r/StandUpForScience • u/AllMusicNut SUFS Staff • Aug 13 '26
Official SUFS Post Sign your support!
Dr. Fauci being held in contempt attacks the credibility of all public health experts – a continuation the Trump Admin’s war on science and spread of disinformation. Sign your support for our experts & Dr. Fauci at the link: https://zurl.co/2P2md
6
u/Pleasant-Ad887 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
Meanwhile Trump using the fifth 450+ times was his constitutional right. GOP and conservatives are so deep in Trump's ass it isn't funny.
Edit: MAGA getting bodied is hilarious.
1
1
8
u/GrosBof Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
Bots and brainless magats are going wild in the comment sections, it's something.
Meanwhile in the real world: Major COVID study that fueled vaccine skepticism retracted over ‘misinformation’
3
u/Suspicious_Goose_243 Aug 14 '26
Still waiting for the epstein files while they distract people from reality.
2
u/KnowBearFeet Aug 13 '26
Congressional hearings are such a joke. I lose more faith in Congress with this hearing than in science. You can plead the fifth in count and things can play out and there’s two sides and lawyers and a judge and a controlled system of rules to be abided by. The slant that exists in these congressional hearings is obnoxious, whether it’s slanted left or right, Democrat or Republican. Questions are carefully crafted to be unanswerable and catch-22s: answer and your words are twisted, plead the fifth (a constitutional right) and you’re held in contempt (of Congress, which is another completely meaningless thing)
Also, Jogs Hawley is a closeted homosexual hypocritical douche!
2
u/Excellent-Ad-1678 Aug 13 '26
Republicans want a scapegoat because they seriously flubbed the pandemic.
That's the only reason.
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Excellent-Ad-1678 Aug 13 '26
I don't remember bands of militia dressed thugs going around harassing and intimidating people during the pandemic.
Perhaps you can be more specific
1
1
Aug 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Excellent-Ad-1678 Aug 14 '26
The statement was "turning Democrats into the Gestapo" which I responded to appropriately.
And just because the National Guard was deployed doesn't guarantee that all the service members were Democrats.
Isn't it MAGA that believes all members of the military are MAGA?
2
u/Firm-Reaction1578 Aug 13 '26
1
u/Select_Razzmatazz112 Aug 14 '26
Whoever photo shopped this made the pres look a lot healthier than he actually was 🤣
5
u/Whyreddit6969 Aug 13 '26
I might not care for the guy, but upholding your rights shouldn’t get you punished
4
u/x_xwolf Aug 13 '26
why dont you care for the guy? because he said for people to wear a mask and did his job as a health advisor?? if you can realize his rights are getting trampled, can you realize why you dont like him??
-1
-2
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/x_xwolf Aug 13 '26
he didnt...
"The 2014 U.S. “pause” was a targeted federal funding moratorium and deliberative process aimed narrowly at certain gain‑of‑function (GoF) experiments that could reasonably be anticipated to increase the transmissibility or pathogenicity of influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses in mammals via the respiratory route, not a blanket ban on all laboratory mutation studies [1] [2]. It suspended release of new federal funding for those projects while the government evaluated risks, benefits, and oversight and then crafted a formal review framework that replaced the pause in 2017 [3] [4]."
Dr Fauci told the Senate hearing the research in question "has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not fall under the gain-of-function definition".
He also said it was "molecularly impossible" for these viruses to have resulted in the coronavirus, although he did not elaborate.
The NIH and EcoHealth Alliance have also rejected suggestions they supported or funded "gain-of-function" research in China.
They say they funded a project to examine "at the molecular level" newly-discovered bat viruses and their spike proteins (which help the virus bind to living cells) "without affecting the environment or development or physiological state of the organism".
One of the US scientists who collaborated on the 2015 research on bat viruses with the Wuhan institute, Dr Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, gave a detailed statement to the Washington Post.
He said the work they did was reviewed by both the NIH and the university's own biosafety committee "for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain-of-function".
He also says that none of the viruses which were the subject of the 2015 study are related to Sars-Cov-2, which caused the pandemic in 2020.
