408
Dr. Anthony Fauci declines request to appear before a second Senate panel after GOP contempt vote (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Dr. Anthony Fauci on Friday declined a request to appear voluntarily before a second Senate panel after majority Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee voted along partisan lines last week to hold the longtime infectious disease expert in contempt.

In a pointed letter to Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, a lawyer for the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said any effort to compel him to appear before a Senate subcommittee, after a contentious July 29 hearing, would be to "impermissibly harass or degrade Dr. Fauci for political purposes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 month ago (15 children)

A whole bunch of people believe in conspiracy theories over science, so they want to put a prominent scientist into prison.

Do you think it's an assumption that conspiracy theories have made people stupid?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago* (14 children)

    • Is the possibility that Covid-19 leaked from a lab a conspiracy theory?

    • Was there a DARPA research group planning to insert a "proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses?

    • Did Niaid award a research grant to a company, who then issued a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China (and intentionally hide communications from public view)?

    Not questioning government sources is the stupid part (particularly with this administration, but also with others).

    Yes Fauci was pardoned, but we can't assume him to be innocent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Is the possibility that Covid-19 leaked from a lab a conspiracy theory?

    How the problem originated isn't relevant to the people whose job is to deal with the problem.

    Was there a DARPA research group planning to insert a "proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses?

    I think you may have gone too deep into covid conspiracies. No idea what you're even talking about here.

    Did Niaid award a research grant to a company, who then issued a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China (and intentionally hide communications from public view)?

    Yes, there were grants to a research lab. Not sure what that indicates other than they wanted access to the results of the research. It's not at all disputed that there are research grants and the research lab in Wuhan received a research grant.

    The problem with conspiracy theories is the generally fall apart when as soon as you ask "why would they want to do this?" So why would China want to intentionally release a virus on it's own people in the hopes that it would spread to the rest of the world? How would that benefit them in any way?

    Yes, it's possible that the virus accidentally came from the lab in Wuhan. But how does having testimony from a guy that's retired help determine that? What does it even accomplish even if you did determine that a virus came from a lab in Wuhan?

    Sounds to me like you just want someone to say "you were right, the virus came from a lab." So ok...

    You were right, the virus came from a lab.

    Are you happy now? Has your life suddenly gotten better? Will you stop pretending that fascists cracking down on individual scientists is a good thing to do because you now feel emotionally vindicated about some internet arguments you had around five years ago?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

    How the problem originated isn't relevant to the people whose job is to deal with the problem.

    If they caused the problem it is relevant.

    No idea what you're even talking about here.

    Leaked Grant Proposal Details High-Risk Coronavirus Research This research plan was rejected inside the US, so abroad is the likely place where this could be done.

    It's not at all disputed that there are research grants and the research lab in Wuhan received a research grant.

    The point is that fauci's associates were deliberately keeping communications a secret. Literally a conspiracy.

    "why would they want to do this?"

    Maybe they want to hide that they funded the gain of function research that lead to millions of deaths.

    how does having testimony from a guy that's retired help determine that? What does it even accomplish even if you did determine that a virus came from a lab in Wuhan?

    To find out exactly what research Wuhan was doing for Niaid, and who authorised it. This would lead to even stricter controls on gain of function research worldwide.

    why would China want to intentionally release a virus on it's own people

    I doubt they would. Most likely the virus was accidentally "walked out of the lab".

    Will you stop pretending that fascists cracking down on individual scientists is a good thing.

    I don't care who cracks down. I don't want dangerous viruses to be artificially mutated to make them even more dangerous for humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Are you under the impression that Dr. Anthony Fauci worked at the research lab in Wuhan?

    This is like wanting to arrest a fire fighter because you suspect someone else burned down your house. You went in too deep on the anti-vax conspiracy theories, bud.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (8 children)

    Are you under the impression that Dr. Anthony Fauci worked at the research lab in Wuhan?

    No. Are you? However, he may have been (ultimately) responsible for authorising funding for the research in Wuhan that created Covid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    Do you think Fauci intended for the Wuhan lab to release a virus?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Not at all. I think it's highly likely everyone involved was working for the betterment of mankind.

    However, no person, group, institution or country wants to be shown to be responsible for Covid so it's in the interests of the Chinese to destroy all physical evidence and for the Americans to destroy all financial records.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    The American financial records were not destroyed... how else do you think it's known that the Wuhan lab got US grant money.

    And sure the Chinese probably would destroy records. What do you think Fauci could do about that? Do you think he would know about activities China? He didn't work for the CIA.

    So what is the point of getting testimony from a retired doctor about records being potentially destroyed records in China? What's the point of putting him in jail for something that happened in China?

    This isn't about holding the government to account. It's about getting revenge on Fauci because people foolishly blame him for the pandemic. Arresting the fireman because you suspect arson in another country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children)

    how else do you think it's known that the Wuhan lab got US grant money.

    The Gmail conversations used to avoid FOIA disclosure point to a conspiracy.

    Do you think he would know about activities China?

    Yes, because he (probably) approved funding for the gain of function research that lead to Covid.

    It's about getting revenge on Fauci

    Agreed. And his pardon should protect him.

    But we still can't claim that he has not done anything incriminating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Yes, because he (probably) approved funding for the gain of function research that lead to Covid.

    If you order a product to be delivered to your house and the driver of the delivery truck runs over a kid, then it can be proven that you approved funding an activity that resulted in the death of a child. So what should happen next? Should you go to prison?

    You're arguing from emotion and there's no logic to anything. Whatever happened in China was clearly not intentional. There may or may not have been an accident. If there was an accident and there was US funding involved, it doesn't matter if Fauci personally approved the funding. Just like it wouldn't matter if you approved funding for something and then an accident happens, you wouldn't go to prison.

    See when you go too deep into conspiracy theory land you start thinking everyone is 100% competent, there are no accidents and people do malicious things fro no reason. If you think about it rationally, US sent a grant to a research lab to do... you know.. research. There may or may not have been an accident at the lab. Even if we assume there was an accident at the lab, that does not indicate there was anything criminal happening.

    But we still can’t claim that he has not done anything incriminating.

    Other than the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Fauci wasn't proven guilty of anything.

    Going down this route, I can't prove that you've never done anything incriminating. So is it fair for me to assume you're a criminal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    If you order a product to be delivered to your house and the driver of the delivery truck runs over a kid, then it can be proven that you approved funding an activity that resulted in the death of a child. So what should happen next?

    Well. If you ordered the driver to go as fast as possible, take the fastest route by the schools and run every red light, then needlessly excessive risks were taken and the ability for you and your successors to make similar orders should be severely curtailed. If you then tried to hide evidence that any enquiry would be interested in, then that would be illegal and should be lawfully punished.

    You're arguing from emotion and there's no logic to anything.

    Quite the opposite. I'm saying it is logically impossible to claim the negative that Fauci had not done anything incriminating. In fact, given that a blanket pardon was granted, it is highly likely that something undisclosed occurred.

    it doesn't matter if Fauci personally approved the funding

    Legally irrelevant but reputationally devastating. More than enough reason for illegal cover ups.

    Other than the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

    The blanket pardon nullifies this argument. Fauci may have done any number of incriminating acts prior to 2024, but none will ever be proven in court. It is not possible to claim there weren't any.

    I can't prove that you've never done anything incriminating.

    Now you've got it. This statement can't logically be made.

    is it fair for me to assume you're a criminal?

    You are not in a position to claim I am not a criminal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Well. If you ordered the driver to go as fast as possible, take the fastest route by the schools and run every red light, then needlessly excessive risks were taken and the ability for you and your successors to make similar orders should be severely curtailed.

    Are you implying that Fauci ordered the Wuhan lab to take unnecessary risks? Where is the evidence?

    In fact, given that a blanket pardon was granted, it is highly likely that something undisclosed occurred.

    Or it's evidence that Biden believed that the DOJ would be weaponized and they would target Fauci. Events have proven Biden to be correct in this assessment.

    You are not in a position to claim I am not a criminal.

    You are also in no position to claim Fauci is a criminal. You haven't provided me evidence you are not a criminal, your "logic" says that because you can't proved you haven't done anything incriminating, I should assume that you are a criminal.

    When are you going to provide me evidence that you aren't a criminal? Or will you admit that you only emotionally feel Fauci did something criminal and you have no evidence, and you're trying to pass your emotions off as "logic"?

    If Fauci has to prove he's not a criminal, then so do you. So where's your proof that you weren't involved with creating covid?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Are you implying that Fauci ordered the Wuhan lab to take unnecessary risks? Where is the evidence?

    Gain of function research is an unnecessary risk that, by design, creates more dangerous versions of existing viruses. Darpa refused to fund the research.. Instead it was outsourced to Wuhan, funded by the US and approved by Fauci.

    Events have proven Biden to be correct in this assessment.

    Because it seems there is actual fire under the smoke.

    You are also in no position to claim Fauci is a criminal.

    I'm not calling him a criminal at all. I'm saying he may have done incriminating things, which have now been pardoned.

    your "logic" says that because you can't proved you haven't done anything incriminating, I should assume that you are a criminal.

    Not quite. You cannot assume I am not a criminal. We cannot assume Fauci did nothing incriminating.

    When are you going to provide me evidence that you aren't a criminal?

    I don't need to. Whether I am or not has no relevance.

    Or will you admit that you only emotionally feel Fauci did something criminal

    Fauci has means, motivation, opportunity, conspiracy accused colleagues and a blanket pardon. If the US did fund research that lead to covid, he is right at the top of responsibility with the most to gain from an unlawful cover-up and the protection needed to survive any attack. These are facts, not feelings.

    If Fauci has to prove he's not a criminal, then so do you.

    He doesn't. What you have to do is admit the possibility that he may have done something incriminating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent