Yesterday certainly was disappointing. But I maintain that reality still wins, every time, in the long run and in the big picture.
Fauci called Senator Rand Paul’s accusations “slanderous”, but, of course, he will not be stupid enough to file suit for slander. He would have to prove the accusations false, and he could not do so. Peter, are you aware of any legal maneuver by which Senator Paul could sue (or whatever) Fauci for defaming (or whatever) HIM? I’d sure love to see the good Senator turn the tables on that weasel Fauci!
As one legal commentator noted, Fauci arguably can't plead the Fifth to questions regarding how Senator Paul slandered him. You cannot make a charge and then refuse to answer questions about the charge. The Fifth Amendment is a shield, not a sword.
Even without the autopen pardon, Fauci is still in contempt of Congress because of his opening statement.
I asked my husband if he had seen/read anything about Fauci, he said "I know he's getting grilled, he's another on Trump's list". I asked if he had seen/heard/read anything about Fauci's diary - he had no clue what I was talking about. He scrolls Reddit and the Guardian, and other left-limited reporting...I was astonished. The search engines, the reporting, everything with a slice and dice slant. Thank you for reporting All Facts Matter.
It is increasingly challenging to get a clear sense of what is being reported by various slices of the media.
We are being siloed by political inclinations. New York Times and most corporate media caters to the left (Fox News and the New York Post are more right leaning, although their MAGA orientation is hit-or-miss).
Most alternative media is equally blatantly political.
This means that most people are getting only one perspective, one point of view. A narrative tailored for what is in reality a small minority of the public is being presented as the “mainstream” view of the majority—and it is no such thing.
That was why my piece catalyzed by Fauci's diary was not so much about the diary entries themselves as it was about reminding people that quite literally ALL of the significant details Fauci confirmed in his diary were details that had been reported all along. Myself, Natural News, Brownstone Institute, ZeroHedge, Aeon Chronicle....these details were never concealed, and were only suppressed insofar as people did not see them if they were not in the right silo.
To invoke one's Fifth Amendment rights, one has to do so before mentioning or responding on a particular topic. Once the door is opened to a specific topic, Fifth Amendment rights can be deemed constructively waived
Outside of that general rule, the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights is question specific. If a witness pleads the Fifth to the question "when did you stop beating your wife?", he still has the option of answering the unrelated question "when did you stop cheating on your wife?".
Fauci's reflexive retreat behind the Fifth on questions like "is there a red folder in front of you" was an invitation to contempt of Congress charges even without the autopen pardon in place.
With the autopen pardon still presumptively legal, Fauci in reality had no Fifth Amendment rights. Josh Hawley was spot on about that.
That makes Fauci's use of the Fifth Amendment curious. The only way any of his testimony could be used would be if the pardon was invalidated, but if the pardon is invalidated after he testifies everything he said is still covered by the pardon, because the testimony would have been given under presumption that the pardon was valid. The Fifth Amendment would preclude using testimony given under grant of pardon or immunity even if the pardon or immunity is later invalidated.
Fauci chose clear contempt of Congress as a strategy. That seems an unwise strategy to me.
Yesterday certainly was disappointing. But I maintain that reality still wins, every time, in the long run and in the big picture.
Fauci called Senator Rand Paul’s accusations “slanderous”, but, of course, he will not be stupid enough to file suit for slander. He would have to prove the accusations false, and he could not do so. Peter, are you aware of any legal maneuver by which Senator Paul could sue (or whatever) Fauci for defaming (or whatever) HIM? I’d sure love to see the good Senator turn the tables on that weasel Fauci!
As one legal commentator noted, Fauci arguably can't plead the Fifth to questions regarding how Senator Paul slandered him. You cannot make a charge and then refuse to answer questions about the charge. The Fifth Amendment is a shield, not a sword.
Even without the autopen pardon, Fauci is still in contempt of Congress because of his opening statement.
I asked my husband if he had seen/read anything about Fauci, he said "I know he's getting grilled, he's another on Trump's list". I asked if he had seen/heard/read anything about Fauci's diary - he had no clue what I was talking about. He scrolls Reddit and the Guardian, and other left-limited reporting...I was astonished. The search engines, the reporting, everything with a slice and dice slant. Thank you for reporting All Facts Matter.
It is increasingly challenging to get a clear sense of what is being reported by various slices of the media.
We are being siloed by political inclinations. New York Times and most corporate media caters to the left (Fox News and the New York Post are more right leaning, although their MAGA orientation is hit-or-miss).
Most alternative media is equally blatantly political.
This means that most people are getting only one perspective, one point of view. A narrative tailored for what is in reality a small minority of the public is being presented as the “mainstream” view of the majority—and it is no such thing.
That was why my piece catalyzed by Fauci's diary was not so much about the diary entries themselves as it was about reminding people that quite literally ALL of the significant details Fauci confirmed in his diary were details that had been reported all along. Myself, Natural News, Brownstone Institute, ZeroHedge, Aeon Chronicle....these details were never concealed, and were only suppressed insofar as people did not see them if they were not in the right silo.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/i-told-you-so-fauci?r=pf1ap
One of my objectives with All Facts matter is to break down those silos, so people get a fuller presentation of every news story.
Thank God for you...
“Contempt of Congress” would be acceptable!
Fauci Faces Possible Contempt of Congress
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/fauci-faces-possible-contempt-of-congress-6069108?utm_medium=app&c=share_pos3&pid=iOS_app_share&utm_source=iOS_app_share
Is it true that once they invoke the 5th for one question, they have to use it for every question?
To invoke one's Fifth Amendment rights, one has to do so before mentioning or responding on a particular topic. Once the door is opened to a specific topic, Fifth Amendment rights can be deemed constructively waived
Outside of that general rule, the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights is question specific. If a witness pleads the Fifth to the question "when did you stop beating your wife?", he still has the option of answering the unrelated question "when did you stop cheating on your wife?".
Fauci's reflexive retreat behind the Fifth on questions like "is there a red folder in front of you" was an invitation to contempt of Congress charges even without the autopen pardon in place.
With the autopen pardon still presumptively legal, Fauci in reality had no Fifth Amendment rights. Josh Hawley was spot on about that.
That makes Fauci's use of the Fifth Amendment curious. The only way any of his testimony could be used would be if the pardon was invalidated, but if the pardon is invalidated after he testifies everything he said is still covered by the pardon, because the testimony would have been given under presumption that the pardon was valid. The Fifth Amendment would preclude using testimony given under grant of pardon or immunity even if the pardon or immunity is later invalidated.
Fauci chose clear contempt of Congress as a strategy. That seems an unwise strategy to me.
It’s an election year. ‘Nuff said.