8 months after forced cull, Universal Ostrich Farms still in limbo
Eight months after federal officials destroyed more than 300 ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, British Columbia, the property remains under quarantine, with owners saying they still have no clear timeline for when they'll be allowed to reopen.
Katie Pasitney, daughter of farm co-owner Karen Espersen, says the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has prevented the family from cleaning up the property while citing an ongoing "fallow period," intended to allow any remaining H5N1 virus in the environment to naturally become inactive, as the reason the quarantine remains in place.
'They continue down this anti-science avenue, which is destroying the credibility of the CFIA internationally.'
No reprieve
The ongoing restrictions come months after the CFIA ordered the destruction of the farm's ostriches following an outbreak of H5N1 avian influenza. The owners fought the order through the courts, ultimately losing their final appeal when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case. The CFIA has maintained that culling infected poultry is required under Canada's disease-control protocols to limit the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza.
Pasitney recently joined former Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz for an interview to discuss the continuing fallout from the cull and what she says are unanswered questions about the government's handling of the farm.
'The Ostrich Con'
Following the cull, CBC news program "The Fifth Estate" approached Pasitney about participating in a documentary on the controversy surrounding Universal Ostrich Farms. She says she and her mother initially declined but ultimately agreed after producers indicated the program would proceed with or without them.
"We have nothing to hide," Pasitney says she thought at the time. "We have everything to show, and we're going to answer the hard questions."
It wasn't until the documentary aired that Pasitney learned the CBC had titled it "The Ostrich Con." She says the title immediately told her how the broadcaster had chosen to frame the story.
"The only con that was happening here was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ... trying to blindfold the public, saying, 'This is a virus, this is a virus,'" she said. "We were not the con."
Pasitney says she was also disappointed that key portions of her interview did not appear in the finished program.
She says CBC reporter Mark Kelley asked whether she was embarrassed to seek support from Americans, including U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
"I said, 'If our country would have listened, and we would have had any true leadership that would have taken the time to understand what we were trying to fight for, I wouldn't have had to go out of country,'" she said.
Her response, she says, did not make the final cut.
Ongoing damage
Pasitney says the most frustrating aspect of the ordeal is that the CFIA has not returned to conduct further testing while continuing to prevent the family from restoring the property.
"They have not been on our farm since [the cull]," she said. "There has been no more testing."
If the agency believes the virus remains a concern, she argues, it should be testing the soil, water, and surrounding environment rather than simply extending the quarantine.
Pasitney says the impact extends far beyond the financial loss of the birds.
"When your animals are destroyed and the damage is done, it doesn't just end in our fields, and it doesn't end in our barns, and it doesn't end in our pastures. It follows into our homes," she said, calling it "generational trauma."
She worries the episode has permanently damaged public confidence in government institutions.
"The generations that are watching this are learning not to trust our government," she said. "They're learning not to trust our RCMP."
RELATED: Massacre at Universal Ostrich Farms: Canada kills hundreds of birds despite no evidence of avian flu
'The antithesis of science'
Ritz, who served as Canada's agriculture minister under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper from 2007 to 2015, said he finds the continuing quarantine difficult to justify.
"The whole mandate of CFIA is one based on science. It is to support food safety and trade corridors," he said.
He argued that the agency has moved well beyond that mission in its handling of Universal Ostrich Farms, later describing what he called the "egregious behavior" of CFIA "thugs."
"I can't, for the life of me, understand the powers that be allowing this to happen," he said. "We've got a rogue element within CFIA. There's still some really good people there."
Ritz said he knows current CFIA President Dr. Harpreet Kochhar from his time in government and pledged to contact him regarding the ongoing quarantine.
He also questioned the agency's use of a "fallow period" while simultaneously preventing the farm from cleaning the property.
"What you guys wanted to do was clean up ... and actually extend that containment," Ritz told Pasitney during the interview.
"They're not allowing you to do that. That, to me, is the ... antithesis of science."
'No containment'
Ritz also questioned the agency's public statements regarding the disposal of the birds.
"There's no containment," he said. "We saw that when they hauled the birds away. There was no containment. They sat in yards in Surrey and rotted on the spot. It was just heartbreaking to see that go on. And they continue down this anti-science avenue, which is destroying the credibility of CFIA internationally."
The CFIA did not respond to written questions asking when the quarantine will be lifted, what scientific criteria must be met before it ends, and why the agency did not remove spent cartridges, blood-soaked hay, and other debris that remained on the property following the cull.
For Pasitney, however, the central question remains unanswered.
Eight months after the cull, she says her family members are still waiting to learn when they will be allowed to begin putting the farm — and their lives — back together.
'The ship is already sinking': Why the 'Citizen Vigilante' director wants to shock you
The corporate entertainment complex is experiencing a collective nervous breakdown. The catalyst for this sudden departure from sanity is "Citizen Vigilante," a cinematic hand grenade that blows the lid off the establishment's favorite lies.
Directed by the notoriously uncompromising Uwe Boll, the film takes the documented reality of Europe's border crisis, pairs it with an industry outcast, and refuses to apologize for the violence that follows.
'Everybody loved that I knocked out the critics,' Boll notes dryly. 'They stepped into the ring and received a much-needed reality check.'
Film reviewers, conditioned by years of ideological conformity, responded with their usual panic-stricken script, hurling accusations of "fascism" like overexcited monkeys slinging feces.
Crying 'fascist'
When asked why modern film critics seem so threatened by stories that reflect public frustrations instead of establishment-approved narratives, Boll doesn't hesitate.
"They know that the facts are against them and they have no defense," Boll states matter-of-factly. "So they label everyone a fascist or a Nazi if they point out that criminals need to be prosecuted and, if possible, deported."
"The leftist governments in Europe are victims of their own propaganda. They are under immense pressure to ignore grooming scandals, knife stabbings, and all forms of violent random crime."
The hysterical reaction from the press stems from a deep-seated fear of the obvious. For years, the European establishment maintained control by enforcing a strict code of censorship around the predictable outcomes of open-door migration policies. "Citizen Vigilante" breaks that code with a sledgehammer.
The film acts as a mirror to a continent where citizens are told to accept acts of savagery as a standard feature of daily life. When art reflects the dark reality instead of the utopian fantasy, the gatekeepers reach for the chloroform.
RELATED: 'Citizen Vigilante': A cinematic hand grenade lobbed at the cathedral of liberal pieties
Hammer time
The casting of the lead role provided another opportunity to challenge the industry's enforced consensus. Beyond his fit for the role, casting Armie Hammer felt like a well-earned middle finger to an entertainment industry obsessed with moral conformity.
"Armie was a major star and would be the perfect James Bond," Boll says. "Unfortunately, in today's climate, a one-legged transgender person from Bangladesh has a better chance of getting that part."
"By the way," he adds, "that is not a joke against transgender people — that is a joke against the insanity of the woke police running Hollywood. Armie acted irresponsibly years ago, but he committed no crime. He rehabilitated himself and deserves to be a major star again. He was perfect for the role of Sanders, so I hired him."
Boll is right. Hammer, a genuinely gifted actor, is not a criminal. Whatever one makes of his personal controversies, they are not comparable to the depravities of Harvey Weinstein. On screen, the American’s stoic, unsentimental delivery of justice feels both refreshing and revolutionary.
Hollywood thrives on a system of selective banishment, enforcing a social credit system that demands absolute ideological submission. Hiring Hammer was a calculated rejection of that ecosystem. It demonstrated that a filmmaker with independent backing can bypass the arbitrary tribunals of the cultural elite.
Wake-up call
The performance itself fuels a narrative that focuses directly on the systematic failure of European state institutions. The complete lack of public safety in major European centers is a daily reality on the streets of Berlin, Paris, and London, where the native populations find themselves treated as second-class citizens by their own representatives.
This fact is not lost on Boll.
"Germany is going down the drain, just like the U.K. and France, and we have watched it unfold for at least 15 years," the filmmaker explains. "Now that more middle-class citizens are feeling the impact, they are starting to wake up and get upset. The general population always reacts too late, usually when the ship is already sinking and they have lost their jobs, their homes, or are simply running out of money for groceries. Then they become resentful and depressed.”
He considers his latest film “a harsh wake-up call designed for shock value to accelerate that awakening. Politicians are elected to bring safety and prosperity to their country. That is not happening.”
In Germany, he adds, “our bridges and schools are literally falling apart, but we are funding bicycle lanes in Peru. That is a documented fact, not a joke." He’s right. It’s true.
