vet near me
FBI reveals how many undercover agents were on the ground during January 6 riots By CHARLIE SPIERING, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, WASHINGTON, DC Published: 19:33 GMT, 12 December 2024 | Updated: 21:31 GMT, 12 December 2024 e-mail 7 shares 156 View comments A new Department of Justice report revealed the number of undercover agents and sources involved with the January 6th riots on Capitol Hill protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election . A report from the Inspector General's office said there was no evidence that there were undercover FBI agents in the crowd or on Capitol Hill. 'We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6 ,' the report noted. But the inspector general revealed that the Department of Justice had 26 confidential human sources working for the FBI in Washington, D.C., during the protests. Confidential human sources work with the FBI to offer them information and insights about the inner workings of organizations threatening the country, such as criminal, terrorist and espionage networks. Four of the confidential human sources entered the Capitol building, 13 of them entered the restricted area around the Capitol. The report noted there was a confidential human source who was in contact with the leadership of far-right groups such as the Oath Keepers, and were aware of plans discussed by the Proud Boys. The United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. was breached by thousands of protesters during a "Stop The Steal" rally in support of President Donald Trump Trump supporters riot on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021 to protest the presidential election BREAKING: An Inspector General Report confirms the FBI had 26 confidential human sources on the ground at J6 and that some of them went into the Capitol. Was this entrapment? Why did it take us four years to learn this? Criminal. pic.twitter.com/D1xSyifGdX — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) December 12, 2024 Vice President JD Vance reacted to the news on social media on Thursday afternoon. 'For those keeping score at home, this was labeled a dangerous conspiracy theory months ago,' he wrote. The report stated that none of the confidential sources were authorized to enter the Capitol or break the law, but that four of them did. 'None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date,' the report notes. The report faults the FBI for failing to canvas the information about potential violence to surrounding offices. 'The FBI therefore should have canvassed its field offices for any relevant CHS information in advance of January 6,' the report notes. The report reveals the inspector general's office reviews more than 500,000 documents and interviewed more than 200 witnesses for their report. It comes after Trump signaled Sunday night that he intends to use Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter to his own advantage and pardon January 6 defendants. 'Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!' Trump wrote, in his first public comment since Biden announced the pardon Sunday. That came not long after Fox News commentator Charlie Hurt made the linkage. 'I think he should at least commute the sentences of all of them and pardoned every single one that was obviously just following the person in front of them wandering through the capital,' he said. It comes after Trump signaled Sunday night that he intends to use Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter to his own advantage and pardon January 6 defendants More than 1,200 people have been charged on January 6-related charges Others got charged with interfering with an official proceeding on a day Congress met to certify the electoral votes that made Joe Biden president 'Pardon every single one of them. There were some that did more than just that. And I think he should commute their sentences and let them all out! Every single one of them,' he said. According to the Justice Department, 140 police officers were assaulted during the attack on the Capitol, including 80 U.S. Capitol Police officers and 60 from DC's Metropolitan Police Department. Trump repeatedly floated the idea of the pardons himself during his campaign. His new choice to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has also taken up the cause of January 6 defendants. He also played 'Justice for All,' a rendition of the national anthem as sung by January 6 defendants, at campaign rallies. More than 1,200 people have been charged on January 6-related charges. Many battled with police officers. Others got charged with interfering with an official proceeding on a day Congress met to certify the electoral votes that made Joe Biden president. In a TIME Magazine interview released Thursday, Trump said he would pardon some of the rioters who were prosecuted and imprisoned for their actions that day as soon as he took office. 'We're going to look at each individual case, and we're going to do it very quickly, and it's going to start in the first hour that I get into office,' he said. 