Dr. Anthony Fauci testifies in Senate hearing

[0:00] authors were asking yourselves privately. You even cited proximal origin from the White House podium. [0:07] You held it out as evidence that the virus could not have been engineered, [0:11] but you didn't disclose your role and the discussions that preceded the writing of the [0:15] paper. You did not disclose the author's original concerns. You did not concern, you did not reveal [0:23] that you'd been part of the paper, that you had read and offered editorial comments on the paper [0:28] before it was published, before you began using it as evidence that it couldn't have originated in the [0:33] lab. You did not disclose that you had immediately investigated yourself whether NIAID funding might [0:40] be connected to the research. You did not tell the American people the full story. Duly released [0:46] private messages indicate that the doubts with the authors and others didn't disappear after the [0:51] publication. So while this was being waived at the White House to show that it couldn't come from the [0:57] lab, the authors were still privately continuing to assign a meaningful probability to a laboratory [1:04] origin. One thing in public and another in private. Some of the same scientists discussed avoiding email [1:12] and carefully managing communications that might eventually be obtained under the Freedom of [1:17] Information Act. The pattern is straightforward. Privately there was alarm, then an immediate inquiry [1:25] to see if NIAID's possible exposure to funding, then a rapid public declaration of certainty, continued [1:32] private doubt, and then years of resistance to disclosure. The question is why? The only logical answer is [1:40] that your primary concern was avoiding culpability. Your primary concern was hiding the fact that you had [1:46] approved the funding for this dangerous research. Your support of gain-of-function research is extensive [1:53] and long-standing. In 2011 your agency funded Ron Fuchier's laboratory when it mutated the avian flu until it [2:01] could spread through the air between mammals. This was the the tipping point. This is when others became [2:08] worried. You funded this. You advocated for this. The federal government's own biosecurity board though [2:15] recommended withholding the details of these experiments because of the danger the research posed. People were [2:21] concerned that publishing it was publishing a road map to creating bioweapons around the world, but you sided [2:28] with the gain-of-function scientist Fuchier and argued that the benefits of publishing the research far [2:35] outweighed the risks. You defended this avian flu transmissibility experiments as critical research. [2:43] You wrote that even if a scientist became infected and triggered a pandemic, the benefits of the gain-of-function [2:50] experiments outweighed the risk. In 2014 your agency NIAID began funding the Wuhan bat coronavirus work. [3:00] In 2015 Ralph Baric and the Chinese scientist Xi Zhengli published NIAID supported research combining a bat [3:09] coronavirus spike protein with a SARS backbone. The resulting virus could infect human airway cells. [3:17] It's a novel virus that now can affect human cells. It gained transmissibility. It gained function. [3:25] In 2018 the same group of scientists, EcoHealth, Baric, Xi and their collaborators submitted the diffuse [3:33] proposal. Diffuse proposal which involved the insertion of a furin cleavage site into the coronavirus. [3:40] DARPA rejected it as too dangerous. When COVID was sequenced though early on in January of 2020 within days [3:48] scientists discovered that lo and behold it had a novel furin cleavage site just as had been proposed in [3:55] the diffuse product. This was either an extraordinary coincidence or a smoking gun. Evidence that the [4:02] Chinese had created COVID-19. It made the laboratory origin question more legitimate and it made your [4:10] categorical public denials indefensible. On May 11th 2021 you told the Senate the NIH has never ever [4:18] and does not now fund gain of function research in Wuhan in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. When [4:25] I gave you the opportunity to correct the record to reconsider the statement you responded that you [4:30] had never before lied to Congress. We were then told that only the government's narrowest regulation of [4:37] definition counted here that you could define gain of function in one way in which this wasn't gain of [4:42] function. In which all of the common sense of the world would be thrown out. All of the idea that the [4:47] mice were dying and the virus was more transmissible didn't matter because you had a technical definition [4:53] that allowed you to fund it. But the real question is was it dangerous? Was it a wise decision to fund [4:59] this? And you haven't deviated from that. You've never admitted that it could have been a mistake funding [5:05] this research in China. The American people weren't asking for a semantics debate over what is gain of [5:11] function. They're asking does common sense say this research was dangerous in Wuhan. They wanted to [5:18] know whether their