COVID-19 hearings Wednesday

Hate to burst the bubble of fauci fans but since he was pardoned, his testimony can be compelled. Now he is facing contempt for refusing to answer and invoking the fifth
Sure, they don't teach High School Civics anymore but thems is one of the things they taught.

 

At least he responded to his Congressional subpoena by showing up before the Committee.

Jim Jordan (R-OH) did not. And was not charged with contempt.
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) did not. And was not charged with contempt.
Scott Perry (R-PA) did not. And was not charged with contempt.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ) did not. And was not charged with contempt.
Mo Brooks (R-AL) did not. And was not charged with contempt.

 

Bill Clinton must have felt so bad about those.

 

When I looked for 86-xx examples, they went back only as far as 86-44. Obama, for the counting-impaired.

When this Comey "scandal" broke out, I found loads of 86-46 T-shirts on clearance sales on Amazon, as dozens of vendors were discounting old inventory alongside their newer -47 shirts. Haven't heard of any of them being similarly charged.

 

..what about the many citizens who truly aren't interested in political monkeyshines, or which party does what,,, and only want to know the facts and truth to be better prepared for a national health crisis nest time?

 

Of the many people involved in developing mRNA vaccines, only Karikó and Weissman were awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Malone was among non awardees, and I have no information about how the others handled that. We only know that Malone has made a new career of questioning the safety of mRNA vaccines.

==
Recent Fauci hearing was not his first as some readers know. But Fauci was not one of the (many) scientists having published on how this virus got into humans. If these hearings were intended to shed light on this, others would have been called to appear.

--
It may be of interest to some that Alina Chan (author of earlier mentioned NY Times article) stayed 'with' COVID and has published on when new variants appeared. Never published evidence for lab leakage the topic of NY Times article.

A lot of people move on. But not all do.

 

meh.

Category: people convicted of contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

Personally?
I'd rather not see him jailed.
He's an old man and if the details published in his diary are accurate NOT a very healthy person.

At the very least, this will be a pretty good test case for Presidential Immunity boundaries....AND a fairly accurate hypocrisy test.


....primum non nocere

 

" ... to be better prepared for a national health crisis nest time?"

For next time, consider the following:

Re-invigorate monitoring of new zoonotic spillovers. Genetically sequence all those. Trace contacts to limit their early spread.

Maintain capacity of pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce mRNA vaccines fast. Or if you (with Malone) now FUD mRNA, arrange for slower-to-scale and more expensive growing of newly zoonotic viruses in other animal species as hosts. Then de-activate those viruses for vaccines. It's the traditional way, and it might work.

Expand the range of viral nucleic acid transcription inhibitors (current examples include Remdesivir, which saved Trump's life, among many others). Can come from wide knowledge of viral replication in hosts without knowing which will be the next bad boy.

Repair FUD about respiratory masks, personal spacing and closing high-density assemblies. Pathogens spread by aerosols, surface contact (fomites), or ingesting improperly prepared food. Discern infection pathway(s) of next bad boy, and tailor public-health responses to actual risks.

(Pre) educate people to follow public-health responses to new risks. Nipping future pathogens 'in the bud' will lighten loads on everyone. COVID FUD inconveniences that, and needs to be addressed without political coloration.

==
If anyone assumes there will not be a next time, sorry to strongly disagree. We could be $pending and educating better against that now.

 

As long as there is gain of function research, coupled with sloppy precautions, coupled with government cover-ups there will be a next time. Stop any one of the 3 - & you'd be good to go.

 

No, I meant to post what I wrote. I'll be happy to help read through it.

It should not be that people see guilt in someone declining to self-incriminate, but they very often do.

This is the video of the hearing in which Fauci repeatedly invokes his right to self-incriminate.

That's fairly common english idiom.

Why would it need to be edited at all?

As opposed to the 100th day? Since voters all buy gas and groceries, the sense that partisanship causes these to land differently according to what you see as partisanship is well thought out.

I saw your uncritical reproduction of Guardian headlines. Would you consider yourself notably less partisan than average?

 

would agree with President Washington,
America and our Democracy= pretty good idea,
Political Parties and their partisan poisonings of discussion, individuals letting them take over their personal identities and shape their own powers of reasoning = bad idea

 

many good suggestions

what would be some suggestions for China in particular

China refused to provide WHO team with raw data on early COVID cases, team member says | Reuters

China Refuses to Cooperate on WHO Plan to Trace COVID Origins: ‘Impossible’ - Newsweek

Coronavirus: Residents 'welded' inside their own homes in China | LBC

Wuhan whistleblowers still missing two months on after exposing true horrors of coronavirus |

Coronavirus & China: Doctor Who Warned about COVID-19 Threat Disappears | National Review

'World's first Covid patient' who vanished from Wuhan during pandemic still missing - World News - News - Daily Express US

 

I don't believe GW was entirely wrong. He was likely wrong about parties weakening government. Parties have been part of the story of building coalitions that make government more difficult to limit once that coalition gains power. In a system in which the candidate with the most votes wins office, a party that spans the wider set of interests should typically beat the other parties.

In GW's world, voters (this is pre-jacksonian revolution and universal suffrage) may have had a greater capacity to judge their own interests than we see now.

 

Is the implication to be drawn that political bias kept those men from being charged?

 

SO....we 'trust the experts' to differentiate zoonotic spillovers (natural transmission from animals to humans) from a freekin "accidental" release from a research facility???

Yeeeeah.
Riiight!!!!

Just like we trust the OTHER "experts" to be able to tell the truth about age-related cognitive decline?

Sorry, but there is a REASON that Legislators, Reporters, and "$cience as a collective are polling even worse than DJT and that we have our current HHS secretary.

According to the show-notes that I've seen from both sides of the aisle.....the next dampanic (whether natural or human caused) might actually cause people to stop fish-slapping each other long enough to deal with the disease.

Either way?
Painful Lessons make for Lasting Memories.
If I live to see the next dampanic?

I will NOT be fooled again!

 

Selective forgetfulness

 

More about the political bias driving this week's new threat of placing a contempt charge.

 

I don't believe the contrast indicates political bias.

Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks were all covered by the speech and debate clause and subject to the disciplinary structure of the House up to and including expulsion. They are members of the House. Is there any precedent for the majority in the House issuing subpoenas to the minority, then referring prosecution for contempt? Notably, the House didn't even refer the matter prosecution.

Anthony Fauci is not covered by the speech and debate clause and would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment if found in contempt, just as Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were.

The motive to pursue Fauci because he is identified with policy his detractors dislike is there; that's also why Navarro and Bannon were referred and prosecuted.

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci's situation is somewhat similar to Sir Thomas More's?

https://share.google/aimode/DHqVtuWWCM4k0VH2p