Generally, if you don’t expect there to be conspiracies going on, why would you need an investigative committee in the first place?
If the Church committee would have been made up by people who thought that the intelligence committee didn’t conspire to violate the law, it likely wouldn’t have been much use.
On February 1, Fauci mailed Auchincloss an email with an attachment called “Baric, Shi et al—Nature medicine—SARS Gain of function”. If I would be on the committee I would ask Auchincloss about what happened there and whether he thought that Fauci thought that the PDF described gain of function research. If Auchincloss says “yes”, than going after Fauci for purgery, for claiming in front of congress that it doesn’t, is a valid road to take.
Blatant purgery like that shouldn’t simply go unpunished. Putting people like her on the committee is a sign in the direction that the committee might actually have teeth and go for punishing it.
She’s certainly not a perfect being, but that’s not needed here.
My information source are the primary documents. The emails are public. Fauci’s testimony is public.
Is your crux whether or not Fauci sent the email with the “Baric, Shi et al—Nature medicine—SARS Gain of function” attachment? Is your crux about whether that was about the Baric and Shi paper from 2015? Is your crux about whether or not Fauci said under oath that this paper is not gain of functions research?
The policy you propose of don’t trust documents that the NHI released in response to FOI requests, seems like a stupid policy.
In what universe is someone expliccitly committed to whipping up witch hunts and pushing conspiracy theories better equipped than a moron?
Generally, if you don’t expect there to be conspiracies going on, why would you need an investigative committee in the first place?
If the Church committee would have been made up by people who thought that the intelligence committee didn’t conspire to violate the law, it likely wouldn’t have been much use.
On February 1, Fauci mailed Auchincloss an email with an attachment called “Baric, Shi et al—Nature medicine—SARS Gain of function”. If I would be on the committee I would ask Auchincloss about what happened there and whether he thought that Fauci thought that the PDF described gain of function research. If Auchincloss says “yes”, than going after Fauci for purgery, for claiming in front of congress that it doesn’t, is a valid road to take.
Blatant purgery like that shouldn’t simply go unpunished. Putting people like her on the committee is a sign in the direction that the committee might actually have teeth and go for punishing it.
She’s certainly not a perfect being, but that’s not needed here.
You appear to have been taken in by liars and grifters. I suggest you reconsider your information sources.
My information source are the primary documents. The emails are public. Fauci’s testimony is public.
Is your crux whether or not Fauci sent the email with the “Baric, Shi et al—Nature medicine—SARS Gain of function” attachment? Is your crux about whether that was about the Baric and Shi paper from 2015? Is your crux about whether or not Fauci said under oath that this paper is not gain of functions research?
The policy you propose of don’t trust documents that the NHI released in response to FOI requests, seems like a stupid policy.