Featured Timeline Entries
September 23, 2026 - The new leftwing Prime Minister of Britain, Andy Burnham, plans to create a "Ministry of Truth" to control news and opinions

September 23, 2026 - Marco Rubio: The rules-based international order is failing and America will continue to act alone when necessary

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York (Credit: AFP)

The rules-based international order is failing and America will continue to act alone when necessary, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday, in a stark assessment of the post-Second World War system the US was key in building.

, Mr Rubio said countries had been unable to work in unison to tackle crises around the world, including a war between Thailand and Cambodia, Sudan’s civil war and the conflict with Iran.

“There’s unanimity and consensus here in this gathering, and broadly, that the international system is broken,” he said. “It’s broken because it broke itself. It needs to be brought back to its proper focus and its proper role.”

He added that it was “failing because it has grown beyond its mandate”.

The US was a primary architect of an international system that was supposed to encourage co-operation between countries to manage crises. Instead, the UN and other bodies have struggled to take meaningful action in averting or ending wars, refugee crises and other international issues.

Mr Rubio said the US would continue to operate unilaterally if need be, if it is in its own interests.

(Read more: The National News, 9/23/2026)  (Archive)

September 23, 2026 - How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris DOJ disregarded the separation of powers to spy on their political opposition: Report

Today, the House Judiciary Committee released an interim staff report titled, “How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on their Political Opposition.” The report reveals new information obtained by the Committee in the 119th Congress that shows the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to use the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a weapon against its political opponents.

During the Biden-Harris DOJ’s investigation of the 2020 election, codenamed Arctic Frost, and the subsequent Special Counsel investigation, investigators unconstitutionally subpoenaed phone records for over a dozen Republican Members of Congress and obtained gag orders to prevent the Members from knowing that the Biden-Harris Administration had obtained these records. Because the subpoenas and gag orders were obtained ex parte—meaning only the prosecutors presented to the grand jury and judge—the Members had no meaningful opportunity to challenge the Biden-Harris Administration’s actions.

The evidence available to the Committee shows that Special Counsel Smith’s team barely considered the constitutional protections surrounding this material—and to the extent that it did, it concluded that its subpoenas might be unconstitutional. Yet, Special Counsel Smith’s team forged ahead, issued the subpoenas, and at one point, violated the DOJ’s own procedures to review the content of private text messages between 44 Members of Congress and Executive Branch officials.

Arctic Frost investigators and Smith’s team paid no attention to the Constitution’s “absolute” bar on compelled disclosure of documents related to Members’ legislative acts. Special Counsel Smith and his prosecutors admitted that the gag order deprived Members of the chance to appear in court to assert their constitutional rights under the Speech or Debate Clause. As Special Counsel Smith admitted privately to Attorney General Merrick Garland, “members . . . likely have a valid Speech or Debate privilege immunizing them from compelled testimony.” Yet he, with Attorney General Garland’s blessing, issued subpoenas compelling the production of Members’ protected legislative records.

At best, these prosecutors ignored key legislative protections enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee that Members of Congress may freely deliberate on the questions of public policy. At worst—which seems likely in context with the other abuses of Special Counsel Smith’s office—these prosecutors weaponized their law-enforcement authority to violate a key constitutional provision to gather reams of information about their Administration’s political adversaries.

The abuses uncovered demand legislative reforms to prevent a future Jack Smith from similarly violating the Constitution. On July 15, 2026, the Committee passed H.R. 9098, the Congressional Records Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA). The bill seeks to protect the separation of powers enshrined in the United States Constitution and end the weaponized surveillance of Members of Congress. The Committee will continue to pursue the truth about this critical set of events in our nation’s history.

Read the full interim staff report here.

