Dr. Anthony Fauci has declined a request to appear voluntarily before a second Senate panel

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.”

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    0·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      0·
      19 hours ago

      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?