Dr. Fauci’s testamony on July 29 - what do you think?
2 Likes
Thread should be renamed “people with punchable faces.”
1 Like
TLDW?
I do find the lab leak scenario plausible, and think Fauci might have errored in accidentally funding dangerous research. I wouldn’t assume it was a criminal error, but who knows.
However, these hearings are typically massive waste of time, backed by anti-mask/vax Trumpkins who want to lynch Fauci for doing boring normal things.
3 Likes
Abbreviated tl;dw is that it is unclear if in 100 years, history books will say Rand Paul was a massive douche, or if they will just say “other douches at the time included Rand Paul, Lauren Boebert, and Markwayne Mullin.” Paul is going for the former, but even just the Senate, I don’t think he can break past Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins to make first team all-douche.
The longer version is the NIH funded the Wuhan lab, and the Wuhan lab did gain of function research. Paul has argued that money is fungible and that that means that the NIH funded gain of function research, but it seems that what was directly covered by the grant included modification of viruses but not quite what is considered gain of function research. So per Paul’s definitions, Fauci is lying. Per Fauci’s definitions, he isn’t. And arguments in which the 2 sides can’t agree on definitions never have a satisfying resolution.
Paul wants Fauci to testify in what is often called a perjury trap, in which if anything he says vaguely contradicts something else he has said then they can try to make a criminal referral. Recent criminal referrals for Jack Smith have only reinforced the notion that you don’t even have to say something untrue to get a criminal referral from the current Congress. Fauci’s pardon doesn’t cover actually lying to Congress in 2026 or later, so Fauci’s lawyers have insisted that he refuse to testify. Any mildly competent lawyer would agree with that.
To add to the grandstanding, Paul has a copy of Fauci’s private NIH notes from the time of the pandemic. He has selectively edited them and released the parts he finds make Fauci and Democrats look bad, while deleting parts that make people like Katie Miller look bad.
5 Likes
I didn’t watch much of the posted video. (I struggle with 3 hours of anything, let alone congressional proceedings.) Is Markwayne Mullin as much of a grand douche as his first name implies?
1 Like
Nothing to question here.
Fauci IS Science.
Trust The Science.
He once challenged a union president to a fight in the middle of a Senate hearing. So I’m going to say yes.
4 Likes
On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution.
3 Likes
Oh I think I kind of remember that when it was in the news. 
“Markwayne” just sounds pastor-y, like he wants to warn me that I’m going to hell if I don’t form a personal relationship with his version of Jesus, based on his version of the Bible. (Which is funny since the Bible is an inspired text rather than a revealed text. But anyway.)
One of the problems with Paul’s crusade is it tries to paint as criminal items where there is a range of scientific understanding. Do we really want our government experts afraid to do their work because conclusions are unpopular with whomever is or may be in power?
2 Likes
Nah bruh, I trust no one. 
I’m an equal opportunity hater.
1 Like
What’s a testamony?
2 Likes
Maybe a 5th-amendment refusal dodge could be a “testamony.” ?!?
“Teste-mony” was right there, but the OP didn’t have the balls.
That depends on who’s in power.
I don’t want any of them to be afraid of being unpopular, or even wrong.
I do want them to be afraid of being corrupt.
4 Likes
In my mind, Paul either doesn’t understand science, or is too corrupt to care about scientific truth. I don’t quite remember what he said to make me think that; he is a physician in a public office who has come out against vaccines, and it may have been that. Or he may have said other things I have forgotten:
Either way, I don’t care what he says about covid.
1 Like
He’s a politician who understands science and medicine. As such, he can make any argument he wants to fit his politics.
We could all do the same with statistics and mortality.
1 Like