Have you ever noticed that the prefix “para” doesn’t seem to have any particular meaning? It’s all random.
(Yes, I know there’s a dictionary definition. But I’m talking about its everyday usage.)
‘Cause consider all the different words that begin with “para”: parachute, paradise, paralyze, parable, parakeet, parasail, paradigm, parallel, parade, paragraph, paralegal, paragon, paradox, parasite, paraplegic.
Pretty weird, huh? It is, dare I say, borderline paranormal. (But don’t be paranoid. Unless you live in Paraguay, of course.)
This, my friends, is an example of a small potato mystery: It’s inconsequential wordplay. Not unlike the mysteries surrounding Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Jimmy Hoffa’s final resting place, it’s fun to think about, yet not terribly important.
But other whodunnit mysteries matter immensely.
For a while, D.C.’s biggest unsolved mystery was whether or not COVID-19 escaped from a Wuhan biolab. There’s still no smoking gun, but over time, a consensus has emerged: The lab-leak origin theory is highly plausible.
Which means those who dismissed it as a baseless, Sinophobic conspiracy theory now have egg drop soup on their face.
The latest to leap on the lab-leak bandwagon is President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 response director, Dr. Ashish Jha.
Former Biden White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha revealed in a Sunday interview on CNN that he believes COVID-19 was likely caused by a lab leak.
[…]
"This is going to surprise some people. You know, when I went into the White House, my view was, ‘This was almost surely a natural outbreak, maybe a lab leak,’" he said. "Based on information I learned and based on information I‘ve seen, I have come to conclude that it is more likely to have been a lab leak."
"Here‘s the bottom line. No one in the United States knows for sure. The only people who know for sure are people — officials in China — and we still need transparency and accountability on that. So that is my best assessment. I‘m not suggesting I know for sure, but I‘m saying my best assessment is that it probably was a lab leak," he said.
Jha further explained his thought process in an X post:
My view on COVID origins isn't new — I've held it since my time at the White House
— Ashish K. Jha (@ashishkjha) August 2, 2026
Here's the truth: no one in America knows for sure. Anyone telling you they do is selling you something
Based on strong circumstantial evidence I've seen, I think lab leak is much more likely.…
With the COVID mystery resolved (more or less), two new whodunnit mysteries are now rocking D.C. — and these potatoes are the size of Alpha Centauri. Simply yuuuge. There’s nothing small about ‘em!
At stake is control of Congress and the future of the Democratic Party.
The first mystery is a he-said, he-said dispute at the DNC: Who hid the missing chapter in the Democratic Party’s 2024 election autopsy?
After months of resistance, the Democratic National Committee finally relented this May and published a draft of its autopsy of what had gone wrong in the 2024 election, saying it was releasing the unfinished document “in its entirety” in the interest of transparency.
But, according to the man who wrote the autopsy, there was a missing chapter.
The chapter raised pointed questions that were notably absent from the draft that the party put out, both about President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s ill-fated decision to run for re-election and the sway of an operative class that had become “generationally wealthy off politics” while steering Democratic strategy.
Well, garsh! That missing chapter sounds kinda-sorta relevant, doesn’t it?
The author of the autopsy, a longtime DNC loyalist named Paul Rivera, insists he personally handed the chapter — which was titled “What Happened” — in a three-ring binder to DNC chairman Ken Martin in January 2026.
Martin says otherwise:
Mr. Martin sharply disputed that account, denying in a written statement that he was ever provided with the missing chapter.
“That is false,” Mr. Martin said. “This alleged report section was not in any binder I reviewed.” He added, “If we had this in May, we would have released it with the rest of the report.” He declined a request to be interviewed.
So what was in the missing chapter?
The disputed “What Happened” chapter addressed several politically delicate subjects that were not included in the draft the party published in May:
- It questioned Mr. Biden’s decision to seek re-election in the first place: “Is there a single point of failure for 2024? Perhaps it is a decision of the President to seek re-election instead of passing the torch.”
- It analyzed the party’s loss of support among Hispanic, Black, Asian American and Native American voters, which had been mostly missing from the public draft.
- And it pointedly raised the concern that most senior Democratic strategists in 2024 were “financially secure” and thus removed from the challenges facing many Americans. “It is therefore possible the people ‘in the room’ at the highest levels of 2024 decision making misunderstood the mood and practicalities facing everyday America,” the report read.
The New York Times was unable to determine which man was lying:
Neither man’s account could be entirely corroborated, in part because many discussions about the autopsy occurred directly between the two men.
Mr. Martin said that the binder in question could not be located and that the party would have had no reason to hold on to it. Mr. Rivera provided a Word document of the chapter in question with metadata that showed that it was last modified shortly before his Jan. 20 meeting with Mr. Martin.