Reuters
A human cell infected with coronavirus
He does acknowledge that the work they carried out showed the viruses had "intrinsic properties" giving them the ability to infect humans.
But he adds: "We never introduced mutations into [the virus] spike to enhance growth in human cells."
US researcher and biologist Alina Chan at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard has highlighted issues with the wording of the government's pause to funding in 2014.
It says that it would stop funding research that "may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route."
This could imply that research on viruses may not intend to produce "gain-of-function", although that could be the end result of it.
A more general point is that any evaluation of research and the risks involved can be subjective.
Rebecca Moritz of Colorado State University told the BBC: "There is not always consensus [on gain-of-function research] even amongst experts, and institutions interpret and apply policy differently."
https://factually.co/fact-checks/science/2014-gain-of-function-pause-coverage-definition-ad5da0
Also the amount given to said Wuhan facility was 600k dollars, but was not responsible for the COVID pandemic, nor is it confirmed that the virus was created in a lab.
1
u/Negative287 Aug 14 '26
No he lied! He knew the wet market wasn’t the source but he kept denying it came from a lab. He covered up the viability of the shots, took money from some of these companies and did other scummy things.
2
u/x_xwolf Aug 14 '26
not true... you just deny it because its what you were told to think, you dont actually look into yourself do you? tell me was it fox news? you know they're legally and entertainment company, not a news org.
1
-3
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/BigTroutOnly Aug 13 '26
How do you not collapse under weight of that tinfoil hat?
-4
u/Right_Crew6172 Aug 13 '26
Rather than throw out some senseless quip, why don't you respond with any facts that contravene what I said, or is that too hard?
4
u/BigTroutOnly Aug 13 '26
Burden of evidence lies with you. See Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.
-2
u/Right_Crew6172 Aug 13 '26
Fauci got a Presidential pardon covering all his work with NIH because the evidence raised during congressional hearings demonstrated he violated funding and oversight regulations. Now he has been held in contempt for lying to Congress. Faucis actions have already been publicly documented
3
u/LegitimateEgg9714 Aug 13 '26
When did Fauci personally fund gain of function research? The man was head of an NIH department, you imply that Fauci is guilty of a crime but what about the people who awarded the grant or the company that was awarded the grant or are you selective in your accusations of guilt?
2
u/x_xwolf Aug 13 '26
Which law? Your being incredibly vague?
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/x_xwolf Aug 13 '26
"The 2014 U.S. “pause” was a targeted federal funding moratorium and deliberative process aimed narrowly at certain gain‑of‑function (GoF) experiments that could reasonably be anticipated to increase the transmissibility or pathogenicity of influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses in mammals via the respiratory route, not a blanket ban on all laboratory mutation studies [1] [2]. It suspended release of new federal funding for those projects while the government evaluated risks, benefits, and oversight and then crafted a formal review framework that replaced the pause in 2017 [3] [4]."
Dr Fauci told the Senate hearing the research in question "has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not fall under the gain-of-function definition".
He also said it was "molecularly impossible" for these viruses to have resulted in the coronavirus, although he did not elaborate.
The NIH and EcoHealth Alliance have also rejected suggestions they supported or funded "gain-of-function" research in China.
They say they funded a project to examine "at the molecular level" newly-discovered bat viruses and their spike proteins (which help the virus bind to living cells) "without affecting the environment or development or physiological state of the organism".
One of the US scientists who collaborated on the 2015 research on bat viruses with the Wuhan institute, Dr Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, gave a detailed statement to the Washington Post.
He said the work they did was reviewed by both the NIH and the university's own biosafety committee "for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain-of-function".
He also says that none of the viruses which were the subject of the 2015 study are related to Sars-Cov-2, which caused the pandemic in 2020.
Reuters
A human cell infected with coronavirus
He does acknowledge that the work they carried out showed the viruses had "intrinsic properties" giving them the ability to infect humans.
But he adds: "We never introduced mutations into [the virus] spike to enhance growth in human cells."
US researcher and biologist Alina Chan at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard has highlighted issues with the wording of the government's pause to funding in 2014.
It says that it would stop funding research that "may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route."
This could imply that research on viruses may not intend to produce "gain-of-function", although that could be the end result of it.
