Another lawyer friend comments on all the “taking the fifth” by Fauci.
I’d remind everyone that, in civil proceedings, Congress and the Judiciary are permitted to infer criminal or illegal conduct by and through an invocation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by a testifying witness, and juries are instructed on the same. The only time a Court may not charge a jury on this, and instruct the jury to take no notice of the Fifth Amendment, is in criminal proceedings in which a party is testifying. Even in that case, the testifying witness’ testimony should be stricken altogether if they invoke it.
Fauci’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment can and does reasonably infer that Dr. Fauci has, regarding the scope of the questioning, committed criminal acts while an officer of the United States Government.
That may be true but my experience on Facebook was so bad that I want nothing to do with Mega-Platforms. In fact, I am trying to disconnect from anything related to mass culture to the greatest extent possible.
It gets worse. I never believed that the increase in transmissability of monkeypox was a natural occurrence. There are genetic reasons why that does not seem probable. Those reasons relate to the genetic structure of the pox family of viruses.
So take a look at this:
A September 15, 2022, Science magazine article on MPXV included an interview with Dr. Bernard Moss, a preeminent pox virologist who has worked for decades at NIAID and is a NIH Distinguished Investigator. In the interview, Dr. Moss noted he and his colleagues hadswapped dozens of genes from the much more transmissible, but less deadly, clade II MPXV into the more deadly clade I MPXV. The article stated that the Moss team was “planning to try the opposite, endowing clade II virus with genes from its deadlier relative.” The proposal to transfer genes from the deadlier clade I into the more transmissible clade II alarmed some scientists who believed a more potent version of the mpox outbreak strain could spark an epidemic that would be substantially more lethal.
In oversight requests to the NIH, E&C sought information to better understand the potential risks and benefits of the experiment Dr. Moss had described in the Science magazine interview, in particular the proposal to transfer genes from clade I into clade II. As described by Dr. Moss, the experiment appeared to qualify as gain-of-function research of concern (GOFROC) because it planned to enhance the transmissibility and pathogenicity of clade II MPXV by inserting genes from clade I MPXV. 5 Moreover, it also appeared to implicate federal policies or practices regarding dual-use research of concern (DURC) by utilizing gene transferring techniques that, if misapplied, pose a significant threat to public health and human safety.
Over a period of 18 months, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NIH, and NIAID repeatedly obstructed and misled the Committee about whether the transfer of genes from clade I into clade II experiments described by Dr. Moss in the Science article had been approved or conducted. Initially, HHS and the NIH refused to answer any questions about the research. HHS also refused to provide most of the requested documents to the Committee unless they had already been made public. Eventually, some requested documents were made accessible, but only if Committee staff went to HHS offices to review these documents in camera. To the extent HHS and the NIH provided briefings, documents, or document viewings, it was almost always to avoid either a transcribed interview or a subpoena.
How is the President able to give the kind of blanket pardon purportedly given to Fauci as it seems to me to breach the Faithful Execution Clause. This clause imposes a constitutional duty on the President to enforce laws as written by Congress without suspending them. I say that a pardon has to be specific, in relation to specific crimes, committed at particular times, and the details of which have to be known to the President when he grants the Pardon. The President has no power to elevate somebody above the law - which the document called Fauci’s “pardon” signed by Biden purports to do. That document states that in relation to Fauci, no laws whatsoever - known and unknown - will be faithfully executed, and all laws of the USA in relation to Fauci are suspended during the period stated in the pardon. Surely the President has no such power under the Constitution.
No. In a class action lawsuit every Plaintiff had to suffer the same type of injury and damages have to be easily calculable. That is not true with either the virus or the injections. Different people got different types of injuries. And different people were injured to different degrees.
Individual lawsuits are possible but - as to the injections - you have to get around the immunity issues. And since the virus was apparently created with government funding, there might be limitations on those types of suits as well.
But if fraud was involed, and there is evidence of that, that might negate a lot of the immunity defenses.
This would be a huge research project just to explore all those issues. And to do that you have an understanding as to what actually happened. A lot of information has been released but a lot more hasn’t been released. For instance, did Fauci know that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine actually worked? I suspect that he did but I have never seen information backing that up. If Congress actually represented the American people, this could be done. But since they don’t, it is an uphill battle.
I have never done the research on that so I can’t say. I myself thought that pardons that broad were questionable just on basic concepts of jurisprudence. But I never did the research so I honestly don’t know.
Is there no law firm, and, with all the well-funded think tanks in D.C., no organization that would be willing to investigate this? Either there is already established case law on this (in which case, what is it?), or it is both of enormous interest to the public and also a very important legal precedent to establish - what is, and what is not, a pardon? To my mind, you cannot pardon somebody if you do not consciously know what they are supposed to have done, you have for one reason or another concluded that the conviction (or prosecution) for the said specific wrong is/would be unjust, and you know why you believe it is unjust. I’m not suggesting the President needs to give the reasons for why he concluded there was an injustice, but surely the whole concept of a “pardon” implies that at the time of the granting of a pardon he knows (a) what the supposed crime is, (b) that he is satisfied that letting the conviction stand would be unjust and (c) has specific reasons, even if known only to himself, for concluding that it is unjust. Pardon = official forgiveness. How can you forgive someone if you don’t know what they have done, that you are satisfied forgiveness is warranted and why it is warranted? I say there is such a thing as “a pardon” and then there is such a thing as “suspending (the rule of) laws”, even if just in relation to one individual. There clearly is a line somewhere between those two concepts, the only question is where the line passes. For example, if the President were to purport to pardon every single person on the planet for every crime they may have committed during a ten year period, I say that clearly amounts to the suspension of the rule of law, which the President is not permitted to do by the Faithful Execution Clause. Is he permitted to suspend the laws in relation to one person only? I think that is the question to ask the courts.
That is one of the reasons that I questioned the scope of the pardons from day one.
If we had a functioning political system the Democrats and the Republicans would both be outraged by this abuse of power. But we don’t have a functioning political system.
I just read a FB post where they were stating this is a MAGA witch hunt 1. to deflect away from the illegal war and 2. to deflect away from Epstein files. The comments were even worse, with some responses suggesting coronation for fauci.
The Vigilant Fox reports on Bret Weinstein’s podcast:
Bret Weinstein explains how the COVID conspiracy theorists were proven right about everything and it doesn’t matter.
WEINSTEIN: “We live in two worlds simultaneously at the moment. I remember conversations that I had with people I cared deeply about at the beginning of COVID right as the lab leak story was beginning to crack.”
"What I saw was, actually, I think we’re going to win the lab leak story. We’re not yet winning the vaccine story, and we’re way behind on the repurposed drug story.
"In 2026, here’s what we see. We actually won. Completely. All of these things are now visible to anybody who wishes to see them.
“And we’ve lost completely. Our capacity to do anything about this is now on full display. We have none.”
"Your ability to simply get the story clear enough and enough evidence on the table does not have an impact on what happens next.
“We’re still apparently dispensing these frickin shots. How crazy is that? Right after all that we have unearthed, after all the people who lost their careers to unearth this stuff, they’re still dispensing the frickin shots.”
So what’s left?
WEINSTEIN: "We need to figure out now how to talk to the people who actually have goodness in their hearts, but are still so desperately confused.
“You have to figure out how to approach them with enough generosity of spirit that you can get them over the line to just seeing. You can get them to take off the blindfold.”
Can we induce a conversion experience in those we love? We may not actually be able to do that. Here is one conversion experience:
Saul was a fierce opponent of the early Christian church, actively seeking out and arresting followers of Jesus. Armed with official letters from the high priest in Jerusalem, he set out for Damascus with the intent of bringing any believers he found there back in chains. As he and his companions neared their destination (Damascus, Syria), a brilliant light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. Saul fell to the ground and heard a voice call out, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Terrified, Saul asked who was speaking, and the voice replied, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but saw no one. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
When Saul got up from the ground and opened his eyes, he discovered he was completely blind. His companions had to take him by the hand and lead him the rest of the way into Damascus. For three days, Saul remained trapped in darkness, refusing to eat or drink anything as he processed the divine encounter. Meanwhile, the Lord spoke in a vision to a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, commanding him to go to the house of a man named Judas on Straight Street and ask for Saul of Tarsus. Ananias was deeply hesitant at first, knowing Saul’s reputation for brutally persecuting the saints, but the Lord reassured him that Saul was a chosen instrument to carry His name before Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Obeying the command, Ananias found Saul, placed his hands on him, and addressed him as “Brother Saul.” He explained that Jesus, the one who appeared to Saul on the road, had sent him so that Saul might regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Instantly, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his vision was fully restored. Saul got up, was baptized right then and there, and finally took some food to regain his strength. Instead of arresting the believers in Damascus, Saul immediately went into the local synagogues and began boldly preaching that Jesus is truly the Son of God, shocking everyone who knew of his violent past. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
