A Dangerous Obstruction of Justice


 

The leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion in the Dobbs v Jackson case is a dangerous obstruction of justice. And, it could very well lead to intimidation and violence directed at Supreme Court justices. Indeed, leftwing protestors reportedly plan to appear at the homes of conservative justices.

This unprecedented leak fits with the Left’s continued assault against the Supreme Court. As soon as the news of the leaked opinion broke, leftwing protesters were at the Supreme Court.

There must be a full investigation, but I’m not holding my breath when it comes to the Biden administration upholding the rule of law – especially when administration allies, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, have threatened the justices in the past.

In the meantime, let's hope the rule of law prevails and the precious lives of unborn human beings can once again be protected under law.

We are directly involved in this case. In December 2021 we announced our amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Our brief, filed in support of the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, argues that states have the right under the Constitution to regulate abortion and protect unborn life (Dobbs v. Jackson (No. 19-1392)).

Our brief argues that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe and restore the regulation of abortion to the state:

Despite creative judicial legislating, it is crystal clear that abortion does not involve war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce, or taxation. Abortion fits squarely into the states’ sphere of objects that concern the “lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Not being an enumerated power, the Roe Court did not have the authority to overturn the abortion laws of the states.
 

Additionally, our brief notes that Roe v. Wade didn’t provide clarity, but instead muddied the waters:

Far from creating a national consensus, Roe threw the states into a 48-year contentious legal battle. Even some abortion advocates eschew the injudicious method of federalizing abortion as short-circuiting a naturally evolving jurisprudence under state laws. As federal and state judges attempt to apply this Court’s precedents, a national landscape of inconsistent, inconclusive, and untenable rules have emerged. As a national policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a mess. Stubbornly holding on to unconstitutional precedent will never have a positive outcome. It is time to return abortion policy to the states where it belongs and where the democratic process can effectively work.
 

I pray that the justices will remain steadfast in the fallout from this egregious crime.


Court Orders FBI To Detail Officials Listed in Anti-Trump Memo

A federal court has ordered the FBI to disclose additional details about FBI and other officials copied on the memo used to justify launching the “Crossfire Hurricane” spy operation against President Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign. 

Judge Carl J. Nichols has given the FBI until June 16, 2022 to respond. The order comes in our September 2019 FOIA lawsuit filed after the FBI failed to respond to a request for the memo, known as an “Electronic Communication” or “EC.”  (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-02743)).

In May 2020, we obtained a redacted version of the previously secret memo, authored by former FBI agent Peter Strzok. The Biden Justice Department argued that there is no significant public interest in disclosing the names of officials copied on the memo.

We filed a motion countering that claim and arguing that the public had a significant interest in knowing who at the FBI had knowledge of the memo and presumably approved the investigation.

The court held a hearing on the dispute in September 2021, and on May 2, 2022 issued a minute order requiring the FBI to file a supplemental memorandum of up to 5 pages, supported by an affidavit or declaration, explaining the positions and seniority held by any persons whose names are redacted from the “CC:” section of the document.

In support of our position, we provided the Court with two declarations by Kevin Brock, former assistant director of the Directorate of Intelligence and former FBI principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Brock testified that it is not standard procedure to have an EC drafted, approved, and sent to and from a single agent and that doing so violates FBI oversight protocols:

In the EC document here, the “From” line indicates the EC – and authorization to begin an investigation as required under FBI policy – is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. The contact listed is Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted by Peter Strzok. The EC was approved by Peter Strzok. On the face of the document produced, it appears the EC that initiated a criminal FARA investigation of unidentified members of the Trump presidential campaign was created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok. This is not the usual procedure.

FBI policy prohibits an agent from initiating and approving his or her own case.  Such action violates FBI oversight protocols put in place to protect the American people from an FBI agent acting unilaterally.

***

In fact, the EC does not identify any individual by name as a target of the investigation.  It does not articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA as required by routine FBI policy and procedure and the Attorney General Guidelines and, therefore, does not contain sufficient justification for initiating an investigation into USPERs [U.S. persons].

Based upon my experience, no reasonable and experienced FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved the EC at issue here – as released – which opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The unredacted information released in the EC document here offers no legitimate predication justifying the investigation of USPERs involved in a presidential campaign or subsequent FISA intercept of a U.S. citizen.
 

The Biden administration is still covering up who was involved in the Obama administration’s unprecedented and illicit spying on Donald J. Trump. This court decision is another step forward in accountability for the worst government corruption scandal in American history.


Questions About Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine’s Effects

While drug giant Pfizer is reporting a 61 percent leap in profits for the first quarter, due to COVID, we’re learning more about the vaccines that were rushed to market during the pandemic.

We received 466 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA-based COVID vaccine relies on LNPs as a delivery system. Pfizer said in a January 10, 2022 press release that Acuitas Therapeutics LNP technology is used in COMIRNATY, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

We also received 663 pages of records from HHS revealing that Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that vaccine DNA particles and injected virus particles were still present in test animals months after injection.

The records also show that Johnson & Johnson, as part of its submission to the FDA for approval of its COVID vaccine, did not include studies of the spike protein encoded in the J&J vaccine.

We obtained the records in response to a FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-02418)) filed after the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:

[A]ccess to biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines used to treat and/or prevent SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19.
 

Biodistribution is a method of tracking where compounds of interest travel in an experimental animal or human subject.

The Pfizer records include a report, which was approved in February 2021, on the animal trials on the distribution of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in rat subjects. In a section titled “Safety Pharmacology” the report notes, “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted with BNT162b2 [the BioNTech vaccine] as they are not considered necessary for the development of vaccines according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions with BNT162b2 were not conducted as they are generally not considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

This Pfizer report notes that when lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) “with a comparable composition” to that used in the Pfizer COVID vaccine were injected into rats, “Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP outside the injection site was greatest in the liver and was much less in the spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries.” … “in summary” … “the LNP distributes to the liver.” In the detailed analysis, the report states, “Over 48 hours, the LNP distributed mainly to liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries, with maximum concentrations observed at 8-48 hours post-dose. Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP, for combined male and female animals, outside of the injection site was greatest in the liver (up to 18%) …”

This same Pfizer/BioNTech study notes “No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 [the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine] as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, “Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential.”

The conclusion of the study begins: “The nonclinical program demonstrates that BNT162b2 is immunogenic in mice, rats, and nonhuman primates, and the toxicity studies support the licensure of this vaccine.” The report notes that “boost immunizations” were also being tested on the animals in the trial. Also, “Vaccine-related microscopic findings at the end of dosing for BNT162b2 were evident in injection sites and surrounding tissues, in the draining iliac lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen, and liver.”

Also included in the Pfizer records is a report, approved in January 2021, titled “Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary.” A table in the report shows the biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA used in the vaccine using rats as the clinical trial subjects reports LNPs accumulating after 48 hours, especially in the lymph nodes, ovaries, small intestine and spleen.

A summary of a study, approved in November 2020, of LNP mRNA distribution in rats, sponsored by Acuitas Therapeutics, notes that the concentrations of the LNP mRNA saw “levels peaking in the plasma by 1-4 hours post-dose and distribution mainly into liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries over 48 hours. Total recovery of radioactivity outside of the injection site was greatest in the liver, with much lower total recovery in spleen, and very little recovery in adrenals glands and ovaries. The mean plasma, blood and tissue concentrations and tissue distribution patterns were broadly similar between the sexes and … did not associate with red blood cells.”

A September 2020 “Confidential” appendix to the clinical trial studies submitted for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine (BNT162b2), titled “Justification for the absence of studies in CTD Module 4 (part of 2.4)” notes under “Safety Pharmacology” that “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted as they are not considered necessary according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).”

And under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is written: “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions were not conducted as they are not generally considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

Under the heading “Genotoxicity,” is: “No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).”

Regarding “Carcinogenicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)” is written:

Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential. Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).
 

In a “Confidential” Pfizer study, approved in April 2020, looking at four COVID vaccine variants, the company tested a vaccine with an RNA strand “that self-amplifies upon entering the cell.” It “encodes the Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP or replicas).”

In the same Pfizer study, the authors note that, “Although liver function tests will be carefully monitored during the clinical development of these vaccines, BioNTech’s prior clinical experience indicates that the distribution to the liver does not pose a safety concern.

Also, the Pfizer study authors note, “Based on previous nonclinical and clinical experience with the three RNA platforms, a beneficial safety profile is anticipated, and may include transient local reactions (such as swelling/edema or redness) and body temperature increases.”

The Johnson & Johnson records include a 2007 study of the biodistribution of an intramuscular-administered adenovector-based viral vaccine using New Zealand white rabbits, which showed that the vaccine accumulated in “the spleen, iliac lymph node, and the muscle at the site of injection.”

A biodistribution table included as an appendix to the 2007 rabbit study showed that the vaccine DNA particles were still present in the iliac lymph nodes 91 days after injection.

A chart of pharmacokinetics data from a November 2020 report of a study on “VAC31518 JNJ-78436735,” the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, on rabbits shows the collection of the injected virus particles in the spleen and iliac lymph nodes up to three months later, as well as particles found in the skin and muscle at the injection site.

In a November 4, 2020 report submitted to the FDA regarding the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine, the authors discuss the 2007 New Zealand rabbit study in which adenovirus-vectored vaccine is trialed, but note that “No pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been conducted with AD26.COV2.S specifically.”

The report notes that metabolism, excretion, and pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs were not studied in this trial because they are “Not applicable to vaccines.” It is also noted that “biodistribution studies have not been conducted with Ad26.COV2.S.”

A table in the report shows that the vaccine virus continued to appear in the rabbits’ iliac lymph nodes 180 days after injection.

A June 2020 “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines notes that:

Ad26COVS1 (also known as VAC31518 or JNJ-78436735) is a monovalent, recombinant replication-incompetent adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vectored vaccine encoding a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike protein…. No specific pharmacokinetic studies have been performed with Ad26COVS1. However, to assess distribution, persistence, and clearance of the Ad26 vector (platform), biodistribution studies were conducted in rabbits using two other Ad26-based vaccines encoding [redacted] and [redacted] antigens…. [T]he available biodistribution results are considered sufficient to inform on the biodistribution profile of Ad26COVS1, for which the same Ad26 vector backbone is used.
 

These documents show why many Americans have concerns about whether the novel COVID vaccines that were developed at such an accelerated pace were tested properly and thoroughly.


Hire a Biden Official, Get a No-Bid Contract, Waste $17 Million

It helps to know somebody. And it’s easy for bureaucrats to spend your tax dollars. Our Corruption Chronicles blog details a sweetheart deal between a private agency and your government.

A nonprofit that hired a Biden administration official received a huge no-bid government contract that wasted $17 million on unused hotel rooms for illegal immigrants, a federal audit reveals. The politically connected group, which had no experience providing the services covered by the sole source federal contract, also failed to meet COVID-19 health protocols required by the government when the deal was signed. The highly questionable arrangement was executed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Homeland Security agency responsible for housing migrant families in detention. The agency typically uses Family Residential Centers (FRC) to house family units, but in early 2021 ICE anticipated increased apprehensions of illegal immigrant families along the southern border and awarded a contract to harbor them in hotels while completing intake processing, auditors from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General explain in a recent report.

The group that received the lucrative no-bid award, Endeavors, had never provided beds or all-inclusive emergency family residential services when ICE hired it to do so, auditors found. Formerly known as Family Endeavors, the Texas-based nonprofit claims to passionately serve vulnerable people in crisis through its innovative, personalized approach. Last year a national news outlet reported that Endeavors won a colossal $530 million government contract just months after it hired Biden administration official Andrew Lorenzen-Straight as its senior director for migrant services and federal affairs. The contract is by far the largest ever awarded to the nonprofit, according to the article, and is potentially worth more than 12 times the group’s most recently reported annual budget. Lorenzen-Strait, a former ICE official who also advised the Biden-Harris transition team on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy and staffing matters, must have pulled some strings.

The recently published audit focuses on an $87 million chunk of the Endeavors deal to increase housing capacity for detained migrant families early last year. The sole source contract was for approximately six months, from March to September 2021, to provide 1,239 beds and other necessary services in hotels. Because ICE did not seek multiple bids for the work as it is obligated to do, the agency blindly agreed to pay for a block of more than 1,200 hotel rooms, regardless of how many got used. It resulted in $17 million worth of hotel rooms that remained mostly empty, the DHS IG found. “ICE did not adequately justify the need for the sole source contract to house migrant families and spent approximately $17 million for hotel space and services at six hotels that went largely unused between April and June 2021,” the reports state. “ICE’s sole source contract with Endeavors resulted in millions of dollars being spent on unused hotel space.”

The DHS watchdog reveals that the deal was penned after Endeavors provided an unsolicited proposal for housing migrant families in hotels. Government agencies typically receive proposals from contractors after putting out requests for proposals. “However, Endeavors provided a proposal without such a request from ICE,” investigators found. ICE then cited “unusual and compelling urgency” as the basis for an exception to the competitive contracting process. The agency’s justification noted that Endeavors was the only known source capable of meeting the requirements to provide 1,239 hotel beds and all-inclusive emergency family residential services to support the surge of asylum seekers. “Based on our analysis of ICE’s justification for sole sourcing the contract to Endeavors, we determined ICE did not have supporting documentation to establish that Endeavors was the only contractor that could provide the services needed,” the DHS IG writes.

Additionally, Endeavors did not meet the government’s healthcare protocols or ensure proper COVID-19 testing for families. “For example, families were not tested by ICE for COVID-19 prior to being transported to hotels and were not always tested by Endeavors staff upon arrival at or departure from hotels, putting migrant families and the outside population at risk of contracting COVID-19,” the report states. “Further, Endeavors did not follow required ICE standards to ensure the proper care for housing migrant families while such families were residing in its facilities.”
 

Until next week,