(Credit: Justice.gov 9/23/2026)  (Archive)

September 23, 2026 - Kamala Harris says cleaning the voter rolls is "cheating" - "They’re trying to take our tools, but we are a creative people"

September 24, 2026 - Dems use the old impeachment tactic to help in midterms: House Democrat drops 26-article impeachment resolution against Trump

As the battle for control of the House of Representatives intensifies ahead of the 2026 midterms, a lame-duck House Democrat dropped a comprehensive blueprint for how a potential Democratic majority could target the White House come January.

Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced 26 articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, signaling that House Democrats are preparing to unleash aggressive oversight and potential impeachment proceedings if they reclaim the speaker’s gavel this fall, according to a Newsweek article. The sprawling resolution targets nearly every pillar of the administration’s second-term platform—including military operations off the coast of Venezuela, the deployment of federal forces to domestic cities, executive orders ending birthright citizenship, and mass deportation policies.

“Trump is clearly the most impeachable President our country has ever endured,” Cohen wrote in a statement on Thursday. “His continued presence in office is a danger to our democracy. That the sycophantic Republican majority in Congress is derelict in its duty does not mean that I must abandon my responsibilities.”

“I took an independent oath to support and defend the Constitution,” he continued. “That commitment compels me to introduce this resolution today. When historians write about this period, and our constituents ask who stood up to President Trump’s lawlessness, this resolution is the answer.”

While the measure stands virtually no chance of moving in the current Republican-controlled House, Cohen openly framed the resolution as a roadmap for the incoming 120th Congress, warning that a shift in congressional power will immediately trigger a high-stakes constitutional showdown.

Nine days before the unveiling of Cohen’s articles of impeachment, the House rejected Representative Al Green’s (D-TX) motions. The House voted 232-147 on September 15 to shelve the Houston, Texas, representative’s motions.

Cohen’s articles of impeachment break down as follows:

  • Elections & Democratic Integrity:

    • Article I: Undermining Democracy—Sowing Doubt in Elections.

  • Military & Foreign Operations:

    • Article II: Waging War on Iran Without Congressional Approval.

    • Article III: Extrajudicial Killings in International Waters of Venezuela.

    • Article IV: Deploying Military Forces Against United States Cities.

  • Immigration & Civil Rights:

    • Article V: Birthright Citizenship Executive Order.

    • Article VIII: Disregard of Courts involving the Alien Enemies Act and Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

    • Article IX: Cruel and Unusual Punishment at CECOT detention facilities.

    • Article XII: Defying Court Orders in Immigration Enforcement.

  • Executive Power & Agency Control:

    • Article VI: Canceling Federal Grants to Punish States for Their Votes.

    • Article VII: Imposing Loyalty Tests on the Federal Workforce.

    • Article X: Unlawful Withholding of Appropriated Funds and Dismantling Congressionally Established Programs.

    • Article XI: Obstructing the Lawful Appointment of United States Attorneys.

    • Article XIII: Abolishing a Congressionally Mandated Agency (The Department of Education).

    • Article XIV: Mass Termination of Inspectors General Without Statutory Notice.

    • Article XXIV: Illegal Impoundment of Appropriated Funds.

  • Economic & Financial Authority:

    • Article XV: Unilaterally Taxing U.S. Citizens Through Emergency Powers Tariffs.

    • Article XVII: IRS Settlement and Corruption of the Judgment Fund.

  • Justice Department & Executive Clemency:

    • Article XVI: Political Prosecutions of James Comey, Letitia James, and Adam Schiff.

    • Article XVIII: Corrupt Use of the Pardon Power.

  • Free Press & Speech Restrictions:

    • Article XIX: Banishing Reporters from the White House over Disfavored Coverage.

    • Article XX: Coercing CBS and ABC to Change Editorial Content.

    • Article XXI: Retaliatory Executive Orders Against Law Firms.

    • Article XXII: Coercing Universities Through Withheld Federal Funds.

  • Ethics, Infrastructure, & Emoluments:

    • Article XXIII: Demolishing the White House East Wing Without Congressional Approval.

    • Article XXV: Self-Aggrandizement through Renaming Public Institutions, Seizure of Civic Property, and Personal Appropriation of National Currency.