Contract killers
This disconnect forms the emotional center of the film's protagonist, a man driven to extreme measures by the state's total abdication of authority. The character's narrative arc reflects a growing sentiment across the continent. When the social contract is voided by the ruling class, the consequences will be severe.
Michael Sanders goes to some incredibly dark places by the end of the film, leaving fans to wonder if the sequel will bring a deeper escalation of his crusade or a confrontation with the true cost of taking the law into his own hands.
Boll remains coy about the exact plot of the sequel. "Maybe both," he offers.
Bounty hunter
Obviously, one cannot interview Boll without discussing his decision to stream the film for free on X via Elon Musk's account. This move bypassed traditional distribution entirely, rendering traditional studios obsolete.
"Thanks to X, the world could watch the film for two days," Boll says. However, he adds, “you still need theatrical releases, Blu-ray, television, and streaming revenues to generate a profit. If you launch exclusively on social media, you would need an alternative model to get compensated for the work."
In theory, this alternative model would look like a digital bounty system — direct-to-consumer micro-subscriptions or platform-backed ad-revenue splits driven entirely by viral engagement rather than studio greenlights. It is desperately needed because the current gatekeepers don't just take a cut of the profit but also a cut of the truth.
The entertainment elite dislikes independent distribution channels because they destroy the monopoly on information. This rebellious streak defines Boll's career. Twenty years ago, he famously challenged his fiercest critics to actual boxing matches and beat them in the ring, an event that permanently altered his relationship with the film establishment.
"Everybody loved that I knocked out the critics," Boll notes dryly. "They stepped into the ring and received a much-needed reality check." With "Citizen Vigilante," Boll delivers the ultimate right hook, forcing open the eyes of the cultural commissars who would very much like us to ignore reality.
Crime stats said her new neighborhood was 'safe'; then she saw what they left out
Politicians and bureaucrats routinely claim that America is experiencing a historic drop in crime and that, in many parts of the country, the streets have never been safer. Yet for everyday citizens who see boarded-up storefronts and brazen daylight robberies, there’s an unsettling sense that the reality on the ground tells an entirely different story.
This is not a matter of misperception. As Anna Giaritelli, a seasoned homeland security reporter for the Washington Examiner, details in her book "Under Assault," the numbers being fed to the public are systematically manipulated.
'You don’t know what you don’t know until you find out the hard way sometimes.'
Giaritelli experienced this firsthand when moving to Washington, D.C. Carefully examining official data was a priority during the neighborhood search. “I looked at the crime stats before I moved to Capitol Hill," she told me, "and selected my home there based on blocks on Capitol Hill that were the safest and showed the least amount of crime incidents."
Off the map
What she didn’t know was that the Metropolitan Police Department’s public crime map didn’t show the whole picture. It only displayed first-degree and select second-degree felonies. Most felonies and misdemeanors were entirely absent. In other words, the map only flagged major, headline-grabbing crimes like homicides or armed robberies. It completely skipped over everyday break-ins, property theft, and assaults.
"Whether it’s a resident or a business owner, people base their decisions on where to move on that crime map," Giaritelli argues.
"And not to include all crimes shows an inaccurate picture of the state of public safety in D.C. I would not have moved to this block had I known the real extent of crime in the area. I’d argue Washington, D.C., officials are liable for misleading the public, particularly victims like myself who they knowingly deceive."
When local governments sanitize data, families buy homes in dangerous areas and entrepreneurs invest life savings in storefronts that are highly vulnerable. By blinding the public, officials make it impossible to accurately assess risk, leaving citizens exposed.
Widespread issue
For individuals living in quiet suburbs or rural towns, spiking urban crime rates can seem like someone else's problem. It is tempting to look at the mayhem in major metropolitan areas and assume it stays within city limits.
However, the manipulation of this data is a widespread issue that ignores municipal borders.
"I think city crime stats matter for everyone, regardless of whether they live in a suburb or rural America," Giaritelli warns. "You don’t know what you don’t know until you find out the hard way sometimes."
The methods used by big-city bureaucrats to improve their public image are easily exported. Whether in a small town or a massive coastal metropolis, police departments and municipal leaders answer to the same political pressures to show downward trends. If they learn they can rewrite reality with the stroke of a pen, they will.
