Fauci Hearings

[R7ehr]

Hindsight is 2020. How can that be incorrect?

[HondurasKeiser]

Um, that's not a transcript of Fauci in his own words. That's Rand Paul's claims. If you are relying on Rand Paul and other politicians to tell you what Fauci said in his own words, I think you should reconsider your sources.

Are you claiming the diary is fake?

Boot, I remember 2020. Claiming it was a lab leak put one squarely in the "you aren't credible and are a conspiracy theorist" camp. Don't try to rewrite history or pretend those things didn't happen.

Of course, those who took extreme positions want to just conveniently forget it all:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/opin ... emory.html

The question is whether Fauci ever said that the lab leak was a conspiracy theory, not whether other people did.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/us-news/d ... -it-wasnt/

This NY Post editorial from 2024 is the only place I could find with links to Fauci using the words "conspiracy theory". That post links to this NY Times article from 2023 which quotes a podcast conversation between Newt Gingrich and Fauci:

"But on that earlier, more innocent day, Mr. Gingrich deferred to Dr. Fauci’s expertise, gushing that Dr. Fauci was “a national treasure.” At one point, Mr. Gingrich asked about something he had heard.

“There’s a sort of urban legend,” Mr. Gingrich prodded Dr. Fauci, “that there’s a biological warfare center in Wuhan and that the coronavirus escaped from that.”

“I’ve heard these conspiracy theories,” Dr. Fauci replied. “And like all conspiracy theories, Newt, they’re just conspiracy theories.” He added that while he could not say that scenario was impossible, “the things you’re hearing are still in the realm of conspiracy theories without any scientific basis.”

[barnhart]

The thing I remember from this controversy was the lack of stakes. Why was the source so important. I suppose lab security could be scrutinized if that was proven to be the source, but why not just take the same measures either way. I never thought it mattered very much and still don't.

[temporal1]

https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/us-news/d ... -it-wasnt/

This NY Post editorial from 2024 is the only place I could find with links to Fauci using the words "conspiracy theory". That post links to this NY Times article from 2023 which quotes a podcast conversation between Newt Gingrich and Fauci:

"But on that earlier, more innocent day, Mr. Gingrich deferred to Dr. Fauci’s expertise, gushing that Dr. Fauci was “a national treasure.” At one point, Mr. Gingrich asked about something he had heard.

“There’s a sort of urban legend,” Mr. Gingrich prodded Dr. Fauci, “that there’s a biological warfare center in Wuhan and that the coronavirus escaped from that.”

“I’ve heard these conspiracy theories,” Dr. Fauci replied. “And like all conspiracy theories, Newt, they’re just conspiracy theories.” He added that while he could not say that scenario was impossible, “the things you’re hearing are still in the realm of conspiracy theories without any scientific basis.”

Another reality is, search engines have bias.
Just because a memory can’t be found, doesn’t prove it didn’t happen.

i began noticing that years ago. i was told, “impossible! the internet is forever!”
More recently, reports admit search engine bias, “scrubbing” etc.

Grains of salt remain valuable.

[temporal1]

.. gushing that Dr. Fauci was “a national treasure.” ..

In the least, lots of bad things flowed down from “Fauci-on-high” his diaries describe he LOVED it. Some are now saying malignant narcissism. Could be, i don’t dismiss it.

In Minnesota, it’s now revealed+documented how threats via harsh social pressures impact decision-making.
That is, hundreds of MN mayors+whistleblowers TRIED to report fraud. They were dismissed by threats of being labeled racists.

Decidedly, lots of similar social pressures/threats were employed wrt the pandemic, flowing down from Fauci-on-high, he LOVED it.
People suffered in countless ways, Fauci basked in his own imagined glory. Me-me-me; it appears, in Nero’s rarefied circles.

i’m no paralegal, i believe the moral weight involved is staggering.

[HondurasKeiser]

The thing I remember from this controversy was the lack of stakes. Why was the source so important. I suppose lab security could be scrutinized if that was proven to be the source, but why not just take the same measures either way. I never thought it mattered very much and still don't.

I can think of 2 reasons why it might be important:

1. Knowing the origin of the virus may (or may not) shed light on how to control it, inoculate against it, prevent similar events in the future, etc. By almost immediately foreclosing on, what to many people both expert and lay, seemed like the most plausible option; they may (or ay not have) hamstrung themselves in trying to learn more about the virus.

2. The same people that quickly foreclosed on the lab leak option and spent a lot of energy undermining the proponents of said theory, were those charged with handling the mitigation strategies. Knowing its origins may have helped in knowing the best ways to mitigate against it. The bracketing off of the lab leak option called into question the credibility of these experts and thus immediately lessened the credibility of their recommendations. As the pandemic progressed it became increasingly clear that many, though not all of the mitigation strategies were not effective or as effective as advertised and thus simply onerous, capricious and unmercenary, bordering on the silly but also harmful. This only reinforced the loss of credibility and indeed made many of these experts and health officials appear to be themselves, onerous, capricious, silly and corrupt.

[barnhart]

That seems reasonable but wouldn't a reasonable response be to hire a more reliable person and pursue investigating the source. Why hearings? Why threaten jail time?

[HondurasKeiser]

That seems reasonable but wouldn't a reasonable response be to hire a more reliable person and pursue investigating the source. Why hearings? Why threaten jail time?

Jail time seems silly but hearings are how Congress holds public officials to account. I think there are legitimate, though not criminal things to account for from the COVID regime.

[JohnH]

That seems reasonable but wouldn't a reasonable response be to hire a more reliable person and pursue investigating the source. Why hearings? Why threaten jail time?

The primary purpose of Congressional hearings is to berate the witnesses so that sound bites can be clipped and shared for the next reelection.

Matt Taibbi has gone into detail about this.

[temporal1]

That seems reasonable but wouldn't a reasonable response be to hire a more reliable person and pursue investigating the source. Why hearings? Why threaten jail time?

Jail time seems silly but hearings are how Congress holds public officials to account. I think there are legitimate, though not criminal things to account for from the COVID regime.

That seems reasonable but wouldn't a reasonable response be to hire a more reliable person and pursue investigating the source. Why hearings? Why threaten jail time?

The primary purpose of Congressional hearings is to berate the witnesses so that sound bites can be clipped and shared for the next reelection.

Matt Taibbi has gone into detail about this.

i’m not sure why the hubbub over jail-prison threats in this case.
such threats are daily fare in politics, sometimes ongoing for years+years.

DJT has been threating jail-prison for hillary for at least 10 years.

not to mention, the “do-nothing Congress” nickname.

does anyone doubt Congress people’s love of cameras+airtime?
they care-not about low approval ratings or anything else. why should they? - decades in office.
it’s really kind of astonishing when you think about it.

i expect HK and Matt T have it.

politicians don’t want to let a photo-op go to waste.
some put on impressive performances.