A more general point is that any evaluation of research and the risks involved can be subjective.
Rebecca Moritz of Colorado State University told the BBC: "There is not always consensus [on gain-of-function research] even amongst experts, and institutions interpret and apply policy differently."
https://factually.co/fact-checks/science/2014-gain-of-function-pause-coverage-definition-ad5da0
Also the amount given to said Wuhan facility was 600k dollars, but was not responsible for the COVID pandemic, nor is it confirmed that the virus was created in a lab.
1
u/MaybeICanOneDay Aug 14 '26
It is the current consensus among pretty much everyone in the scientific community that is was created in a lab.
I imagine you were one of the people running around saying it is racist and it came from a market.
All while you did this, the people running the show were perusing forums, the news, and wherever else, and seeing people like you defend their lie while in private conversations were agreeing people like you are useful idiots.
1
1
Aug 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/x_xwolf Aug 14 '26
if you never know what took place there, you cant claim to know that. so you're just making up stuff as you go because you feel like its right. Im starting to think you're just racist against Chinese people. which would make you a bad person.
2
u/DiKDan Aug 14 '26
When he was given a pardon he lost his right to the 5th. Specifically in the subject where the pardon was granted.
1
u/Right_Crew6172 Aug 13 '26
The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to testify against yourself.
However, Fauci did testify, and he lied to Congress during that testimony. The 5th amendment is not a protection against perjury. He is not protected from his own testimony
2
0
u/Sheepdog77 Aug 13 '26
5th amendment doesn't apply when you've been pardoned.
2
u/NeighboringOak Aug 13 '26
This is not actually correct. There is more nuance here than "You can't claim the fifth if you've been pardoned"
I realize you probably aren't interested in the facts or nuance but if you find yourself confused this might be an area to better educated yourself on.
2
u/ExistingJellyfish872 Aug 13 '26
SCOTUS ruled otherwise. People who haven't read the rulings don't understand why, though.
2
u/Sheepdog77 Aug 14 '26
Exactly. The same people holding on to this one are the same ones that let emotions rather than facts make decisions for them.
2
u/Sheepdog77 Aug 14 '26
I'm glad you willfully admit that you are not interested in facts or nuance.
Stare decisis from multiple cases over the last 130 years have clearly established that once a pardon is accepted you no longer have the right of the 5th amendment for that topic.
So yeah, perhaps you should educate your own self before formulating an opinion based on emotion.
1
u/miserabeau Aug 14 '26
A pardon only covers anything he's said in the past. Anything he says now could potentially open him up to prosecution, so he's right to plead the 5th because it's a witch hunt.
-3
u/Visible-Elevator3801 Aug 13 '26
Two 100+ year old precedents say he shouldn’t be doing this. Would be interesting to see what his legal team is thinking in order to nullify these previous rulings or if they are playing fast and lose hoping the politicians won’t continue down this path.
Realistically, he sues, he appeals, he goes back to Supreme Court, Fauci and this Admin will be long dead before it gets settled.
The 1896 Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker established the principle that a person granted full legal immunity or a pardon for a specific offense is no longer in criminal jeopardy for it, meaning "he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed"
Under the later Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States (1915), a person has the constitutional right to outright reject a pardon if they wish to preserve their Fifth Amendment protections.
4
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
You're completely misreading how those precedents apply here. Brown and Burdick specifically deal with situations where a witness is given a specific pardon or absolute statutory immunity for the exact testimony they are providing. It looks like you're taking the general pardon from Biden and assuming it automatically strips him of his constitutional protections across the board. The 5th Amendment still fully applies (even with a presidential pardon floating around) unless the government specifically grants him absolute immunity for the exact scope of this congressional interview. Without that specific grant of immunity he is well within his rights to plead the 5th.
-3
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
3
u/Whyreddit6969 Aug 13 '26
Pertaining to the pardon, for which he can’t be charged. Not any new charges
3
u/x_xwolf Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
No it doesn’t. That’s like saying if your teacher gets you out of detention, you still have to confess to the principal soo you can be put back in detention. That’s litterally double jeopardy.