As Giaritelli observes, a resident may not find out a town is doing this "until you become a victim and go looking for your stat, only to find you didn’t meet the threshold to be counted." It remains unknown how deep or widespread this miscounting truly is across America.
RELATED: 'Citizen Vigilante': A cinematic hand grenade lobbed at the cathedral of liberal pieties
Collapse of public trust
This growing awareness has fueled a massive pushback. Giaritelli’s petition demanding absolute crime data transparency has received nearly 20,000 signatures. This groundswell signals a deeper crisis marked by the collapse of public trust in institutional data.
Public safety is one of the rare issues that unites most people across the political aisle. Sure, there is a loud faction of progressives who would gladly replace the local police force with hug-dispensing, gender-fluid therapists, but the vast majority, just like conservatives, want law and order. At the end of the day, everyday citizens simply want safe neighborhoods. But when government statistics become fiction, the entire justice system breaks down.
Giaritelli lays out the structural domino effect:
We can’t properly fund the public safety, the judicial system, and the prisons and jails in our communities if we don’t know how much crime is actually occurring. Covering up crime stats causes problems throughout the system. If we don’t know how much crime there is, we cannot plan and adequately respond to it.
When cities hide numbers, they intentionally starve the system of resources. Giaritelli points out the real-world cost:. In D.C., underfunding led to a severe lack of jail space. A violent offender arrested in her area was released the very next day. He lived blocks from her apartment. He went on to be arrested five more times before going to trial, and each time, the judge released him right back onto the streets due to a lack of space.
If those crimes aren’t counted, she notes, "then we’re not setting an annual budgets for the next year to take into account the need for jail space, the need for victims funding, and the need for more police."
When citizens can no longer trust official government statistics, decision-making becomes distorted. Budgets become less reliable, serious crimes may be undercounted, and law-abiding families ultimately bear the consequences.
Punishing the victims
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in "Under Assault" is how Giaritelli discovered this institutional gaslighting.
In April 2020, Giaritelli was walking to the post office just blocks from the U.S. Capitol when she was physically and sexually assaulted on a public sidewalk in broad daylight. Her attacker was eventually caught and sent to federal prison. Later, while working on a routine newsroom assignment evaluating D.C. crime trends, she decided to look up her own incident on the city's official crime map.
There was no mark. No pin. Nothing.
"When I contacted D.C. police to inquire about my specific assault, I was told that it did not meet the threshold to be counted by D.C. police on the crime map."
A citizen was sexually assaulted, the perpetrator was convicted in a federal court and sent to prison, yet according to the city's public-facing ledger, the crime never happened.
To make matters worse, the police department removed individual incident pins entirely. In their place, they covered the city map in vague, shifting shades of color to denote general crime levels. It is a clear case of bureaucratic deception. By erasing distinct markers, they make it completely impossible for a victim to verify whether an assault was ever officially counted. Giaritelli knows this only too well, even as many Americans remain unaware of the highly unethical practice.
When institutions trusted with safety care more about protecting their public image than protecting human lives, the system is actively hostile to the truth. The next time an official stands behind a podium and claims crime is down, it’s worth listening. But it’s also worth verifying it for yourself.
'Citizen Vigilante': Outlaw director takes unflinching look at migrant violence
You can’t accuse director Uwe Boll of having thin skin.
Film critics have been brutal to the German filmmaker behind “Rampage,” “House of the Dead,” and “Postal.” He once challenged his harshest critics to a boxing match to settle the score.
‘If I have six neo-Nazis raping a migrant girl, there would be no issues. Unfortunately, the criminal statistics show the [opposite].’
He knows he’ll never be an awards season darling, so when a reviewer dubbed him a “right-wing fascist” over his latest film, he shook it off like a glancing uppercut.
He saw those comments coming a mile away.
Culture war TKO
Even by Boll’s pugnacious standards, “Citizen Vigilante” is a culture war TKO. Armie Hammer, working his way back after personal revelations crushed his career, stars as a man fed up with migrant violence in Europe.
So he decides to do something about it. Think “Death Wish” with an agenda no Hollywood studio would touch.
Boll tells Blaze Lifestyle the aforementioned reviewer has every right to dislike “Citizen Vigilante,” out in the U.S. today, but he takes issue with that political slam.
“What is right-wing in saying rapists should not get off the hook?” Boll asked. Critics of unfettered illegal immigration point to high-profile cases where violent migrant offenders were spared harsh sentences.
Pardoning predators
The zeitgeist is in Boll’s corner in more ways than one.
“Citizen Vigilante” arrives days after a shocking U.K. rape gang inquiry report detailed chronic abuse across Great Britain. Migrant crime isn’t relegated to the U.K., an issue Boll explores in his violent, politically incorrect film.
For Boll, hearing stories of sexual predators getting slaps on the wrist proved bad enough. Reading reports of judges excusing the violence based on a perpetrator’s brutal youth enraged him.
“Newspapers called them poor, traumatized people who grew up with violence ... but who gives a s**t? ... Maybe they’re traumatized. Why are we importing them?” he asked.
“I have nothing against migrants — if they follow the rules and the law,” he added, accusing European news outlets of diminishing statistics tied to migrant crime.
“I have no words for it. ... It’s the most absurd thing in my lifetime,” the 60-year-old filmmaker said.
RELATED: ‘Weekend at Biden’s’ creator takes on LA mayor Karen Bass
Unflinching violence
“Citizen Vigilante” lets Boll respond to those heartbreaking news stories sans filter. Hammer’s character seeks justice when the courts fail to dole out what he thinks is sufficient punishment.
The on-screen violence is unflinching.
“It’s the only movie out there that shows brutally the situation,” he said, noting that he included a shocking murder in the film’s opening scene to highlight the security concerns citizens face.
He’s also angry that his home country refused to rate his film and, more recently, banned it from theaters for allegedly promoting vigilante behavior. The ratings decision boils down to politics, he alleged.
“If I have six neo-Nazis raping a migrant girl, there would be no issues. Unfortunately, the criminal statistics show the [opposite],” he said.
He said he appealed the ratings decision to three separate guilds — directors, writers, and producers.
“I’m a member for 30 years. ... Nobody even answered. Dead silence,” he said.
As for promoting violence, Boll said the film’s context drew his homeland’s ire, not the on-screen mayhem.
“Any Jason Statham movie would incite violence [too],” he argued, noting the action star’s penchant for heroes who take the law into their own hands.
“If [British Prime Minister] Keir Starmer sees ["Citizen Vigilante"] he will maybe put an arrest warrant out on me,” Boll said, perhaps tongue in cheek. Perhaps not.
Boll’s blacklist
Germany’s banishment wasn’t the only obstacle he faced while preparing “Citizen Vigilante” for its theatrical run. The film’s director of photography refused to be credited on the project, saying it might cost him future jobs.
Boll said Croatian officials offered him tax rebates to shoot “Citizen Vigilante” in the country, but the rebates were rescinded mid-production.
Hollywood has been abuzz with talk of free speech and alleged censorship by the Trump administration. Boll said he hasn’t gotten support from any Hollywood artists, and his fellow citizens aren’t much better.
“In Germany they’re all hanging onto [film] subsidies. ... They’re all very careful,” he said, noting that a few actors reached out privately.
“You’re totally right, but don’t name me,” he recalled of their messages.
Blind casting
Boll isn’t just critical of the migration issue. He’s that rare storyteller who doesn’t pledge allegiance to DEI policies in the arts.
“I cast the way I should cast, not like I need X amount of Asians or X amount of blacks. ... I hire people based on their qualifications, ... not based if you’re a lesbian transgender Asian. ... That’s how it has to be.”
Hammer’s character in “Citizen Vigilante” may reflect a cinematic antihero that dates back to Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” days in the early 1970s. Boll had little interest in deifying his film’s judge, jury, and executioner.
“He’s not this white knight guy. ... He’s a loner. He’s also able to do the actions he’s doing ... to execute them properly. ... That’s a more realistic approach,” he said. “Audiences should discuss it for themselves. ... Is he going too far?”
Will Alberta leave Canada? Either way, Premier Danielle Smith is feeling the heat
At a recent anti-separatist rally in Calgary, left-wing activist Jenny Yeremiy denounced Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as a "separatist premier," accusing her of promoting independence "like a teenager slamming her bedroom door."
It was a striking charge against a politician who, at almost the same moment, was being condemned by committed Alberta separatists for refusing to let voters decide independence on the terms they wanted.
'I'm surprised, actually, my polling was as high as it was.'