'And a vast majority of them should not be in jail.' Capitol Hill Politics FBI Share or comment on this article: FBI reveals how many undercover agents were on the ground during January 6 riots e-mail 7 shares Add commentTre Carroll scores 18 as Florida Atlantic fends off Texas State 89-80Many of us are moving away from traditional downspouts. They clog with leaves and they can be unsightly. Instead, lots of homeowners are embracing rain chains and rain barrels as alternative methods of water management. However, it isn't clear which is best for your yard. Rain chains look good, but they can't always handle a lot of water, and while rain barrels are practical, they can be pretty ugly. This is all you need to know about the pros and cons of the two systems of water management - and whether or not you should combine the two into one effective method of collecting rainwater. Benefits of a rain chain Rain chains were invented in Japan as a kind of earthquake-proof pipe. Instead of a hollow pipe, the chain uses water's surface tension to move it from a roof to the ground. Where downspouts made of metal or PVC can warp and crack in an earthquake, rain chains sway with the tremors, so they won't break. This also makes rain chains a good option in high winds, because debris flying into the chain won't break or damage it. Cheap rain barrels made out of PVC can easily crack and warp. Rain chains are also much less maintenance than downspouts because they can't clog with leaves or other debris. On top of that, rain chains look a lot better than downpipes and most rain barrels. They make a relaxing sound in the rain and they can be stylized to suit your garden aesthetic in a way that a boring white PVC downspout can't match. This is a a simple, modern rain chain. Made of weather-proof aluminum, this chain is perfect for more contemporary homes. More bohemian homes might prefer this copper chain, designed to look like little umbrellas. The copper will oxidize over time, developing a beautiful blue patina. This simple chain works well for most homes; sleek enough for modern homes but unobtrusive enough that it won't look out of place for more traditional exteriors. Drawbacks of a rain chain Rain chains are poor at handling large amounts of water, so while they're good in light rain and high winds, they're bad at handling heavy rain storms. Part of the reason why they're poor in storms is because they aren't efficient - they create a lot of splashback because the water isn't contained in a single pipe. This can spill on a patio and create a slip hazard or saturate the ground with too much water. Like downspouts and rain barrels, rain chains have other drawbacks in cold climates. Rain chains can freeze solid if wet weather is followed by freezing temperatures, and while this is often fine, the weight of the ice can pull the chain out of its fixings and damage your gutters or walls. On top of that, backed-up ice can stop water from flowing down from the roof, which can be dangerous. Because rain chains don't direct water into gutters and away from your home, they can cause minor damage to walls and patios. The repeated splashback can cause algae to bloom on PVC siding, or warp the material. Benefits of a rain barrel Every dedicated gardener will benefit from a rain barrel. They offer a reliable, convenient water supply that's perfect for your plants. After the initial installation, they're free to run, providing free water that can lower your utility bills. This water isn't treated with any chemicals, so if you live somewhere where you can't trust the municipal water, the rain barrels will provide chemical-free water. Even if you can trust the water, rain barrels are a good backup. Barrels with downspouts can also be an aesthetic improvement on simple downspouts. The best are made to look like rustic barrels for a more traditional look, while more modern barrels can be sculptural vase shapes. Most are topped with a planter too, so you can hide necessary but ugly features like a downspout amongst beautiful flowers. This clever rain barrel looks more like a neat piece of pottery than a water container. It also has a planter on the top to further disguise it. This barrel is a good way to maintain a rustic look. It appears to be an old-fashioned whiskey barrel, but it's made of plastic, so it's far cheaper than buying a true wood rain barrel. If you have polyrattan furniture, try this batrrel. It's printed with a wicker effect so it will match the furniture on your patio. Drawbacks of a rain barrel Rain barrels are more regulated than rain chains. Some HOAs have rules about rain chains but they're usually allowed. Many HOAs outright ban rain chains, and more importantly, some municipalities regulate them too. There are restrictions on rainwater harvesting in California, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas, and in some counties, you need a permit to harvest rainwater. Rain barrels need a lot of maintenance, and if you live somewhere that sees freezing temperatures you need to winterize your rain barrel . If you don't, the rain barrel will crack and break. Rain barrels are better are coping with storms than rain chains, but can still overflow. In summer, rain barrels can be the perfect breeding ground for mosquitos, so you might see a lot of bug bites. The stagnant water is also a magnet for algae, which can create a gross smell that stops you from hosting guests on your patio. Can you combine the two? A good way to get the best of both worlds is to combine the two. You can run a rain chain into a rain barrel - and it's actually easier to install a rain barrel this way than to collect water from a downspout. Rachel Bull, Head of Gardens at H&G, says 'Unlike a downspout, where you have to saw off chunks of the pipe and fit a diverter, you can just put a barrel underneath a rain chain and the water will flow straight in, and unlike a traditional rain barrel, there's no danger of debris from the roof ending up in the barrel.' However, all of the above drawbacks hold true here, too. This is a less efficient way of collecting rainwater than a rain barrel connected to a traditional downspout, so you'll collect less water than you could. Rachel is a gardening editor, flower grower and floral designer. Her journalism career began on Country Living magazine, sparking a love of container gardening and wild planting. After more than a decade writing for and editing a range of consumer, business and special interest titles, Rachel became editor of floral art magazine The Flower Arranger . She then trained and worked as a floral designer and stylist in London for six years, before joining the Homes & Gardens team. In the end, rain chains and rain barrels are good options for gardeners with relatively low levels of rain water. But neither option is perfect - there's a host of rain chain mistakes to avoid as you set one up.
A top US official sought to quell growing concern Sunday over reported drone sightings in the country's northeast, reiterating there was no known security threat as authorities monitor the situation. President Joe Biden's administration has faced mounting criticism for not clearly identifying origins of the objects seen hovering over parts of New York and New Jersey. The criticism has come even from Biden's own party, with top Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer calling Sunday for action to make it easier for federal, state and local authorities to work together to detect and if need be "bring down" any drone seen to pose a threat. Video footage of mysterious airborne phenomena recently has clogged social media, with spottings also reported in Maryland and Virginia. "Some of those drone sightings are, in fact, drones. Some are manned aircraft that are commonly mistaken for drones," Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" program. "But there's no question that drones are being sighted," he said, noting there are more than one million registered across the United States. "I want to assure the American public that we are on it," he said. "If we identify any foreign involvement or criminal activity, we will communicate with the American public accordingly. Right now, we are not aware of any." Even as Mayorkas sought to reassure the public, Boston police announced Sunday that two Massachusetts men had been arrested the previous night for allegedly conducting a "hazardous drone operation" near the city's Logan International Airport. State police were conducting a search for a third suspect, who authorities said fled the scene. Schumer, in a letter to Mayorkas Sunday, urged the Department of Homeland Security to immediately deploy special drone-detection technology across New York and New Jersey, since traditional radar struggles to detect such small objects. He also called for passage of legislation to explicitly authorize state and local law enforcement to work with federal agencies to detect and "bring down drones that threaten critical facilities or mass gatherings." Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, meanwhile expressed frustration at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over its communications around the issue. "The answer 'we don't know' is not a good enough answer," he told "Fox News Sunday." "When people are anxious... people will fill a vacuum with, you know, their fears and anxieties and conspiracy theories," he said, calling for the FAA to hold public briefings. White House national security spokesman John Kirby had previously said the aircraft could be lawfully operated planes or helicopters mistaken for drones. "While there is no known malicious activity occurring, the reported sightings there do, however, highlight a gap in authorities," he said Thursday, calling for Congress to pass new legislation to "extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities." New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced Sunday that authorities had agreed to send a drone detection system to her state. "I am grateful for the support, but we need more. Congress must pass a law that will give us the power to deal directly with the drones," she said on X. On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump urged federal authorities to clearly identify the drones' origins. "Let the public know, and now. Otherwise, shoot them down!!!" he posted on social media. As the price of drones has fallen -- small quadcopter models with Wi-Fi camera capability can be purchased for as little as $40 -- their numbers and popularity have soared, making their presence in American skies a greater concern. acb/des/bbk/mlm