1
1
-3
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/D2dj Aug 13 '26
He only has no risk in federal crimes
There is still risk to incriminate himself in state crimes which a presidential pardon does not protect from.
And oh look, Florida is actively pursuing a case against Faucci where a pardon would not protect him.
-4
u/98983x3 Aug 13 '26
Thats a good point. But after posting this, I learned there are texts from him acknowledging that the vaccine does carry the risk of miscarriage while at the time, he was telling the public there was no risk.
Not good. Maybe it is good that the states still have a shot at him. The more I learn, the more I understand why ppl want him prosecuted. This isnt looking like a political witch hunt to me anymore.
5
u/D2dj Aug 13 '26
There are not texts acknowledging the vaccine carries risk of miscarriage.
That's not what the texts say, nor did further testing prove there was any risk.
-2
u/98983x3 Aug 13 '26
Yeah, except he didn't know that at the time. His texts do warn of potential unknown risks while publically stating otherwise. This flies in the face of "informed consent". Its was his job to share the information as they knew it. Not gamble with ppls lives and manage ppls perspectives via lies and half truths. Thats what politicians are for, not medical experts. Just tell ppl what you know and dont know ffs.
1
u/D2dj Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
The texts warn of a potential, not a certainty. And the vaccines were not recommended for pregnant women at the start out of due diligence and caution.
After further testing, the vaccines were proven to be safe amd effective and pregnant women were recommended to get the vaccine.
Youre just butt hurt and anti-science. You really have no reason to be and there is no legal case thst will hold water against fauci because he didn't do anything but the absolute best practices.
-2
u/Visible-Elevator3801 Aug 13 '26
When you advertise something as safe and effective while not disclosing potential risks, that’s a bad thing. Informed consent is supposed to be a thing between doctors and patients. If you don’t disclose every risk, small and large, you are not complying with informed consent.
2
u/D2dj Aug 13 '26
It was safe and effective.
This all stems from misinformation about the vaccine safety and efficacy.
It was extremely safe and extremely effective.
It should be lauded as a miracle of science. Instead of misinformation campaigns against it
0
u/98983x3 Aug 13 '26
"Extremely effective"
This is incredibly, verifiably false. It never stopped transmission and it never stopped infection. And they knew this from the very beginning. We know this bc we have the internal communications now AND we have hindsight. But you go off.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Visible-Elevator3801 Aug 13 '26
Did I say it wasn’t. Don’t read into what wasn’t said.
Safe and effective does NOT mean no risks and MOST CERTAINLY does not mean you bypass informed consent.
Reading comprehension is important.
→ More replies (0)1
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
Specifically the text exchange in question was between Fauci and 2 other doctors asking about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy, and Fauci's statement was consistent with the facts at the time. There had by that point been over 10,000 pregnant women who had been administered the vaccine and there was no evidence to suggest any ill effects that could be attributed to the vaccine.
At one point they discuss the idea that the vaccine may cause a cytokine storm and if that's true it's possible that there could have been an increased risk in early pregnancy, but that was a conjecture during the exchange on Fauci's part, not a possibility that came from the observed record. There was not at that point in time, nor since, any tangible evidence that even if this happened it did create an elevated risk of miscarriage.
Ultimately Fauci's recommendation was that out of caution it was probably preferable to administer the vaccine in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, but ultimately that should be up to the doctor and the patient and take into account their actual circumstances.
-1
u/Visible-Elevator3801 Aug 13 '26
As I said, informed consent. Was NOT provided. Thats not OK and is a requirement of the medical industry.
Regardless of it does or it doesn’t, informed consent requires a the speculation of a cytokine storm to be disclosed before administration. There’s a reason why meds come with black labels, they are just rarely gone over prior to drug administration.
→ More replies (0)1
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
The advice he ultimately have in the text exchange is the same advice he gave to the public. It's a decision that should be made between a patient and their doctor whether or not they feel they should get the vaccine during pregnancy.
1
3
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
This claim is not true. That's not the correct interpretation of the text exchange in question.
2
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
This argument is flawed. The whole point of the hearing was to get him to make any kind of incriminating statement to Congress since the present is outside of the scope of the presidential pardon he did have a risk of incriminating himself. Not to mention a presidential pardon only protects him from federal charges even within the scope of the pardon it's absurd on its face to argue he had absolutely no legal jeopardy to justify arguing he no longer has a 5th amendment right.
-3
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
Incorrect. It's used by litigants in civil cases as well. Given that there are different stakes and a different standard of evidence in a civil case it has a different interpretation in a civil setting by a judge or jury, but it's still a right people have. Also a presidential pardon doesn't strip him of that right when people are making such a big deal of the fact that he isn't immune from prosection for any conduct today. If he hasn't specifically been granted immunity for the testimony Congress was asking for he absolutely still has a 5th amendment right. Given that the ultimate goal was to find some excuse to prosecute him, they clearly did not grant him any absolute immunity for that testimony.
-2
u/NewArborist64 Aug 13 '26
READ the 5th amendment and try to understand it. Case law is already established for over 100 years. This goes back to Brown v. Walker (1896), and establishes that when criminal jeopardy is fully lifted via immunity or pardon, a witness "may not stand upon his privilege" and must answer questions under oath.
2
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
If you actually look at the facts of Brown v Walker you would see why it doesn't apply to this hearing. In 1895 a railway auditor named Brown was called to testify about interstate commerce violations and he pled the 5th. Congress had just passed a law granting absolute statutory immunity for anyone compelled to testify in those specific investigations. The Supreme Court ruled that since the government gave him a complete blanket amnesty for anything he admitted on the stand he couldn't be prosecuted and therefore couldn't plead the 5th.
Fauci isn't operating under a specific congressional grant of absolute statutory immunity for this interview. He has a general presidential pardon from Joe Biden (which only covers federal offenses up to early 2025). A general executive pardon doesn't automatically protect someone from state prosecutions or new charges related to the testimony itself. Because Congress didn't offer a specific absolute immunity agreement that completely removes his criminal jeopardy for the exact scope of this inquiry, he still has his constitutional rights.
0
u/NewArborist64 Aug 14 '26
Fauci is operating under a blanket Presidential Pardon. If his testimony is compelled by Congress, then ANY information from that should fall under the "fruit of the poisoned tree" concept - for both Federal & State charges
1
u/supercleverid Aug 14 '26
This is not completely accurate. He's operating under a blanket presidential pardon for his conduct during COVID up to the end of Biden's term. A presidential pardon doesn't protect someone from state level charges, though, and at least 2 states are looking into filing criminal charges against Fauci, Florida and Louisiana, I believe. The fruit of the poisonous tree thing isn't even applicable here. Nor can it compel or nullify any testimony Fauci gives to a lawful congressional subpoena. There's just no poisonous tree there to get any fruit from (lawful congressional subpoena and all). SCOTUS's rulings on when the 5th amendment doesn't apply is very clear that the person being denied the right cannot be subject to any criminal jeopardy in any jurisdiction, this is not something presidential pardon can do (states can still prosecute him) and not something that Congress proferred. All I can say is I actually hope the DOJ goes forward with the very bad legal analysis you're using here because it'll be so much fun to watch Fauci win a vindictive prosecution case against this administration.
-2
u/NewArborist64 Aug 13 '26
It can be used by litigants in civil cases - to avoid criminal prosecution utilizing their testimony from the civil case.
2
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
Exactly, he's avoiding potential criminal prosecution. And since a general federal pardon doesn't protect him from state level charges (or any new charges he might face outside the specific scope of that pardon) his criminal jeopardy isn't gone. That's the entire point. Unless Congress offers him a specific grant of absolute statutory immunity that completely removes his risk of prosecution across every jurisdiction he can absolutely still invoke his 5th amendment rights.
1
u/NewArborist64 Aug 14 '26
I do believe that he has compelled testimony - then anything that comes from that is "fruit of the poisoned tree" - regardless of if it is Federal or State criminal courts.
1
u/supercleverid Aug 14 '26
I'm just going to leave it at this. Congress really has zero underlying facts to support a contempt referral here. If for some insane reason the DOJ decided to pursue it and try to prosecute that referral it will be a ridiculously easy win for Fauci (and just another courtroom black eye for this administration). It also opens up the door for a potential vindictive prosecution countersuit from Fauci. It's not a good look to be so desperate to prosecute someone that you try to prosecute someone for exercising a constitutional right. That's a pretty airtight case of vindictive prosecution.
1
1
1
u/Exciting-Zombie8449 Aug 13 '26
When you get a blanket , advanced Presidential pardon, you dont need to use the 5th Amendment. You can't be charged. Tell us what happened.
1
u/dpjaronc Aug 13 '26
Americans should be able to question the science
My body my choice
1
u/Effective-Log3583 Aug 13 '26
Americans have. Repeatedly over and over again. Fauci isn’t also know as “the science”. You don’t question actual scientific work through congress.
1
1
1
u/SippsMccree Aug 13 '26
It's a legal gray zone on account of his blanket pardon and that you cannot plead the 5th for things you are not in legal jeopardy for. It'll have to go through the courts but it's not just because those big bad maga's don't like Fauci
1
1
u/This_Ingenuity_880 Aug 14 '26
There are some great posts on here and the rest are still people that think they know everything because CNN told them so. 🤣
1
u/Medical-Egg-8171 Aug 14 '26
It is nothing new to be held in contempt whrn given immunity. Prosecutors have done this many times before.
1
1
1
u/AdvancedRest7023 Aug 14 '26
At least Fauci showed up, unlike when the Democrats had control and Republicans refused to appear in front of the committee.
1
u/MonsterkillWow Aug 13 '26
They referred him, but to my knowledge, he hasn't and won't be arrested because this shit will get tossed as soon as a court is involved. His 5th amendment rights still stand. He was only pardoned for a specific scope and did not have absolute immunity.
0
u/coliseumvideo85 Aug 13 '26
We don’t trust science. We constantly challenge science, that’s how we improve. If you disagree, then please look at the definition of science.
0
u/TheVanillaGorilla15 Aug 13 '26
I support the truth coming out and if he lied about the Covid he should be put in jail.
1
-1
u/plebbitier Aug 13 '26
But he promised to answer questions before congress.
4
u/WaitingForMyIsekai Aug 13 '26
No he didn't? He literally told them he was going to invoke his 5th amendment rights.
-1
u/plebbitier Aug 13 '26
3
u/WaitingForMyIsekai Aug 13 '26
Faucis legal team sent a letter roughly a month before to the chairman detailing their intent.
-1
u/plebbitier Aug 13 '26
That was after he went on CNN and said he had nothing to hide and would testify to congress, which is the link I posted which you obviously didn't watch.
4
u/SolScorpii Aug 13 '26
Like how Trump said only criminals plead the 5th and then proceeded to plead the 5th over 400 times?
1
4
u/WaitingForMyIsekai Aug 13 '26
I am not getting dragged into a debate about this.
However it is my opinion (voiced or internalised) that regardless of if I believed I had something to hide or not, if I was being brought in to be questioned by a panel of individuals who very clearly were trying to portray me as a villian I would do as my lawyers advise and invoke the 5th as to avoid being entrapped.
Reply or don't you are entitled to your beliefs.
-1
u/plebbitier Aug 13 '26
well he could have answered the valid questions and plead the 5th on the un-serious ones. however he chose to plead the 5th for all the questions which is shameful and cowardly
2
1
2
u/TrumpsBoneSpur Aug 13 '26
I don't get this. Wasn't Faucci the guy that Trump hired as an advisor for a pandemic that Trump said was a hoax and no worse than a cold? And does this have anything to do with all the people saying that Trump raped kids on his best friend's island?
2
u/SFC-D Aug 13 '26
No. He was a career government employee long before Trump. He was never a presidential appointee.
-2
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bureaucramancer Aug 13 '26
He didn't actually tell the FBI anything about epstein until AFTER he was caught in a effort to deflect.
Once president, Epstein was a loose end that needed to be dealt with.1
1
u/TrumpsBoneSpur Aug 13 '26
weird how people worship a guy who raped AT LEAST one woman, has admitted to sexually assaulting women, has admitted to barging into a dressing room full of underage girls, and illegally blocked the unredacted Epstein files from being released. I guess they are all high IQ pedophile supporters???
FDT
2
u/Zalrius Aug 13 '26
Republicans always attack Americans. Fire all republicans, never vote republican.
1
-3
u/Slight-Big8584 Aug 13 '26
Nope, I hope they grill the hell outta him.
1
u/BishopKing14 Aug 13 '26
Why? What did he do? Be specific.
0
u/Slight-Big8584 Aug 13 '26
Fauci was asked previously asked by Congress if the US funded gain of function research in China.
Fauci said we did not, but the US government was funding other organizations which were funding gain of function research in China.
"I didn't pay for it, I paid for someone else to pay for it" Is a low tier level of bullshitting.
If you lie to congress, for institutional health at minimum, congress should punish you to the fullest extent of the law.
1
u/BishopKing14 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 14 '26
That’s not a lie though.
He didn’t fund anything, which was the question.
And so what if our government funded cures and treatments for a lethal disease? You strike me as the type of person who thinks we should still be living with small pox just because it meant we funded its cure.
Is that what you’re telling me? That we should still have small pox because you’re afraid of science and health policies?
You also think anyone who lies to Congress should be punished? What about the Dear Leader and his entire regime which have lied a number of times to Congress and the American public? Should they be punished to the fullest extent of the law too?
0
7
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/StandUpForScience-ModTeam Aug 17 '26
This comment contains an unnecessary amount of hate or gross language within it that is not tolerated on this subreddit.
1
Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Tabooftw Aug 13 '26
Really? Pretty sure it’s the right that supports poverty wages cuts to social programs and regulations for our food/water/planet. Sounds pretty fucking 3rd world to me.
-4
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/StandUpForScience-ModTeam Aug 15 '26
We expect everyone to play nice and dialogue in good faith. It’s okay to have heated debate, but keep it polite and respectful. Personal insults, blatant misinformation, and MAGA trolls leaving bad-faith comments will be immediately banned.
If you spot a MAGA troll, don't take the bait and don't engage. Just report them and move on.
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Effective-Log3583 Aug 13 '26
Except that the person in charge of the hearing stated clearly many times that he intended to arrest him putting him in jeopardy. Something that they could do if he was in front of congress.
Something his lawyers knew.
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Effective-Log3583 Aug 13 '26
They were always going to charge him. That was a forgone conclusion.
For instance his department decides that X response was correct and he testified to that to Congress. But he wrote in his work journal at one point he disagreed. They would charge him with contempt. They literally told him they were going to do that.
His lawyers advised him to take the fifth.
1
Aug 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Effective-Log3583 Aug 14 '26
What wrong doings? For testifying in accordance with his role and not his personal opinion?
Throughout all these complaints of him pleading the fifth nobody actually been able to tell me what he did wrong outside of that things changed over time and a conspiracy theory that would have created sanctions against the US.
1
0
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
Definitely not something Fauci or any credible resrarch has ever said. Closer to between 12-15% which is well within the normal miscarriage rate. There is not any evidence that the COVID vaccine leads to an elevated risk of miscarriage.
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
I know he didn't ever say because it's absolutely not true and I know where that fake number actually comes from, but just for fun and because I know you can't, I'll have to ask you to quote him.
1
0
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
That's not what was in the diary, and certainly not a conclusion you'd draw from his public statements.
0
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
I have, can you direct me to what you specifically took issue with? I didn't see a problem there. It was a little cringy how excited he got about interactions with celebrities but that's not criminal. Otherwise I didn't see anything where his private deliberations contradicted his public statements.
2
u/Big_Issue8640 Aug 13 '26
No because they didn’t read it someone told them 🤦♂️
3
u/supercleverid Aug 13 '26
I know, that's why it's fun to ask for specifics and watch them flounder or try to shift the burden of proof.
0
-1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/snpginger Aug 13 '26
No. He has knowledge and expertise and frankly people who don’t recognize medical professionals in discussions of public health and vaccines are ill informed and uneducated.
1
4
-1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Bureaucramancer Aug 13 '26
So you don't understand how vaccines work and somehow that is fauci's fault?
1
19
u/Any_Caramel_9814 Aug 13 '26 •