But in the very next paragraph, the Times revealed something so dramatic, the Old Gray Lady could credibly be accused of burying the lede:
Mr. Rivera said that he had sent an earlier draft of the chapter electronically to another party official. Party emails are deleted after 30 days for security purposes, so there is no record of that email. Mr. Martin said that a search of the party’s files could not locate such a document, and three other party officials who worked with Mr. Rivera on the autopsy said they had not previously seen the document in question. [emphasis added]
Wait… what?!
Why the hell is the DNC deleting its electronic records? After all, when Ken Martin released the autopsy, he actually told the world, “transparency is paramount.”
But ANY system that automatically erases its electronic communications after 30 days is NOT being transparent. Instead, it’s hidden and secretive — and deliberately so.
Back to the autopsy: According to the Times, Rivera’s report was poorly received at the DNC:
At headquarters, party officials were aghast at the quality of the work, frustrated by his use of clichés, data without sources and more, according to multiple officials who saw the documents. The eventual annotations from the D.N.C. dripped with contempt and corrections: “Numbers appear inaccurate based on public data.”
[…]
Some D.N.C. officials tried to salvage some of Mr. Rivera’s materials but were frustrated that so little was attributed to anyone or anything, according to the people who saw the documents. The eventual red disclaimer atop every page read: “The D.N.C. was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”
The Times also hinted that Rivera’s report was of dubious quality:
The documents provided to The Times show that they were last modified just before the Jan. 20 meeting. The files were still a rough draft. The document of the missing chapter misspelled its title in part of the file name: “What Happend.”
(If you’d like to read Rivera’s missing chapter yourself, please click here.)
So what’s the most likely explanation?
Reading between the lines, it seems like Rivera delivered a lousy, poorly-written 2024 autopsy. Ken Martin knew he had to release something, so he “excised” the most divisive chapter.
I’m also guessing Martin was far less concerned about blaming Joe Biden or noting the erosion of minority support than the part that condemned the DNC’s class of “financially secure” strategists.
Because Ol’ Joe Biden was already yesterday’s news, and the loss of minority support was widely reported elsewhere. Neither “insight” was particularly newsworthy.
But drawing attention to the DNC’s overpaid consultants could demotivate donors from cutting new checks.
Indeed, this appears to be a growing problem at the DNC: Wealthy donors have quit donating. The Wall Street Journal wrote two days ago, “The Democrats’ Biggest Donors Have Gone on Strike.”
The Democratic National Committee has a massive cash deficit heading into November, and Chair Ken Martin is facing a growing onslaught of criticism for failing to build up reserves in the crucial years ahead of the presidential race. But the issue goes beyond his leadership.
More than half a dozen donors, bundlers and donor advisers, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said they’ve lost trust in the party’s top organization. Several have redirected their cash to the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees, the party’s main fundraising and spending vehicles for the midterms. Some said they’ve shut out working with Martin, are doubting the DNC’s current direction, or even questioning its very purpose entirely.
[…]
The DNC is more than $2 million in debt, while the Republican National Committee has stockpiled over $128 million. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling axing coordination limits between parties and candidates, the impact of the GOP’s advantage has only widened.
Bottom line?
The same DNC that promised “transparency” — yet systematically deletes its electronic communications every 30 days — had a clear and obvious financial incentive to “misplace” a 2024 autopsy chapter that would make donors wonder where the hell their money was going.
Had Rivera written something that Martin agreed with — and would make left-wing donors happy — the likelihood of this chapter going AWOL is practically nil.
Which means that Martin’s decision was driven by money and DNC job protection.
(And if he’s upset about the poor quality of Rivera’s work, Martin ought to look in the mirror: He’s the one who hired Rivera to write it.)
Related: Anthony Fauci: The Man Who Destroyed America’s Trust in Science
The second big whodunnit mystery in D.C. revolves around Max Miller, the two-term Republican congressman from Ohio. Some very nasty allegations of spousal abuse and breaking his daughter’s collarbone were made. (Miller vehemently denies all accusations of wrongdoing.)
What’s muddying the political waters is where these allegations originated: The ex-wife who accused Miller of abuse is the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), a MAGA favorite.
Unsurprisingly, Sen. Moreno is on his daughter’s side:
As a father and husband, I can tell you the last two years have been pure hell for my wife Bridget, our daughter Emily, me, and our entire family in the aftermath of Emily's divorce.
