President Donald Trump’s sweeping Monday pardon and commutation of January 6 prisoners and defendants is the sort of action that should have set off tidal waves of protest, howls of execration, and pleas that “this is not normal.”
Only it didn’t. While the usual suspects scrawled their objections, larger Washington merely shrugged.

Brian Stelter, who was hired back at CNN last fall after two years of exile in his apartment, leaned predictably hard and heavy on the outrage. He
fretted about Fox News’ coverage of Jake Paul and Mike Tyson horsing around at a gala and other outlets covering the president’s policy promises, comparing this negatively to his own courageous coverage.

There’s more than one reason for the more muted reactions of our generally apocalyptic press.

“While newsrooms,” he whined, “are focusing on the rule of law, MAGA opinion outlets are focusing on Trump’s rule.”

“They assaulted cops and tried to overturn an election,” another CNN story
read. “What to know about Trump’s mass pardons for January 6 rioters.”

Besides the true believers, however, there were largely shrugs. The Washington Post dedicated its homepage to anti-Trump planning and warnings, but the pardons barely made it onto the fold.

Washington Post/Screenshot

Politico’s morning newsletter outlined the new president’s early infrastructure agenda, the policy impacts of some of his executive orders, and his relaxed demeanor. It didn’t get to the pardons until nine paragraphs down. Though it called it “the biggest story of the night,” the focus was on whether Republicans might get squirmy over it all. In short: politics over histrionics.

The New York Times gave the pardons similar treatment to the Post’s, placing them in the bottom right of the page.

New York Times/Screenshot

The L.A. Times on Tuesday morning understandably devoted the top two-thirds of its homepage to the wildfires’ devastation. The pardons did not make the morning homepage.

The Congress-focused Punchbowl morning newsletter only made mention of the sweeping executive action in a portion of a sentence and did not offer any musings on legislators’ reactions.

The word “unprecedented,” a near-hourly cliché in corporate media’s coverage of Trump’s first term in office, didn’t appear even once in the above analyses. A golden age for America, indeed!

There’s more than one reason for the more muted reactions of our generally apocalyptic press. First, while the breadth and depth of the pardons happily surprised many of Trump’s supporters, they were long expected. He promised he would do this over and over again, and he did it.

Second is the reality of Trump’s new legitimacy. Over eight years of nearly every one of his warnings coming true, his public persecution, and the incredible assassination attempt, Trump has far more political capital than any person in the country right now.

Politico co-founder John Harris said it well in
an op-ed about Trump’s place in history. Democrats, he wrote, have learned the hard way that they “cannot push Trump to the margins, by treating him as a momentary anomaly or simply denouncing him as lawless and illegitimate.” The truly jaw-dropping piece was titled “Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He’s Still Trying to Be a Good One.”

Third, outgoing President Joe Biden’s pardons. They were egregious and self-centered, and he and his allies had promised time and time again that he would not do it. They muddied the waters, made any kind of clean hit on Trump laughable, and deeply stained his legacy.

Finally, the American people are sick of J6. Truly sick of it. It’s been beaten to death, and we know it. Imagined tales of heroism couldn’t even win former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn a 2024 Democratic primary a short drive outside D.C. in deep-blue Maryland. We know there were examples of awful violence that day, but we’re also aware that the Department of Justice launched one of the largest investigations in modern history — and we can figure there were more than a few miscarriages of justice. Even those who might have earned their time have already served years in prison.

“Whatever the Oath Keepers may or may not be individually guilty of,” Blaze News investigative reporter and former J6 defendant Steve Baker told the Beltway Brief, “the one thing they are not guilty of are the crimes for which they were convicted.” He’s far from alone in recognizing this.

That dim awareness, by the way, will only grow as those freed from their prison cells tell their stories.

“I’m leading with this [J6] today,” Stelter wrote Tuesday morning, “because we have to burst these media bubbles in order to understand what Americans of various political persuasions are feeling and thinking right now.”