That political whiplash neatly captures Smith's predicament: To many federalists, she has become the face of a dangerous separatist movement, while to many separatists, she is the establishment figure standing in its way.
As the debate over Alberta independence continues, passions on either side show no signs of abating.
Strong and sovereign
Smith, who has advocated for "a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada," finds herself leading a United Conservative Party whose grassroots includes a significant separatist faction, with past polling suggesting a majority of UCP voters are at least open to Alberta leaving Canada."
The latest flash point came in May after King's Bench Justice Shaina Leonard ruled that an independence referendum question backed by more than 300,000 petition signatures could not proceed without additional consultation with Alberta's indigenous communities.
Although she appealed the court ruling, Smith has concluded that the litigation could take years to resolve. Instead of placing a straight independence question on October's ballot, she has proposed asking Albertans whether they want to hold a binding independence referendum in the future — a referendum on whether to hold a referendum.
RELATED: Albertans are ready to vote on Canadian secession — so why is their premier stalling?
Wrath of Rath
That decision drew criticism from Alberta Prosperity Project legal counsel Jeff Rath, who argued that the court ruling did not prevent the province from proceeding with the original question asking Albertans whether they wish to remain in Canada.
Speaking with Blaze Lifestyle, Smith defended the government's approach as the product of legal advice.
"As you know, I get a lot of advice from a lot of lawyers, and the lawyers ... have told me that once something is decided in a court of law, it's the law of the land," Smith said.
"The law of the land right now in Alberta is that in order to proceed with a question that was designed as the Stay Free Alberta folks put forward, we'd have to do months of indigenous consultation."
A recent Angus Reid poll found Smith's approval rating in Alberta had fallen to 39%, one of the lowest levels of her premiership. Smith said she considers that number shockingly favorable considering that she has angered nearly every faction in the debate simultaneously.
"I'm surprised, actually, my polling was as high as it was," she said.
"Everyone was mad at me for about a week there — I had four different groups."
'Why are you doing this?'
She described the first group as Albertans who oppose even discussing independence.
"There was a group of people who said, 'Why are you doing this at all?'" For Smith, the answer comes down to Alberta's robust Citizen Initiative Act, which allows eligible voters to submit proposals directly to the provincial government. "When 400,000 people sign that petition, and 300,000 sign another saying they want to have this debate ... it's our obligation as government to follow our own law and put that forward."
A second group, Smith said, wanted a referendum initially but later "got cold feet" and hoped the government would provide "an off-ramp."
"The leave folks ... wanted us to put their question on as it had been written," said Smith, referring to the original petition language asking Albertans directly whether they wish to remain in Canada. "I explained [that] we have legal advice that we cannot do that."
Finally, Smith pointed to Albertans who are dissatisfied with Ottawa but do not want to leave Canada.
"I know that there's a group out there that are not happy with [Alberta's] relationship with Canada, don't want to break the country up, but they want to send a message. And ... I just think there's a better way to send a message."
Joe Biden mental fitness questions return after new interview
Despite plenty of video footage showing former President Joe Biden stumbling through basic sentences and forgetting where those sentences were going, Jill Biden is once again dismissing concerns about his cognitive fitness.
In a recent interview on CBS with Rita Braver, Jill claimed more than once that Biden was “fine” when asked about his frequent gaffes.
“But what if that had happened during a meeting with foreign leaders or something like that?” Braver asked the first lady.
“I don’t know how to answer that,” Jill responded.
“Yeah, because you can’t answer that,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray chimes in on “Pat Gray Unleashed.” “He should not have been president is the only answer to that.”
“Next time you steal the presidency, make sure it’s someone with a pulse,” executive producer Keith Malinak adds.
Braver also pointed out that while “President Biden had said that he would never pardon his son,” he then pardoned him.
“Did you urge the president to think again about that?” the reporter asked.
“Well, you know, Joe said in the beginning, ‘I won’t pardon Hunter. I won’t pardon Hunter.’ And then the Justice Department changed, and I think that the process was not fair to Hunter,” Jill answered.
Jill was also asked about Biden’s mental decline, with the reporter asking, “Did you ever see signs that he was falling into cognitive decline?”
“No, no,” she answered.
Malinak isn’t amused by Jill’s claim, commenting, “You’re a liar.”
Want more from Pat Gray?
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com