money funded experiments in Wuhan that made bat coronaviruses better able to infect [5:24] humans. The answer is yes. They wanted to know whether NIAID adequately supervised their work. The [5:31] answer is no. When you defended this research you described its benefits in the broadest terms. But when [5:37] Congress demanded accountability you hid behind the narrowest possible definition. You can't have it [5:43] both ways. Your conduct concerning federal records raises further questions. It is a crime to destroy [5:50] federal records. Yet our investigation reveals your assistant diligently reported that she deleted tons of [5:58] emails. In 2024 you testified that you did not delete federal records. Who's telling the truth? You or your [6:05] assistant? The committee has obtained repeated instructions from you telling federal officials to [6:11] delete communications. On February 2nd 2020 one day after origins call you you told Francis Collins [6:19] please delete this email after you read it. The committee asked for your voluntary cooperation to come [6:24] today. Your appearance had to be compelled by subpoena. You're here today under duress. You're here today [6:31] because of the court ordering it. President Biden issued you a sweeping pardon extending [6:36] back to 2014. The same pardon he gave to his son Hunter. A pardon may protect a person from criminal [6:44] prosecution doesn't rewrite history. It does not erase documents. It does not convert a misleading [6:51] statement into a truthful one. And it does not prevent Congress from establishing what happened. [6:57] There will be another pandemic. There will be another crisis. And there will again be officials who insist [7:03] that uncertainty must be hidden for the public's own good. They will demand obedience. They will invoke [7:09] science. I am the science as though it were a commandment. They will argue that government officials [7:15] cannot be questioned because questioning them would undermine public trust. They have it backwards. [7:21] It is secrecy that destroys trust. It is arrogance that destroys trust. It is censorship that destroys [7:28] trust. And it is the refusal to admit error that destroys trust. That loss of trust may be your most damaging [7:36] legacy. Trust can't be ordered. It has to be earned. No scientist is above scrutiny. No government [7:43] official is beyond accountability. And no public servant has the right to treat the suffering of [7:49] millions of Americans as a footnote to his preferred version of history. I now recognize [7:58] Senator Peters for his opening remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senate Homeland Security and [8:05] Governmental Affairs Committee has a long and a very proud history of conducting serious oversight [8:12] on behalf of the American people. When this committee has been at its best, Democrats and Republicans [8:20] have worked together to investigate complicated issues, to follow the facts wherever they may lead, [8:27] and produce recommendations that actually strengthen our nation's security and improve government functions. [8:34] That bipartisan tradition has produced meaningful work following Hurricane Katrina, the January 6th attack [8:43] on the U.S. Capitol, failures at the Secret Service, and countless other matters. Unfortunately, [8:51] today's hearing is the latest step in the chairman's sharp departure from that long tradition. [8:58] This hearing appears to be a culmination of months of biased and selected efforts by the majority [9:04] under the guise of a committee investigation to basically legitimize a predetermined conclusion [9:11] that was reached years ago. In 2021, the chairman has called for today's witness to be fired, [9:18] to be arrested, accused him of leading cover-ups and conspiracies. He has even featured the witness prominently [9:27] in fundraising emails and on the cover of his book. He has also called for the cancellation of the [9:34] witnesses' security detail, despite the fact the witness and his family have received numerous credible [9:42] death threats. When I served as chairman, Senator Paul and I launched a bipartisan biosecurity [9:49] investigation that included oversight of risky research and the origins of COVID-19, because we agreed that the [9:57] committee's work would be stronger if we did it in a bipartisan manner and just followed the facts. [10:03] That was and continues to be an area of legitimate and certainly needed oversight. As chairman, [10:11] Senator Paul has taken the opposite approach. He has abandoned longstanding practice by blocking [10:18] minority participation in committee oversight actions and has chosen to selectively release committee records [10:25] that the minority has never had any access to in order to support his pre-drawn conclusions. The chairman has [10:35] repeatedly excluded committee's minority and withheld documents and evidence from members that are [10:41] entitled to receive them, disregarding longstanding Senate rules and committee precedent that have [10:47] preserved the credibility of our oversight in this committee for decades. I have raised these concerns [10:54] directly with the chairman, because