— Bernie Moreno (@berniemoreno) August 2, 2026
It has been horrific to watch this play out in full public view, all while knowing an innocent…
Had his accuser been a left-wing activist, it would’ve been easier for Miller to dismiss it as a political smear. Yet he still played that card:
@berniemoreno If my daughter said the same thing to me, I personally wouldn’t wait two years before holding him accountable. You know this isn’t true and the only reason you are speaking out now is to hide from your own media circus. This is all political. https://t.co/6GmCGBwe5y
— Max Miller (@MaxMillerOH) August 2, 2026
Is it possible that Rep. Miller is telling the truth? You betcha.
This is high-stakes, big league politics. With control of the House coming down to just a handful of districts, destroying Miller’s career raises the question of cui bono. (Be naïve of us to deny the possibility.)
But it’s also true that this is the second pro-Trump MAGA member who’s accused Miller of physical abuse.
Today we filed for a Temporary Restraining Order against Cong. Max Miller (R-OH) on behalf of former Trump Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham. https://t.co/pic5DNQulF
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) August 3, 2026
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham has filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, Rep. Max Miller, according to her attorney.
[…]
Grisham dated Miller, then an aide to President Donald Trump, from 2019 to 2020, around the time she was White House press secretary. In a Washington Post op-ed in 2021, Grisham wrote about a relationship that “turned abusive” and a former partner who was “physical,” without naming Miller.
Miller, who has been a member of the House of Representatives since 2023, denied the accusations and filed a defamation lawsuit against Grisham the following year. After Grisham’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied, Miller voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in August 2023, Cleveland.com reported.
So, is it possible that Rep. Miller was wrongfully accused not once, but twice? You betcha. (And in fairness to Miller, in Grisham’s op-ed, she didn’t accuse him by name, although reporters quickly connected the dots, which Grisham didn’t deny.)
But at this point, that’s an awful lot of smoke.
Two similar claims of abuse against one Ohio congressman is a PR nightmare; that’s the political reality. Sen. Moreno knows Miller better than we ever will, and he’s declared him unfit to hold office.
Moreno explicitly wrote on X:
As he has admitted privately, Max Miller needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter.
If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them. He should not serve in the House of Representatives. I believe Max Miller needs to seek professional help to end the clear pattern of abuse he has left in his wake. I believe he should not be free to continue endangering others until he does.
That still doesn’t mean he’s guilty. Key facts are hotly disputed, and Miller is adamant that he’s 100% innocent:
Rep. Max Miller delivered his announced special address, in which he reiterated his denial of the domestic abuse allegations made against him.
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) August 2, 2026
Miller stated: “If I had assaulted her, would she have offered to cook me dinner six days later?”
“I'm not getting out of this race” pic.twitter.com/QmK5yzFBbq
But Miller is also a junior player in D.C.; he’s not irreplaceable. And given the nastiness of the allegations — as well as the quantity — it’s in the best interest of the Republican Party to swap Miller with someone else.
Losing a winnable congressional seat because a twice-accused abuser refuses to quit would be a tragic mistake.
According to the polls, Miller is already trailing Brian Poindexter, his Democrat opponent.
A poll conducted by a Republican firm Wednesday and Thursday and reviewed by NOTUS showed Miller underwater in his district. His Democratic opponent in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, Brian Poindexter, was up 5 percentage points, polling at 44% to Miller’s 39% with 16% undecided. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
His favorability rating was also down, with 41% of voters viewing him unfavorably and only 25% holding a favorable view. Some 22% were unsure and 12% had never heard of him.
When asked if Miller should resign, President Donald Trump — who has endorsed the congressman — said he is still looking into the matter. Trump carried Miller’s district by 11 percentage points in 2024.
A district that President Trump carried by double-digits (!) shouldn’t be a life-and-death struggle for a two-term incumbent. Leaving Miller on the ballot would be an unforced error.
Instead, the GOP ought to do what the Dems just did in Maine.
If Miller were to withdraw from the race before the close of business on Aug. 4 — the 90-day deadline before the general election — Ohio law requires a special primary election to take place, according to the Ohio secretary of state’s office.
If Miller were to withdraw after Aug. 4, the deadline to replace him on the ballot would be Aug. 10. The replacement would be chosen by the GOP county party chairs in the district, and the chair of the most populous county party would be required to provide at least two days’ notice for the meeting to select a new nominee, the office notes.
Two unsolved mysteries. Two (likely) explanations and solutions.
Makes sense to me.
(Unlike the prefix “para.” Boo, hiss.)
One Last Thing: 2026 will reach its crescendo with the midterm elections. Nothing less than the fate of the America First movement teeters in the balance.
Never before have the political battle lines been so clearly defined. Blue or red, 2026 will transform our country.
We need your help to win the media war!
As a PJ Media VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to our behind-the-paywall content, commenting privileges, and an ad-free experience. VIP Gold gets you the same level of “insider access” across our entire family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, and Bearing Arms). That means: More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING!
And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member