West Ham surprise Newcastle with 2-0 away win
Most of Bill C-63, the Liberals’ online harms act, now seems to be dead on arrival. On Dec. 4 , in a post-caucus scrum, Justice Minister Arif Virani said that the bill was going to be split. Bill C-63 is an unwieldy piece of government legislation that combines all kinds of things that have no reason to go together. If the Liberals go just one small step further, there is an opportunity to pass the uncontroversial part of the bill alone, and for everyone to go home with a political win. There are four parts to the bill. Part 1 would create obligations for social media platforms, including a “duty to act responsibly,” enforced by a new bureaucracy known as the Digital Safety Commission. Part 2 would create new criminal offences and penalties for hate speech, including penalties of up to life imprisonment, as well as peace bonds for future speech crimes not yet committed. Part 3 would create a new human rights mechanism whereby members of the public could seek civil damages for “hate” they see online. And part 4 would create urgently needed mandatory reporting and storage requirements for internet child pornography. During his scrum last week, Virani said that parts 1 and 4 will be split off into a new bill and prioritized over parts 2 and 3. This is overall positive news. Parts 2 and 3 are the most censorious and have always been the most controversial. Many civil liberties groups have called for the bill to be split, or threatened legal challenges of parts 2 and 3 should they pass. The Canadian Constitution Foundation assisted more than 9,000 members of the public to write to their MPs about fixing these issues with Bill C-63. It is obvious that the government doesn’t want to talk about these broadly unpopular provisions anymore. Now that the bill has been split, its most draconian and constitutionally problematic aspects are far less likely to become law. In splitting the bill, Virani, or perhaps the Prime Minister’s Office, may be hoping to eke out some sort of win after watching the bill flounder since it was introduced in May. But combining parts 1 and 4 of the legislation remains a cynical move by the government. The issue of the online sexual exploitation of children (part 4) is urgent and serious and should not be lumped in with the government’s plan to create a broadly defined $200-million “Digital Safety” bureaucracy (part 1). Part 1 would require online platforms to monitor and remove seven categories of “harmful” content and penalize platforms with fines of up to $10 million or 6 per cent of gross global revenue for failing to comply. While penalties for platforms that refuse to take down child pornography or “revenge porn” make sense, as usual, the Trudeau government takes things too far. Penalties would also apply to more subjective content, like speech that “foments hatred” and “bullying.” These terms have amorphous and highly subjective definitions. When combined with high penalties, this will undoubtedly lead to a chilling effect online. For example, does misgendering someone rise to the level of bullying? If you thought the pre-Elon Musk days of Twitter were censorious, when accounts could be frozen for debates about gender and race, part 1 of Bill C-63 would not just bring us back, but mandate we go back. It is contemptuous of the democratic process to tie the creation of a large new bureaucracy that would oversee all types of online speech to a plan to crack down on child sexual abuse. If the Trudeau government narrowed the focus of part 1 to child sexual abuse and revenge porn, and considered ways to ensure sexual abusers also faced stricter criminal penalties, they would likely be met with greater support. Instead, they have combined different types of content under the purview of a large and expensive new bureaucracy. Meanwhile, newspapers are full of shameful stories of a court system that lacks the resources to hear cases in a timely manner, causing sex abuse cases to be dismissed for delay. Worst of all has been the Trudeau government’s decision to tie part 4 of Bill C-63 to all the other parts of the bill. Part 4 deals with mandatory reporting of child pornography online by internet service providers. Part 4 is considered urgent to prevent harm to children, and likely could have passed unanimously if it had been introduced on its own in May. If the Liberals were actually serious about addressing the issue of child sexual abuse, they would have proposed part 4 alone and passed it months ago, and would work on stiffer criminal penalties for sex offenders, who often receive shockingly lenient sentences . On Dec. 11, the Conservatives proposed that parts 1, 2 and 3 of Bill C-63 be abandoned and that part 4 proceed as a separate bill. The Trudeau government should accept this offer and take the win. It would be good for the country, good for Canadian children, and for once, it’s actually good politics all around. National Post