    • Article XXVI: Emoluments Violations—Profiting Personally and Directly from the Presidency.

(Read more: Breitbart News, 9/26/2026)  (Archive)

September 24, 2026 - Judicial Watch: Judge orders hearing in lawsuit against the CIA for January 6 records

Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge in Washington, DC has ordered a status conference in its lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for all records related to events on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol. The status conference is set for today, September 24.

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb ordered the hearing at the request of Judicial Watch in its August 2024 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for all records related to any shots fired inside the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, and records of requests for CIA support including bomb technicians and bomb-detecting dogs placed on standby or used in response to the massive protests in and around Washington, DC (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency (No. 1:24-cv-02172)).

In March 2024, Judicial Watch received 88 pages of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records from the Department of Justice in a FOIA lawsuit that show the CIA deployed personnel to Washington, DC on January 6, 2021.

The records include a series of text messages under the heading “January 7 Intel Chain” in which two separate references to participation by the CIA are made. One states that “two CIA bomb techs” are assisting with “a pipe bomb scene on New Jersey and D ST SE.” Another record references “several CIA dog teams on standby.”

In a Joint Status Report filed with the court on September 2, 2026, Judicial Watch argues:

More than two years after this lawsuit was filed, the agency states that it is still not finished with its search. Notably the agency does not claim that this is because the request was overbroad or otherwise unmanageable. It simply has not finished the search after more than two years.

***

Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s June 15, 2026 Minute Order, Plaintiff proposes that the agency be ordered to provide a detailed description of the status of its efforts, including but not limited to descriptions of the searches conducted and remaining to be conducted, and a date certain when the searches will be complete. The agency also should be ordered to disclose the number of records located and reviewed, the rate at which the records are being reviewed, and a date certain when the review will be complete. Finally, the agency should be ordered to provide a date certain when interim productions will begin. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an in-person status conference to further address these matters.

“The CIA has demonstrated absolute contempt for the people’s right to know what it was up to on at the US Capitol on January 6,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Why is the CIA stonewalling the release of any documents about this important issue for over half-a-decade!”

Judicial Watch has pursued details of January 6 on several fronts.

In July 2026, it forced the release of over 1,000 hours of Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department body-worn camera footage   from the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol event.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch filed a (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain records related to possible improper targeting of January 6, 2021, Capitol protesters, their supporters, and related nonprofits.

In July 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated January 6 prosecutions after Donald Trump was elected president in November 2024.

In October 2023, Judicial Watch received the declaration of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021 that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.

In June 2025, Judicial Watch concluded a $4.975 million settlement in the wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Government filed on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Ashli Babbitt was the only January 6 homicide victim. (Judicial Watch, 9/24/2026)  (Archive)

September 24, 2026 - Several former FBI agents/ analysts involved in the raid of Mar-a-Lago in 2022, have received requests for interviews and subpoenas

Lots happening this week.

According to a new filing in the old classified documents case (h/t@joshgerstein), several former FBI agents/ analysts involved in the raid of Mar-a-Lago in 2022 have received requests for interviews and subpoenas related to the “grand conspiracy” investigation into the raid ongoing in southern Florida.

The investigation, now led by the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida following the recent departure of Joe diGenova, appears focused on at least two potential crimes: Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

Defense attorneys–including Abbe Lowell and Mark Zaid–representing the unnamed FBI employees believe any testimony would run afoul of Judge Cannon’s gag order in the matter, which relates to any leaks of Volume II of Smith’s final report.

This sounds like a stretch but at least confirms significant movement in the investigation.

Here is the gist of Judge Cannon’s Feb 2026 order prohibiting the release of Volume II after it was litigated for nearly a year.

This clearly covers the PUBLIC dissemination of Volume II in a case that had been dismissed by Cannon in July 2024 based on the unconstitutional nature of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.

Cannon further reminded the public how Jack Smith flouted her dismissal order for months…

Before the media and some federal judges caterwauled about how Trump-appointed US Attorneys allegedly acted without authority…there was Jack Smith.

Despite Cannon’s lengthy July 15, 2024 order dismissing the documents case and her reasoning why, Smith violated her court order for months, continuing to act in that official capacity in the docs case, signing an appeal of her order, and authoring both volumes of his final report (the J6 portion of the report was released prior to Inauguration Day.)

Still not too late to charge Smith with impersonating a federal officer and/or contempt of court.

September 25, 2026 - Judicial Watch sues Director of National Intelligence for Biden era documents exposing 2020 election corruption

Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for Biden-era documents discovered by former Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard after she took office, which she said contain information regarding corruption of the 2020 election (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Case 1:26-cv-03277)).

Judicial Watch sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the ODNI failed to respond to a July 31, 2026, FOIA request “for records concerning the discovery, location, contents, and handling of the materials referenced by Director Gabbard, as well as communications about their discovery and records about any inquiry into why the materials were designated for destruction.”

On August 26, 2025, Gabbard confirmed to President Trump during a cabinet meeting that ODNI had identified burn bags containing information regarding corruption in the 2020 presidential election. “We are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes in random offices, in these bags and in other areas—which, again, speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people.” She added that the documents revealed the politicization of intelligence and caused immeasurable harm to the American people.

Judicial Watch said in its suit:

As of the date of this Complaint, ODNI has failed to: (i) determine whether to comply with the request; (ii) notify Plaintiff of any such determination or the reasons therefor; (iii) advise Plaintiff of the right to appeal any adverse determination; or (iv) produce the requested records or otherwise demonstrate that the requested records are exempt from production.

“There is no legitimate reason to continue sitting on these documents that will likely add further evidence of the corruption at the top of the Biden administration,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch has another similar suit pending.

In August, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to provide answers about nearly 2 million pages of FBI records discovered in a “hidden room” at FBI headquarters, including whether the records have already been reviewed in response to other Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and whether the newly uncovered records had been stored in other government record systems.

In July, the FBI told a federal court that, at a rate of 500 pages a month, processing records from the “hidden room” at FBI Headquarters would take approximately 158 years. The room — now dubbed the “burn bag room” —  holds over 2 million pages of records, according to the FBI’s own filing. Then-Deputy Director Bongino said in May 2025 that some of the records were found stashed “in bags.”

In February, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice concerning the discovery and contents of “burn bags” found in a secured Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters in Washington, DC. (Judicial Watch, 9/25/2026)  (Archive)

September 25, 2026 - CA Assemblywoman Mia Bonta collected a large nonprofit salary while her husband AG Rob Bonta steered the money to groups that employed her

California Assemblywoman Mia Bonta collected a six-figure 501(c)3 nonprofit salary while her husband Attorney General Rob Bonta steered more than half a million dollars to the groups that employed her. She allegedly used these funds to purchase multiple Gucci bags.

That is not a rumor from a random account. CalMatters documented it years ago. While Rob Bonta sat in the Assembly, he solicited $517,500 in behested payments for nonprofits that paid his wife. The bulk was a $500,000 Google grant to Bring Me a Book, where she was a top executive. He also sent $21,000 in campaign cash to Literacy Lab while she was CEO there, then more money to Oakland Promise after she took that CEO job. They got letters saying the funds would not go to her salary. That is how you know the conflict was obvious.

Bob Stern, who helped write California’s Political Reform Act, said the law should be changed so politicians cannot do this. The law was not changed. Rob became Attorney General. Mia took Rob’s Assembly seat. She later chaired the budget subcommittee that oversees his Department of Justice.

Then she wrote AB 2624, the bill nicknamed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, after reporters started digging into the same family money trail.

He asks donors with business before the state to fund her nonprofits. She draws the paycheck. He becomes the state’s top cop. She writes a law that makes it harder to put cameras on the network.

That is not public service. That is a corrupt family business.

September 28, 2026 - Citizens vs. the System: School Mental-Health Contracts

Screenshot

Parents should not have to sue, face down public officials, or fight for access just to learn what mental-health programs are doing in schools and how public money is being spent. From Florida to Connecticut and Tennessee, citizens are challenging behavioral-health providers and contracts they believe have been protected from meaningful public scrutiny.

Jack Knocke, a citizen advocate, and Marsha Metzger of Parents On the Level sent FBI Director Kash Patel a detailed September 17  letter requesting federal scrutiny of school-based mental-health and social-emotional-learning platforms. The letter asks what students are shown, what information is collected, who can access it, and whether parents can inspect the programs and records.

Knocke won. After challenging Nassau County, Florida, over access to Ripple Effects curriculum records, Knocke obtained a court order requiring access. The judge also awarded attorney’s fees.

The letter’s questions echo national headlines:

  • Can parents inspect what their children are shown? Knocke and Metzger report barriers to reviewing school materials. Recent reporting has described disputes over parents’ ability to obtain copies of school mental-health surveys after being allowed to view them.

  • Are students asked sensitive questions without meaningful parental notice and consent? The letter says review notes identified topics including sexual abuse, relationships, sexual consent, and pregnancy services. The authors want officials to verify what content exists and which students can access it. In August, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance about PPRA and parental rights concerning mental-health screenings and sensitive surveys.

  • What happens to children’s answers and personal information? Knocke and Metzger ask what student journals and profiles collect, who can access the information, and whether parents can inspect their child’s records. Recent coverage of an Illinois school-screening initiative raised questions about how student information may connect to behavioral-health portals and follow-up services.

Parents need informed consent, a meaningful opportunity to understand a program and its questions before a child participates. Parents should have “PPRA” tattooed on their foreheads, figuratively speaking. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment gives parents rights concerning certain student surveys and instructional materials, including sensitive topics such as mental health, sex, and religious beliefs.

AbleChild’s concerns about school-based mental-health programs are rooted in years of advocacy. In Killingly, Connecticut, a survey of students in grades 7–12 reported that 14.7% of respondents had seriously considered suicide. AbleChild questioned whether the survey gathered important context, including whether students reporting suicidal thoughts were already receiving psychiatric treatment. The survey did not establish that. AbleChild argued that parents should have been told how the survey would be used, including its potential role in the campaign for school-based mental-health services. (Read more: Ablechild.org, 9/25/2026)  (Archive)

September 25, 2026 - 300 of 400 DOJ Civil Rights attorneys quit rather than clean America’s voter rolls and end DEI

Harmeet Dhillon (Credit: public domain)

Assistant Harmeet Dhillon just confirmed what every honest observer already knew: the old Civil Rights Division was a woke fortress inside Main Justice.

When President Trump’s team told those lawyers the American people had voted to end illegal DEI discrimination and scrub dirty voter rolls, about 300 of the division’s 400 attorneys walked out.

Dhillon did not mourn them. She called it what it was.

In an interview this week with Col. Kurt Schlichter filling in on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Dhillon said the Civil Rights Division is one of the largest shops at Main Justice in Washington.

When she arrived, it had about 400 attorneys. After her office made clear it would implement the president’s , “prioritizing getting rid of DEI and cleaning up voter rolls,” “eventually about 300 of those attorneys quit, and so they self-deported.”

Then she rebuilt.

“We then had the task of, while we had DOJ restrictions and budgetary constraints, building back the Civil Rights Division,” Dhillon said. “And I’m really happy to say that I recruited over 100 great legal professionals here to the DOJ.”

(Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 9/25/2026)

September 26, 2026 - The political calculus behind Obama’s anti AI speech - "The world is about to endow 3-6 companies with about $10 trillion of wealth”

Chamath explains the political calculus behind Obama’s anti AI speech

“This is a very important moment for a very simple reason, which is that the world is about to endow 3-6 companies with about $10 trillion of wealth.”

“And what Obama knows very well is that most of those companies are overwhelmingly left leaning. And what he also knows is that there is a huge portion of that money that will then get put into philanthropic and charitable causes that then he and the people around him will be beneficiaries of.”

“That is the truth. We already know this because we know that some of these frontier corporations actually ask you to sign up DAFTs and have a portion of your stock that you’re willing to pledge. So this money is going to go to things other than consumption or savings. It’s going to go into PACs, it’s going to go into political movements, and they stand to disproportionately benefit.”

“So this has nothing to do with prosperity. This is a very simple political calculus. If you freeze frame the economy the way it is today, a handful of organizations that will disproportionately be able to affect the Democrats will win, they will capture the lion’s share of the economic gains. And then they will help the Democrats win power. That’s all this is.”

Chamath Palihapitiya – Wikipedia
Chamath Palihapitiya (born 3 September 1976) [1] is a Sri Lankan-born Canadian and American venture capitalist and entrepreneur. He founded and leads Social Capital, which he launched in 2011 after serving as a senior executive at Facebook from 2007 to 2011.

September 27, 2026 - Anti-Trump group rehearsed an election crisis - Now it’s launching a 15-state midterm operation

Interfaith Alliance has already gathered religious leaders to rehearse an election crisis. Now the organization is taking its operation nationwide—and explicitly identifying the Trump administration as the threat.

In a September 17 announcement, the group disclosed that it recently held a:

“mock election crisis response exercise.”

The rehearsal accompanies a six-week training program, a pledge of $200,000 for local election-protection activities, and a 15-state bus tour. The announcement says local religious communities will receive training about:

“election interference threats coming from the Trump administration.”

Interfaith Alliance calls the campaign nonpartisan. Its own announcement makes clear which administration participants are being mobilized to scrutinize. Interfaith Alliance’s announcement.

The rehearsal is part of a larger operation

The campaign’s website supplies details beyond the press release. It links an election-crisis planning toolkit, described as a 90-minute exercise with six scenarios for 2026, developed with Protect Democracy.

The operation combines voter registration and canvassing with a trained, peaceful presence at polling places. One of its four advertised components is bluntly titled:

“Fund the local organizers.”

Its training partners include the League of Women Voters, Interfaith America, Protect Democracy, and Sojourners. The fall schedule includes instruction for trusted messengers, election engagement by houses of worship, and a September 23 session on de-escalation and bystander intervention at the polls. Campaign website and training schedule.

(Read more: Natalie Winters/Substack 9/27/2026)  (Archive)

September 27, 2026 - Feminist Democrat leaders…until they enter the doorway of a mosque

On Rumble:

September 28, 2026 - Surgeon at hospital that treated first U.S. Covid patient claims fraud, deadly protocols and retaliation

A trauma surgeon who worked inside the Washington hospital that treated the first diagnosed COVID-19 patient in the dropped a political grenade on Capitol Hill Monday.

Dr. James P. Miller told Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) roundtable, “COVID-19 Hospital Protocols: Real Stories from Real People,” that the head of infectious disease at his hospital privately admitted he was working with state government to restrict the civil rights of unvaccinated Americans.

“The head of infectious disease medicine at my hospital privately told me that he was working with the state government to restrict the civil rights of unvaccinated people,” Miller said.

“Including their ability to drive and therefore work, by making their driver’s license renewal contingent on their COVID vaccine status.”

That is not a conspiracy theory from a comment section. That is a licensed physician and surgeon, under oath in the Senate, describing what he said he heard from the man running infectious disease at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, the same hospital that treated “Patient Zero” in January 2020.

In a sworn attestation Miller previously filed for criminal investigations, he identified that official as Dr. George Diaz and said Diaz told him unvaccinated people should not be allowed to engage in society or hold a driver’s license, and that Diaz claimed he was working with the Washington governor’s office to turn that view into state policy.

