Fauci Hearings

[Szdfan]

But in our system, we don’t throw people into prison just because we think they deserve it.

Which wouldn't happen, since he was preemptively pardoned.

The only court here is the court of public opinion, and the only sentence is what the public will think and what his legacy would be.

I think that is actually the best possible outcome, but I think it would be good for all the truth to be revealed. I think that's far better than locking up some old man in prison.

Then why has Rand Paul been threatening to send Fauci to prison even before this hearing?

[JohnH]

Then why has Rand Paul been threatening to send Fauci to prison even before this hearing?

Probably comparable to people who yell at their kids, yet never follow through with the grave punishments they threaten.

I mean, unless you've got some idea of how you can convict someone already-pardoned.

[temporal1]

Then why has Rand Paul been threatening to send Fauci to prison even before this hearing?

Rand Paul isn’t ALWAYS wrong, he’s known for “unusual” stances on various matters.

Not all representatives are “created equally” - i.e., not equally taken (literally) let’s say.
Other examples are liz cheney and john fetterman. john thune and the squad.

On this forum it gets kinda crazy when, example, liz cheney would spout off about something, then members here would post it as “republicans, or conservatives” say .. when she was widely unliked within her party.

It happens on both sides.
The present difference for current libs is they’re lacking direction, with their “wild” voices eagerly offering their “assistance”.
Along with the habit of saying anything to win. That habit seems stretched thin these days. Over used.

i long considered Elon Musk (not a politician) to be ECCENTRIC.
There are numbers of eccentric politicians in office. For me, Rand Paul is one.

Eccentric people aren’t always wrong. Part of the whole.
Not usually considered representative of their overall parties.

i see DJT as a very unusual person. Not necessarily eccentric. He’s effective in many ways.
Eccentrics seem less focused on direction and results. They’re interesting, sometimes they’re right.

(of a circle) not centered on the same point as another.

It’s probably part of (my) rejection of black-white thinking.
That is, just because Rand Paul says something, doesn’t make it representative of Republicans.
No matter what flies in social media.

An awfuli lot FLIES - with no convictions following. Esp in “do nothing” Congress.

To help (me) keeping this in perspective, a topic on CONVICTIONS.
So much chatter. So few convictions.
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=8622

It’s important to make efforts to keep things “right”, as others are saying, PUBLIC TRUST is at stake. What remains of it.
At the top, lives and livelihoods are at stake.

2 choices:
1) respect basic civilized law, OR
2) rule by criminals.

[temporal1]

In Rand Paul’s case, i believe he’s a good person, well educated, responsible.
i don’t always agree or understand where he’s coming from.

Wrt Fauci, i’ve been completely ambivalent all these years. i didn’t sense anything extraordnary about him.
i followed every COVID rule i was aware of, as did my family, keeping a distance from them for 2 years was painful, “the rules” including remote school, etc., continues to have far-reaching consequences for students, teachers, and everyone.

There were MANY societal losses during those years. Esp damaging to families. Time is not recoverable.

It’s reasonable people want answers and accountability. Legally and morally.

It’s entirely possible and probable Rand Paul knew more and questioned more than most.

The presidential pardon going back to 2014 raised eyebrows from the start.

[Only an Anz]

Sure. But obviously, Republicans must have some sort of crime in mind when they say that Fauci belongs behind bars.

Probably the crime of being the champion of policies that their constituents didn't like. So it becomes popular to hate on him.

As a resident of Pennsylvania, I certainly hated what the NIH, under Fauci did to little aborted baby body parts in the state.

At the hearings yesterday, the subject came up about using body parts of aborted babies and growing them on rats and mice. When Fauci was director of the NIH a $430,000 grant from the NIAID was given to conduct a study using aborted baby body parts. Scientists (butchers) scalped 5-month-old aborted babies and stitched the baby scalps onto the backs of lab rats. Those little scalps on the backs of rats grew little baby hairs. Each scalp belonged to a little Pennsylvania baby whose head would grow those same hairs if he or she were not aborted and then their little scalps used for experiments with lab rats.

I don't hate Fauci, but it is easy to see why people would hate him. And it has nothing to do with what is "popular".

https://www.newsweek.com/university-pit ... on-1594564

Ok but how is this relevant to the current hearings?

[Ernie]

The diary is embarrassing, but I haven’t heard anything that’s a crime. It’s not a crime to be enamored by your own celebrity. It’s not a crime for private thoughts to contradict public statements.

The fact they he had 8 staff members helping him get cash prizes is a crime according to Hawley.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/fauci-c ... al-hearing

In fact, you turned your staff into a full-time application machine. You actually wrote to people and said, "Do you think maybe I'd qualify?" And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?
....
Here they are right over my shoulder. Here's all of them. The people that you used, federal employees, so that you could go and get cash money. And the most hilarious part is that you weren't content to even dragoon them into applying for all of these cash awards. You then had them go out to the ethics agencies and ethics watchdogs and demand that you be able to get the money. That's right. We've got it in your emails. Your staff and employees on federal time using federal resources being paid with federal dollars are soliciting cash for you.
...
Federal law, as you very well know, prohibits the solicitation of cash awards or other personal benefits for federal employees and it certainly prohibits using your own employees to do this. 5CFR section 2635205B, it says it right there in black and white. "You cannot use federal resources, federal dollars, federal employees, federal offices, federal email, federal time to solicit cash awards." And you did all of it.

[Ernie]

Considering as Fauci has a blanket pardon, it seems the proper way for things to be evaluated now is for all the facts and details to simply come out, and let the public decide.

It is thus disappointing that Fauci invoked the 5th amendment over 100 times. He has no reason not to share anything. Instead, he is making it appear he has something to hide.

I suspect his lawyer is worried about a “making false statements under oath “ charge, if he gets even the slightest set of facts wrong. He can be tried for offenses he committed during this hearing , as his pardon doesn’t cover this. The only way they could actually compel him to give testimony is to grant him immunity for what he says during this hearing. Otherwise he won’t talk, and courts won’t force him to either, based on the 5th amendment. It would be especially true, in light of some already calling for his imprisonment. You want the truth or you want his head. Getting both is likely impossible.

I was thinking about that yesterday. I think you're right that some people would dearly love to get him to trip over his words and then prosecute for perjury. I'm not so sure, though, that the 5th amendment protects him against being forced to testify about his actions for which he has received a pardon. I think that the law would generally hold that a person has the ability to answer questions truthfully (yes, no, I don't know, explanation, etc) and can be forced to do so if his truthful answers would not be used as evidence of prior crimes. The law would say that his only risk of conviction for perjury is if he lies under oath - therefore could likely be forced to testify because he isn't being forced to lie under oath.

I don't think giving him immunity for what he says during this hearing would help in getting to the truth. If (as some claim) he was a liar before, asking him to answer questions while explicitly saying there are no legal consequences if he lies.

I suspect his lawyer is worried about a “making false statements under oath “ charge, if he gets even the slightest set of facts wrong. He can be tried for offenses he committed during this hearing , as his pardon doesn’t cover this. The only way they could actually compel him to give testimony is to grant him immunity for what he says during this hearing. Otherwise he won’t talk, and courts won’t force him to either, based on the 5th amendment. It would be especially true, in light of some already calling for his imprisonment. You want the truth or you want his head. Getting both is likely impossible.

They are asking him to testify under oath about events that happened many years ago, from memory. In the last few years, other former officials have faced criminal charges alleging false statements or perjury arising from this kind of testimony. None has ultimately been convicted on those charges.

Even if a defendant is eventually acquitted, Fauci’s lawyer has good reason to worry that one inaccurate answer at this kind of hearing could lead to years of criminal litigation.

That can involve enormous legal expenses and become a major focus of a person’s life.

Most congressional hearings are not conducted under oath. Choosing to require sworn testimony in an investigative hearing inevitably increases the legal risk for the witness. I imagine that's why Fauci's lawyer advised invoking the Fifth Amendment.

Are they not allowing him access to his diary or any other reference materials?

I think he would be right to worry that one inaccurate answer could lead to years of criminal litigation. It's kind of hard to dredge up sympathy for government officials who find themselves in that position since government in general has no qualms against asking common people complicated questions and then threatening them with prosecution if they answer inaccurately.

I still question whether fear of making a misstatement is sufficient to raise 5th amendment protections. If it were, the government could never force anyone to testify if they didn't want to.

I think one concern is that he might give an inaccurate answer.

I think the other concern is that he might truthfully say what he knows, but some congressman could take various things he said and wrote or things they read somewhere, and then claim that he was lying.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The diary is embarrassing, but I haven’t heard anything that’s a crime. It’s not a crime to be enamored by your own celebrity. It’s not a crime for private thoughts to contradict public statements.

The fact they he had 8 staff members helping him get cash prizes is a crime according to Hawley.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/fauci-c ... al-hearing

In fact, you turned your staff into a full-time application machine. You actually wrote to people and said, "Do you think maybe I'd qualify?" And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?
....
Here they are right over my shoulder. Here's all of them. The people that you used, federal employees, so that you could go and get cash money. And the most hilarious part is that you weren't content to even dragoon them into applying for all of these cash awards. You then had them go out to the ethics agencies and ethics watchdogs and demand that you be able to get the money. That's right. We've got it in your emails. Your staff and employees on federal time using federal resources being paid with federal dollars are soliciting cash for you.
...
Federal law, as you very well know, prohibits the solicitation of cash awards or other personal benefits for federal employees and it certainly prohibits using your own employees to do this. 5CFR section 2635205B, it says it right there in black and white. "You cannot use federal resources, federal dollars, federal employees, federal offices, federal email, federal time to solicit cash awards." And you did all of it.

If what they were doing was writing grant applications, that is part of the normal way research is funded. I suspect that is the case, that is how you fund your lab.

[ohio jones]

Of course by not answering, the accusations against him become part of the record, unchallenged.

[Ernie]

The diary is embarrassing, but I haven’t heard anything that’s a crime. It’s not a crime to be enamored by your own celebrity. It’s not a crime for private thoughts to contradict public statements.

The fact they he had 8 staff members helping him get cash prizes is a crime according to Hawley.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/fauci-c ... al-hearing

In fact, you turned your staff into a full-time application machine. You actually wrote to people and said, "Do you think maybe I'd qualify?" And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?
....
Here they are right over my shoulder. Here's all of them. The people that you used, federal employees, so that you could go and get cash money. And the most hilarious part is that you weren't content to even dragoon them into applying for all of these cash awards. You then had them go out to the ethics agencies and ethics watchdogs and demand that you be able to get the money. That's right. We've got it in your emails. Your staff and employees on federal time using federal resources being paid with federal dollars are soliciting cash for you.
...
Federal law, as you very well know, prohibits the solicitation of cash awards or other personal benefits for federal employees and it certainly prohibits using your own employees to do this. 5CFR section 2635205B, it says it right there in black and white. "You cannot use federal resources, federal dollars, federal employees, federal offices, federal email, federal time to solicit cash awards." And you did all of it.

If what they were doing was writing grant applications, that is part of the normal way research is funded. I suspect that is the case, that is how you fund your lab.

No, these were cash prizes for scientists, and all the money went to Fauci.