Interesting thought. The funny thing is that the bubble is his own. And it’s shrinking by the hour.

Politico: Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He’s Still Trying to Be a Good One.

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter

Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

Monday marked a new chapter in our nation’s history. This moment is not just about a new administration — it is about a new commitment to the founding principles that built this great republic. It is about restoring power to where it rightly belongs: with the American people.

For too long, our government has drifted from its purpose. Too often, it has overreached, overtaxed, overspent, and overwhelmed the very citizens it was created to serve. Today, that era of excess ends.

Our country’s future is in our hands. It is not the government, but us — the workers, the dreamers, the parents, and the patriots — who are the engine of this great nation.

The time has come to reaffirm the truth that our rights come not from government but from God. Government does not create. It cannot invent or inspire. Its proper role is not to command but to protect — to preserve the freedoms that allow you to build your dreams, raise your families, and live your lives without interference.

A government that works for the people

For decades, a bloated federal bureaucracy has grown unchecked, sapping the vitality of our economy and the strength of our communities. Departments that were meant to help have become barriers to progress. Agencies designed to protect have too often punished the very people they exist to serve.

Trump has pledged to put an end to the administrative state. He will begin by closing the Department of Education, returning the power of teaching our children to parents, local communities, and state governments where it belongs. Washington, D.C., has no business deciding what our children learn or how they are taught.

But he won’t stop there. Any department or agency that is ineffective, inefficient, or that usurps the rights of the states or the people should face the same scrutiny. The balance of power has shifted too far from the people to unelected officials who believe they answer to no one.

The national debt is a silent thief, robbing future generations of prosperity. Overspending has put us on a perilous path, and no responsible leader can allow it to continue.

Trump has promised to balance the federal budget by making government smaller, smarter, and more focused. Fraud, waste, and abuse will be rooted out. When the size of the government is reduced, the economy will unleash the potential of the private sector to drive innovation, create jobs, and build wealth.

Justice and the rule of law

No American who abides by our laws should ever live in fear of their government. Yet today, far too many do. Whether through political persecution, administrative overreach, or an unbalanced justice system, many have been silenced or crushed by the weight of a government that was supposed to serve them.

Trump should ensure justice is blind, fair, and free from political influence. Those who broke our laws — on whatever side of the aisle — must be held accountable. Political persecution will end on Trump’s watch. It has no place in a free society.

Securing our borders, protecting our communities

A nation without borders is no nation at all. For too long, America’s borders have been porous, leaving us vulnerable to the trafficking of drugs, children, and human lives. This is not compassion; it is chaos, and it should end now.

Trump will secure our borders, enforce our laws, and deport those who have entered illegally. To the cartels that profit from this evil, consider this your notice: Comply with our laws or we will destroy your operations with the full might of the United States.

Americans have the right to feel safe in their homes, their neighborhoods, and their communities. Law enforcement should have the tools and support they need to do their jobs.

A nation at peace

Trump will end the endless wars abroad that have drained our resources and diverted our focus from our people. He will bring our troops home from conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. He will stand firm against tyranny but will not waste American lives and treasure on wars that do not serve our national interest.

We will confront evil where it exists, but we will do so with clarity, strength, and purpose. We will no longer coexist with those who traffic in human misery or seek to destroy the innocent. America will lead the world by example, not by endless entanglements.

And to all those despots, terrorists, and simple opportunists: The blue American passport means something. It means the holder is an American citizen. Citizens should know that this government works for them. If they enter a foreign country, they should know they must abide by that nation’s laws.

But to those countries, individuals, and groups that do not care about international law, understand that if you kidnap, hurt, or kill an American citizen, count your life in days and hours, because that blue passport means American protection and power.

An era of renewal

This is a moment of healing. The wounds of division have scarred our nation, but they have not broken us. To those who have felt forgotten, to those who have felt silenced, and to those who have lost faith in the promise of America, let’s begin to restore our country.

We are not defined by the bitterness of the past but by the possibilities of the future. Together, we will renew the spirit of our nation. Together, we will rekindle the flame of freedom that has always guided us.

Let’s remember who we are. We are the heirs of pioneers, builders, and dreamers. We are a nation of liberty and opportunity, of faith and courage.

Our country’s future is in our hands. It is not the government, but us — the workers, the dreamers, the parents, and the patriots — who are the engine of this great nation.

Let us heal the wounds of division with the balm of unity. Let us speak to one another with respect, debate with civility, and strive together for the common good.

The challenges before us are great, but so is our resolve. The promise of America is alive, and her best days are yet to come. Together, we will build a nation stronger, freer, and more prosperous than ever before.

Let us rise above our differences and unite in common purpose. Let us be a government that works for the people, not against them. Let us be a nation that inspires the world, not through dominance but through our example.

The work ahead will not be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is. Together, we will reclaim the promise of America, not just for ourselves but for our children and their children.

May Trump’s return to the White House mark the beginning of a new golden age for our nation.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Donald trump, Inauguration, Administrative state, Deep state, Freedom, Prosperity, Opinion & analysis 

Joe Biden’s pardon of Dr. Anthony Fauci may protect the former National Institutes of Health official from immediate criminal prosecution, but some critics say he is not completely out of legal jeopardy and that public sentiment might still condemn the man who became known during the COVID-19 pandemic as “Mr. Science.”

In the days before Biden offered the pardon to Fauci, along with other critics of Donald Trump, some experts who have followed Fauci’s career and handling of the pandemic, as well as members of the Trump transition team, reiterated their assertion that Fauci perjured himself on several occasions during the pandemic — especially regarding his agency’s links to the lab in Wuhan, China, that may have created the virus that causes COVID-19.

Biden’s pardon negates the two Senate referrals for criminal activity. But future hearings could still require Fauci to respond to evidence that he may have perjured himself.

The
pardon addresses any COVID-related offenses and is backdated to 2014 — the year a U.S. ban on so-called “gain of function” virus research took effect. Fauci has been accused of outsourcing that research to China.

Despite reporting that
Trump is bent on revenge, the appetite among MAGA appointees for holding Fauci accountable hasn’t been particularly vocal. But former Senate investigator Jason Foster, who now runs the whistleblower nonprofit Empower Oversight, says that Biden’s pardon creates new legal jeopardy for Fauci.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has vowed to continue investigating COVID’s origins, and sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and House Republican investigators plan to do so as well. When testifying in those inquiries or answering written depositions, Fauci will be unable to dodge questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

“They can ask him if he lied before, replow old ground,” Foster said. “And if he lies about any prior lie, he can be prosecuted for that or held in contempt.”

Andrew Noymer, associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine, said such hearings are necessary for scientific and historical reasons. “I’m hopeful that he will now come clean about everything he knows about the origins of the virus,” Noymer said. “For the sake of public trust in science — explaining what killed 20 million people — that a complete account is much more important than speculation about what criminal penalties he may have avoided.”

“These pardons will not stop Department of Justice investigations,” said one adviser to the Trump transition team, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We expected this and look at it as a predicate to get truth from people who can no longer use the Fifth Amendment. Now we can bring every one of them in front of a grand jury.”

A legacy of deception

There is no consensus on Fauci’s handling of the pandemic. Legacy media outlets promoted Fauci throughout the pandemic as “America’s doctor” who “sticks to the facts” and applauded him as “the nation’s top infectious disease expert.” When he retired from the NIH after five decades in 2022, the New York Times granted him space on its opinion page to advise the next generation of scientists, citing his own accomplishments.

Numerous social media outlets have provided a polar opposite perspective. Several X accounts have uploaded videos that show Fauci’s inconsistencies. For example, Fauci
claimed in early 2022 interviews that he never recommended lockdowns, but later said he recommended shutting the country down. Independent journalist Matt Orfalea circulated another set of clips that show Fauci claiming he kept an “open mind” about how the pandemic started while alleging in others that the evidence pointed against a lab accident and “strongly” in favor of a natural spillover.

As Fauci’s flip-flops generated attention in Republican circles and on social media, he charged that such criticism was “totally preposterous,” adding, “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.”

Fauci’s many contradictory statements even caught the attention of a New York Times contributing opinion writer, Megan K. Stack, who chastised Fauci for “the largely one-sided nature of his public remarks” about the possibility that the pandemic started from an accident at a lab his agency had helped fund — the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Initially, Fauci dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” the possibility of a Wuhan lab accident on a Feb. 9, 2020, podcast hosted by Newt Gingrich. Afterward, Fauci reversed himself, stating in several interviews that he had always kept an open mind.

Later reports zeroed in on Fauci’s secret involvement in prominent March 2020 research, called the “proximal origin” paper, that turned public and scientific sentiment against the possibility of a lab accident. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the paper concluded, adding, “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Published in the prestigious Nature Medicine journal, the “proximal origin” paper is the most-cited scientific paper of 2020.

Subsequent
emails showed that Fauci helped guide the “proximal origin” paper to publication, as congressional probers found, “without revealing that he had been involved with its creation and had even, according to the emails, given it his approval.”

Distancing himself from his own emails,
Fauci later told the Times that he wasn’t sure he even got around to reading the paper. But the House later released a multiday deposition of Fauci in which he was asked about his involvement in the “proximal origin” paper. Under oath, Fauci admitted to having received and read several drafts of the paper.

But while dissembling to the media is not a crime, lying to Congress is illegal. And the Department of Justice has two referrals from Congress already requesting that Fauci be prosecuted for lying under oath.

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Lies as legal jeopardy

Fauci’s habit of bending the truth, as some see it, was notably on display at a July 2021 Senate hearing when Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, bored into the funding Fauci approved for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While Fauci attempted to downplay his financial involvement with the Chinese government lab, reports were already percolating.

In April 2020,
Newsweek reported that Fauci had approved a grant for risky gain-of-function virus research at the Wuhan lab. The Washington Post editorial board in March 2021 then called for an independent investigation into EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit funded by the Fauci-run National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. With this grant, EcoHealth subcontracted research to the Chinese, the Post noted, to do experiments involving “modifying viral genomes to give them new properties, including the ability to infect lung cells of laboratory mice that had been genetically modified to respond as human respiratory cells would.”

Fox News reported Sunday that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has barred EcoHealth Alliance Inc. and its former president, Dr. Peter Daszak, from receiving federal funds for five years. EcoHealth allegedly failed to report dangerous gain-of-function experiments to the government, which eventually led to the five-year ban.

A month before Fauci’s hearing with Paul, Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs
confirmed that U.S.-funded research at the WIV consisted of gain-of-function virus research that could have started the pandemic. “[I]t is clear that the NIH co-funded research at the WIV that deserves scrutiny under the hypothesis of a laboratory-related release of the virus.” At that time, Sachs led a commission formed by a British medical journal, the Lancet, to investigate how the pandemic began.

But when Paul began grilling Fauci about these details and called him out for what he characterized as evasive answers, Fauci pointed the finger back at Paul. “If anybody is lying here, Senator, it is you,”
Fauci said. Paul then sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice requesting that it investigate whether Fauci had committed perjury.

“He definitely misled the senator,” said former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield. When Redfield looked at all the evidence, including still-classified information, he said the weight falls in the direction of a lab accident. “Fauci manipulated the public to believe there was only one possible cause for the pandemic, a natural spillover.”

Months after Paul’s referral to the Justice Department, liberal news nonprofit ProPublica released new documents confirming the Wuhan lab had conducted such studies. “Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci,”
ProPublica reported on September 9, 2021.

“NIH admits funding risky virus research in Wuhan,”
Vanity Fair reported a week after ProPublica, referring to a letter the NIH sent to Congress.

Paul sent a second referral to the Department of Justice in July 2023, reiterating his demand that Fauci be investigated. At that time,
House investigators released emails showing that in early 2020, Fauci admitted that scientists were concerned the COVID virus had been engineered and researchers in Wuhan were engaged in gain-of-function research.

“Everything he has been telling us from the very beginning has been a lie,”
Paul told Fox News. “We have documented it’s a lie, and it’s a felony to lie to Congress.”

Biden’s pardon negates the two Senate referrals for criminal activity. But future hearings could still require Fauci to respond to evidence that he may have perjured himself and open him up to future prosecution if he stands by statements that can be proven to be false.

Hiding the use of private email

Another area of potential inquiry is Fauci’s congressional testimony last summer denying his use of private email to conduct official business. “Let me state for the record that to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted official business via my personal email,” Fauci wrote
in his sworn statement to Congress.

This testimony seemed to contradict evidence in a 35-page memo compiled by Republican investigative staff. One email showed Fauci’s second in command,
Dr. David Morens, suggesting that someone speak with Fauci through an unofficial, private channel. In another email, Morens wrote that he would contact Fauci on Gmail.

After Fauci’s testimony, the writer of this article reported in
the DisInformation Chronicle that Morens had connected KFF Health News reporter Arthur Allen with Fauci on Fauci’s private email back in May 2021. The NIH did not respond to comment about Fauci’s use of private email to conduct government business with reporters.

In a second example, the New York Post
reported that the watchdog group the White Coat Waste Project accused Fauci of lying to Congress about his private email use after the group released documents showing Fauci was back-channeling with a Washington Post reporter on his private email.

“I will send you an e-mail via my gmail account,” Fauci wrote in an email dated Oct. 29, 2021, to Washington Post reporter Yasmeen Abutaleb.

Fauci’s lawyer told the Post
that Fauci was discussing a personal matter with the Washington Post reporter, although he did not explain what this personal matter was.

Justin Goodman, senior vice president at the White Coat Waste Project, said the evidence is clear that Fauci contacted the Washington Post about issues regarding his NIH work and then denied it to Congress. “He should be prosecuted, not pardoned.”

Follow the money

Congressional hearings might also delve into Fauci’s involvement in research misconduct with the “proximal origin” paper and a grant he approved for the paper’s lead author, Scripps Research Institute’s Kristian Andersen.

“There needs to be a criminal investigation of this grant and paper,” said a former law enforcement official who has worked with congressional staff investigating Fauci and his grants. “Nobody inside the executive branch has taken ownership of this.”

‘It’s been a huge paradigm shift to see a hero actually turn into a villain.’

Shortly after the COVID virus outbreak, Fauci began discussing with several virologists, including Andersen, how the pandemic started. In a Feb. 1, 2020, email, Andersen wrote to Fauci that he had analyzed the COVID virus genetic sequence and “some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”
Andersen added that while opinions could change, he and other virologists felt the virus was not natural or consistent with “expectations with evolutionary theory.”

Later that same day, Fauci
held a phone call with Andersen and other virologists and then emailed that the scientists were suspicious that a “mutation was intentionally inserted” into the virus. Other emails show that Fauci was concerned that his funding for research in China may have led to the COVID virus.

Despite their initial suspicions, Andersen and other virologists reversed course six weeks later and published the “proximal origin” paper on March 16, 2020, that absolved Fauci of funding research that led to the pandemic. Fauci then promoted the Andersen “proximal origin” paper to reporters
at a White House briefing on April 17 without disclosing that he had helped marshal the study into publication.

A month later, Fauci signed off on an $8.9 million grant to Kristian Andersen. Both Andersen and Fauci have denied that the grant was quid pro quo for Andersen publishing the “proximal origin” paper that absolved Fauci, but the
group Biosafety Now has called twice for the paper to be retracted.

“It is imperative that this clearly fraudulent and clearly damaging paper be removed from the scientific literature,”
reads an online petition signed by over 5,000 scientists.

Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and co-founder of Biosafety Now, said that Fauci should have been prosecuted for “criminal conspiracy” for his secret involvement in the “proximal origin” paper. Ebright added that the grant Fauci gave to Andersen after he published the paper likely also involved criminal behavior.

With Republicans running both the Senate and House, investigations of Fauci will likely continue as members resume digging into any NIH culpability in funding research that started the pandemic. Trump’s
CIA nominee, John Ratcliffe, told House members during a 2023 hearing that classified intelligence points toward a lab accident. Ratcliffe is likely to be confirmed, and a Trump transition team source said he would likely then declassify that information, further undermining Fauci’s claims that the pandemic started from a natural spillover.

Ongoing investigations of Fauci, RCI has been told, will only further erode his credibility, even if criminal charges can no longer be filed. “This pardon means he can no longer be brought to justice,” said an adviser to the Trump transition team. “But it guarantees he will be further exposed.”

“I trusted everything Fauci said during the pandemic, and I did everything he told me,” said Bri Dressen, a former preschool teacher in Saratoga Springs, Utah. “I masked, wiped down my groceries with alcohol, kept my kids away from other kids so they wouldn’t catch the virus, and then I got vaccinated.” Dressen ended up
injured by AstraZeneca’s vaccine as a volunteer in the company’s clinical trial and founded React19.org, whose 36,000 members advocate on behalf of victims of COVID vaccine harm.

“It was the steepest learning curve in my entire life. The people in authority like Fauci are the ones I shouldn’t have trusted,” Dressen said. “It’s been a huge paradigm shift to see a hero actually turn into a villain.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

​Anthony fauci, Rand paul, Perjury, Joe biden, Pardon, Covid-19 vaccines, Covid-19 origins, Lab leak theory, Wuhan institute of virology, Opinion & analysis 

Does the Kids Online Safety Act threaten free speech? As an ex-Google whistleblower who caught YouTube red-handed when it manually manipulated search results for abortion, I know a thing or two about threats to free speech. KOSA is not a threat to free speech.

What should we make of the “experts” who claim that KOSA threatens free speech? These people envision themselves as brave truth-tellers and whistleblowers, taking a bold and unpopular stance in defense of free speech. But let’s contrast my whistleblowing to their whistleblowing.

At a certain point, these ‘experts’ are re-enacting the Principal Skinner ‘out of touch’ meme from ‘The Simpsons.’ As people like Elon Musk and Jonathan Haidt throw their weight behind KOSA and KOSA passes the Senate on a 91-3 vote, perhaps the ‘experts’ should take a step back and ask if they’re out of touch.

If you want to whistleblow like I did, you simply cannot make hand-wavy claims about censorship. You need to prove it with specific evidence. Whistleblowing — even when done for the right reasons — entails major personal and career risks; it’s not as glamorous as many people think.

In my case, I found the “smoking gun”: the exact code change that altered YouTube’s search results for abortion. This change was made mere hours after a pro-choice writer for Slate sent an email to YouTube, complaining that the search results were too anti-abortion. (Ironically, this writer, April Glaser, now works as a tech journalist for NBC News.)

But what about these brave whistleblowers who oppose KOSA? First, many of them exist in a bubble where taking this stance would advance, not hinder, their career. But putting that aside, this actual whistleblower would ask a simple question: What specific evidence do you have? Where is your smoking gun?

You don’t have to do any sort of undercover investigation like I did. The legislative text of KOSA is publicly available; the evidence is in plain sight. To find that smoking gun, two things are required. First, you need to cite the specific part of the legislative text that threatens free speech. Second, you need to explain — in specific and practical terms — how that text would threaten free speech.

If you fashion yourself an “expert,” then what I’m asking should not be difficult. But many “experts” are simply not up to this task. After Elon Musk and X endorsed KOSA, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression accused X of supporting a “government takeover of online speech,” also referring back to FIRE’s past statement opposing KOSA.

In this statement, FIRE claimed that KOSA lets the government “enforce vaguely defined requirements for social media accounts that may belong to users under 17.” But what specific requirements in KOSA are vague? FIRE doesn’t say. There certainly is a vagueness issue here, but it’s not that KOSA is vague. FIRE’s criticism of KOSA is hopelessly vague. Ironic.

Other critics, like Shoshana Weissmann of the R Street Institute, claim that “KOSA will require age verification.” To understand the problem with that argument, you just need to read the bill. The legislative text explicitly says that nothing in KOSA “shall be construed to require … a covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality.”

In the high-stakes environment of whistleblowing against Google, holes in my argument like that would have shattered my reputation and credibility. But I guess the low-stakes environment of being a tech policy “expert” in D.C. works differently.

(Some critics have instead argued that KOSA “effectively” requires age verification — as if the word “effectively” will magically fix the defects in that argument. Perhaps if we examined the emanations coming from the penumbras of KOSA, we could find this mythical requirement for age verification. Or, we could apply some common sense. If, for example, the Tide Pod challenge goes viral on social media, do you need to verify the age of every user to deal with that problem? Obviously not.)

At a certain point, these “experts” are re-enacting the Principal Skinner “out of touch” meme from “The Simpsons.” As people like Elon Musk and Jonathan Haidt throw their weight behind KOSA and KOSA passes the Senate on a 91-3 vote, perhaps the “experts” should take a step back and ask if they’re out of touch. No, it’s Elon Musk, Jonathan Haidt, and those 91 Senators who are wrong.

If the “experts” could have one legitimate claim to authority, it’s that — in theory at least — they would know the legislative text of KOSA better than Elon or Haidt. But what happens when they resort to punditry and fearmongering claims instead? At that point, it’s a question of whether people believe the “experts” or whether they believe Elon. And most people will believe Elon.

​Tech, Kosa act, Free speech, Congress, Whistleblower, Elon musk, Kids online safety act 

Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he had issued a full and unconditional pardon for Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road.

Ulbricht was convicted in 2015 for his role in founding the online marketplace where illegal services and products were sold in an attempt to avoid law enforcement. He created Silk Road in Jan. 2011 and ran it until it was shut down in 2013. His plight has become a favored cause among libertarians.

‘He was given two life sentences, plus 40 years. Ridiculous!’

Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he had called Ulbricht’s mother to let her know about the pardon.

“I just called the mother of Ross William Ulbright [sic] to let her know that in honor of her and the Libertarian Movement, which supported me so strongly, it was my pleasure to have just signed a full and unconditional pardon of her son, Ross,” wrote Trump.

Ulbricht was convicted of seven offenses, including distributing narcotics, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, and conspiring to commit money laundering. Prosecutors alleged that the transactions linked to Silk Road led to at least six overdose deaths, including a 16-year-old California boy and a 22-year-old from Australia. Ulbricht’s defenders say the deaths were not proven to be directly linked to Silk Road, and he was not charged with their deaths.

“The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me. He was given two life sentences, plus 40 years. Ridiculous!” Trump continued.

In addition to being sentenced to life in prison, Ulbricht was ordered to forfeit over $183 million.

U.S. attorney Preet Bharara excoriated Ulbricht in a statement released after his sentencing.

“Ulbricht was a drug dealer and criminal profiteer who exploited people’s addictions and contributed to the deaths of at least six young people,” said Bharara. “Ulbricht went from hiding his cybercrime identity to becoming the face of cybercrime and as today’s sentence proves, no one is above the law.”

Trump had promised to commute Ulbricht’s sentence when he spoke at the Libertarian National Convention in May.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Ross ulbricht, Trump pardons, Silk road founder, Trump pardons drug pusher, Politics