Those remain Miller’s allegations. Diaz was the public face of Everett’s first-case response and an early champion of remdesivir.

The hospital that launched the national panic, and the doctor who says the panic was manufactured.

Miller was a staff surgeon and ICU provider at the Everett hospital. He also contracted independently to perform ICU quality reviews. What he found, he told Johnson’s panel, was not a heroic system stretched to the breaking point. It was fraud, fear theater, and protocols that killed.

He said his reviews uncovered fraud extending to senior hospital leadership. He reported it. Then the retaliation started.

After federal authorities sent remdesivir to the hospital, Miller said medical leadership handed physicians “misleading and inaccurate information” about the drug. When a young trauma patient looked like a textbook candidate under the official guidelines, the infectious disease doctor on call told him privately not to give it to her, because, quote, “she seemed like a nice girl.”

“Any physician honestly reviewing the real-world data at that time could have recognized early that remdesivir caused more harm than good,” Miller testified.

Read his statement below:

“During COVID-19, I was a staff surgeon, ICU provider at the hospital where the first diagnosed COVID patient in the United States was treated. I cared for hundreds of COVID patients and also contracted independently to perform ICU quality reviews at the hospital, in addition to my surgical and ICU duties as a physician.

My reviews uncovered fraud extending to senior hospital leadership. I reported these findings. There were protocols put in place that caused—thank you—that caused demonstrable harm and increased mortality.

After our hospital was given remdesivir by federal authorities, we were provided misleading and inaccurate information about the drug by medical leadership. When I had a young trauma patient just after remdesivir was released, she appeared to be a perfect candidate based on the guidelines. The infectious disease doctor on call told me privately not to give it to her because, quote, “She seemed like a nice girl,” unquote.

Any physician honestly reviewing the real-world data at that time could have recognized early that remdesivir caused more harm than good.

I observed messaging by the hospital that falsely inflated COVID infections and deaths, contributing to public fear and generating misleading headlines. In my experience, we never faced shortages of equipment or staff. I witnessed nurses being sent home because there were not enough patients, while headlines about our hospital were simultaneously running, stating that we were overwhelmed by COVID patients.

I further observed that mask and PPE protocols initiated during COVID lacked scientific basis and did not medically work, but the mask and PPE protocols did dehumanize patients and staff.

I witnessed patients who died from trauma and other causes being reported as COVID-19 deaths on their death certificates. I watched previously compassionate and devoted doctors and nurses become cruel and ambivalent about the well-being of patients as the COVID experience evolved.

The head of infectious disease medicine at my hospital privately told me that he was working with the state government to restrict the civil rights of unvaccinated people, including their ability to drive and, therefore, work, by making their driver’s license renewal contingent on their status.

Hospital leadership, including the chief medical officer of our medical group, endorsed the local medical establishment’s refusal to provide healthcare to unvaccinated patients. Primary care and urgent care physicians refused to see unvaccinated patients with the chief medical officer’s knowledge and approval, through policy.

In response, I opened a free clinic to care for those denied care through my local church. The church became a licensed clinic.

I observed that many of the alternative treatments that were censored by medical societies, pharmacists, social media, the press, and established health agencies were highly effective. Treatments including ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, and just physical exercise were highly effective at treating COVID.

When I advocated for patient care rather than harmful protocols and spoke against the fraud, I was targeted for removal through baseless disciplinary actions, with a stated goal of taking away my medical license and ability to ever practice medicine again.

I endured countless unfounded disciplinary hearings, show trials, and sham peer review procedures, which included the threat of me being arrested. This was all in retaliation for me speaking out.

I defeated every attack. I remained in good standing, and I told the truth.

I witnessed physicians and nurses who observed the harms done by the COVID protocols either remain silent or be forced out of our community.

The public health officials, hospital leaders, and physicians who implemented these treatments and protocols should be held accountable. The data were available, and the harms were obvious.

Accountability is necessary if we’re going to maintain public trust and a functioning healthcare system.”

WATCH: