Marjorie Taylor Greene appointed to House Covid Committee. This is quite the bad sign for how the Republican House is going to be going about its business. I do not think it is ‘dangerous for our national security’ unless essentially everything is. Our legislative system needs to be able to survive having a wacko on the wrong investigative committee, or we have far bigger problems.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Being at an investigative committee means she’s going to ask questions that more mainstream politicians would be uncomfortable asking.
Maybe she’s going to try to ask former Assistant Secretary Ford’s why he warned the AVG that their inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 and attempt to build a Bayesian model would “open a can of worms”? If the national security people thought that this kind of questioning was ‘dangerous for our national security’ they might still believe it to ‘dangerous for our national security’ for the same reasons.
The national security complex always thinks that putting people who ask inconvenient questions on investigative committees endangers national security. It’s also no surprise if the health establishment would hated a committee that asks Fauci real questions about how he lied about gain of function research. If Marjorie Taylor Greene pushes to go after Fauci for his gain of function-related purgery, that’s rightly worrisome from the perspective of the person you quoted.
Having her on an investigative committee is much better than a committee that’s about making policy. This is a job that she might actually be doing better than the average congressman while she’s likely worse at making policy.
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.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Being at an investigative committee means she’s going to ask questions that more mainstream politicians would be uncomfortable asking.
Maybe she’s going to try to ask former Assistant Secretary Ford’s why he warned the AVG that their inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 and attempt to build a Bayesian model would “open a can of worms”? If the national security people thought that this kind of questioning was ‘dangerous for our national security’ they might still believe it to ‘dangerous for our national security’ for the same reasons.
The national security complex always thinks that putting people who ask inconvenient questions on investigative committees endangers national security. It’s also no surprise if the health establishment would hated a committee that asks Fauci real questions about how he lied about gain of function research. If Marjorie Taylor Greene pushes to go after Fauci for his gain of function-related purgery, that’s rightly worrisome from the perspective of the person you quoted.
Having her on an investigative committee is much better than a committee that’s about making policy. This is a job that she might actually be doing better than the average congressman while she’s likely worse at making 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.