.

The exchange was one of several tense moments between Schiff and Durham throughout the day as Republicans backed Durham's report, insisting the FBI was investigating possible collusion between Trump and Russia in the 2016 election. Is. Should not have investigated.

More specifically, Durham appears to be unaware of the important facts of the alliance between the campaign and Russia. That ignorance came to the fore in several awkward exchanges with Democrats on the House Judiciary Commission.

This has been questioned by Eric Sowell-Durham about how Weill has said he "tried a real deal in Moscow and hid it from the public." It was a deal, detailed in Mueller's report, in which the Russian government promised to license one of the towers to Moscow. The proposed payment, the public gathering about it at the time and at the time, caused a lot of damage to Russia on its campaign. Drum replied, "I don't know anything about that."