it's not just what we investigate that matters, but how we conduct that [11:02] investigation. That also matters. One-sided investigations designed to validate predetermined [11:09] conclusions do not serve the American people who sent us to actually undercover the truth and solve [11:16] problems. I wrote to the chairman requesting that he adhere to committee rules, but instead of addressing [11:23] concerns that I raised, he removed part of the committee's website from the public view. This move not only [11:31] prevented the public from being able to view those list of concerns, it adds serious questions about the desire for [11:37] transparency and legitimate oversight of this matter. But what makes today's hearing particularly [11:44] disappointing is not simply the chairman's actions, but what we could be using this committee's true and [11:53] time oversight responsibilities to accomplish. This committee has not held its annual threats hearing at all of this [12:01] Congress. We have not held a budget hearing for the Department of Homeland Security. There are important [12:06] hearings that we would have the opportunity to discuss as to how to strengthen our homeland security [12:11] across the board. No hearings on those topics. Instead of focusing on the national security challenges [12:18] that we are facing in our country right now, today's hearing looks backwards. Revisiting questions this committee [12:27] has already examined, including through bipartisan work that Senator Paul and I conducted together when I [12:34] served as chairman of this committee. But rather than building on that work to strengthen our preparedness [12:39] against future disasters, we are instead relitigating the past. COVID-19 exposed serious deficiencies [12:49] in our nation's public health infrastructure. We know that. More than one million Americans lost their lives, [12:55] and this committee should absolutely continue to examine how we can better prepare our nation against [13:00] future biological threats. Those are the kinds of forward-looking, life-saving questions that will help [13:08] our nation be better prepared to protect the health and the safety of Americans when the next emergency [13:14] occurs. Unfortunately, at this precise moment, we should be strengthening our capabilities. The Trump [13:23] administration seems to be doing everything in their power to actually weaken our capabilities. The [13:28] administration has hollowed out the public health workforce. They have fired, pushed out, and cut [13:35] funding for public health personnel, shrinking the CDC workforce by a quarter. Thousands of experienced [13:42] scientists have left government service, and with them has gone critical institutional knowledge that [13:49] cannot be easily replaced, certainly not quickly replaced. The administration, thanks to political [13:55] operatives like Russell Vogt, has slashed or illegally withheld funding for life-saving medicines and [14:02] cutting-edge technologies that let us rapidly develop them during an emergency. Mr. Vogt is now further [14:09] politicizing the federal grant-making process, proposing to subject all federal grants, including those for disaster relief, [14:16] housing development, and cancer research, to the whims of political appointees, not nonpartisan experts. [14:24] All of this has left the American people more vulnerable to infectious disease threats, [14:30] and we are already tragically seeing the consequences. Staffing and funding cuts have slowed the federal, [14:37] state, and local response to ongoing outbreak of a food-borne parasite which has sickened thousands [14:44] in my home state of Michigan as well as across the country. At the same time, the administration cuts to [14:49] global health programs and international partnerships have greatly reduced our ability to contain dangerous [14:56] diseases like Ebola before they spread to our shores. We should be examining whether our federal health [15:03] agencies have the personnel and the resources they need to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to [15:11] these threats. We should be asking how to strengthen our biodefense efforts to deter our adversaries and [15:18] prevent biological attacks against our country, and how our government can better coordinate and [15:24] communicate during public health emergencies. These are the kinds of forward-looking matters that are [15:31] worthy, are worthy of this committee's time. Instead, we are here continuing the chairman's year-long focus [15:39] on one individual. History tells us, unfortunately, another pandemic is all but inevitable. The question [15:49] is whether Congress and this committee will work to better prepare our country for it, or continue looking [15:57] backward, why our public health infrastructure crumbles around us. That is the hearing that we should be [16:06] having today. Unfortunately, I fear the intent of this hearing is only meant to further a purely partisan [16:13] agenda and will not. It will not make Americans safer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The accusation that the [16:23] committee has denied access to the minority to records is categorically false. This is the most transparent [16:30] investigation in the history of Congress. We actually created a website and we put all of the information [16:36] on the website. It continues to operate. The reason it hasn't been accessed is no Democrat ever signed up for it. [16:43] Not one Democrat. We told them the access. They never asked for the access code. They haven't been on the [16:48] website because they have not cared about the investigation. It's the practice of this committee [16:53] to swear in the witness. Dr. Fauci, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the [17:01] testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [17:05] So help you God. Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. [17:14] Thank you, member Peters, members of the committee. I served at the NIH for over 54 years, 38 of those as [17:28] director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Over that period, I proved that [17:36] I believe in and respect the value of legitimate congressional oversight. In fact, I testified before [17:44] and or briefed Senate and House congressional Senate and House committees well over 200 times over those 38 [17:56] years. During and after the COVID pandemic, I have appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the [18:06] House usually under oath and sat for several days long transcribed sworn interviews answering questions [18:19] about the very issues that are now the subject of this hearing. However, given Senator Paul's obvious [18:29] obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his [18:40] publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only [18:52] conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say [19:01] something, anything that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up in his words, quote, [19:12] behind bars, unquote. Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily [19:24] come to the same conclusion. Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for [19:34] the legislative branch of government and my decades long record of cooperating with Congress, under the [19:44] advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from [19:52] answering your questions. Thank you. We will now begin a round of questioning. Dr. Fausti, your testimony [20:02] today is compelled by a lawful subpoena. As you know, it's a crime under 18 U.S.C. section 1001 to knowingly make a [20:11] material false statement to Congress with a penalty up to five years of imprisonment. Understanding that [20:18] you are under oath, the American people would like to understand your reasoning, your rationale for [20:28] why you chose to fund the research in Wuhan. There have been, you know, intelligence agencies, the CIA, the FBI, [20:38] the DOE, have all come to the conclusion that more likely than not the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. [20:45] And so we'd like to know what was the rationale? What was the discussion? How, you know, what went behind [20:50] the decision to fund the research in Wuhan? How did you come to the conclusion that a totalitarian country [20:59] would be capable of doing this in a BSL-2 lab, a lab that lacked the security? What was the reasoning? And are [21:05] you sorry, basically, for making the decision? Would you, you know, given another chance, say, [21:10] well, gosh, circumstances, now as I know it, maybe it wasn't a wise thing. Can you explain to the [21:15] committee why you chose to fund this dangerous research in China? On the advice of counsel, [21:23] I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. [21:32] In the red folder on your table is a copy of Section 192 of Title II of the U.S. Code. [21:38] Your counsel has been provided a copy as well. That section makes it a crime for a witness appearing [21:44] under subpoena to refuse to answer any questions pertinent to the question under inquiry. Do you have [21:50] that in front of you? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my [21:58] rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Let the record record that the witness has refused [22:05] to answer whether there's a folder in front of him based on his Fifth Amendment right. It is true [22:11] that you're appearing under direction of our subpoena to provide testimony on matters under [22:17] consideration by the committee, including the origins of COVID-19, risky life sciences research, [22:23] and your tenure as a federal government employee. Additionally, you've been provided a full and [22:28] unconditional pardon dated January 19th, 2025 for any offenses against the United States which may [22:37] have been committed or taken part from January 1st, 2014 through the date of the pardon for a 10 year [22:43] period arising from or in any manner related to your service as director of the National Institute for [22:52] Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, or the White [22:57] House COVID-19 Response Team, or as chief medical advisor to the president. Have you refused this [23:04] pardon or do you have any reason to believe this full and unconditional pardon, this grant of immunity [23:10] would somehow require you to plead the Fifth Amendment? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [23:17] decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Based on the facts [23:25] presented, I'm going to direct you to answer the questions. The committee has issued a valid subpoena. [23:30] They have requested your presence here. The questions are very pertinent to your decision-making [23:36] as head of NIAID, as well as as a chief advisor to the president. Do you still refuse to answer the [23:44] questions? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the [23:52] Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, were you ever made aware of gain-of-function research on [24:08] monkeypox being conducted at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center and back at Fort [24:14] Dedrick? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the [24:23] Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, did the CIA ever transfer funds to NIH under an [24:32] interagency agreement? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the [24:43] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, did the NIH ever conduct research for or in coordination [24:57] with any element of the intelligence community, CIA, ODNI? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline [25:07] to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The reason why these [25:14] questions are important is, you know, President Trump has done a ban, and we're glad that he did a ban on [25:19] gain-of-function research, so we're better off than we were when we had an advocate serving as head of [25:25] NIAID, an advocate for gain-of-function research. There is still, though, a question, though, whether or [25:30] not the intelligence community is adhering to that order. There's a question of whether or not gain-of-function [25:36] research is still ongoing, and these are important questions the American people deserve to know. [25:43] Dr. Fauci, have you ever been read into any classified Department of Homeland Security program, [25:48] any prospective special access program concerning gain-of-function research? [25:54] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth [25:59] Amendment of the Constitution. When we look at the research in China, the gain-of-function research [26:09] that you've denied was gain-of-function, one of the things that startled the scientists when they saw [26:15] COVID in the first couple of weeks was when they looked at the sequence of it, they said, [26:20] oh my god, there's a furin cleavage site in it, and in this particular family of coronaviruses, [26:26] the sarvicoviruses, they'd never seen this before. They were also startled to look at it and see how [26:33] it was coded for, what the codons were, and to discover that the codons used, out of 36 different [26:39] possibilities, turned out to be the one that was commonly used in gene manipulation by scientists. [26:45] Dr. Fauci, were the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology capable of inserting [26:51] a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus? [26:55] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights, [27:00] under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. [27:05] So one of the experiments that was pretty common was they would take the backbone [27:10] of a SARS virus, and this would be a SARS virus that the backbone itself wasn't that dangerous, [27:16] but then they would dig through guano, 300 feet underground, bat guano. They'd find other viruses, [27:23] unknown viruses. They'd take the S protein off of an unknown virus and stick it on a backbone, [27:28] and then they would infect mice that have humanized cells, and they were trying to discover if they [27:34] could create a virus that infects humans. Now, many people would say, well, gosh, that doesn't sound [27:39] like a really good idea to create viruses that don't exist in nature to see if they'll infect human cells. [27:46] What if one escaped? What if you keep infecting this and do serial passage? You actually adapt the virus [27:53] to be infectious to humans. So the question is, is whether or not, Dr. Fauci, the Wuhan Institute of [28:00] Virology was combining an S protein with one virus with the backbone of others, and could this lead to [28:07] a virus? Maybe it wasn't even predicted, but could it lead to viruses that gained in function, [28:13] and then could lead to a pandemic? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer [28:21] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. One of the arguments that you and [28:28] others have made against this virus coming from the lab is it couldn't have come from the viruses that [28:35] have been published. And nobody's really arguing that. I think from the very beginning, people acknowledged [28:41] that the viruses that have been published are too far evolutionarily distant from a virus that could [28:47] have become COVID-19. But what has never been acknowledged by the side who tries to call the [28:55] other side a conspiracy theory, which is really something you don't usually see in a scientific [28:59] debate. This is the first time I've ever seen an article printed in Lancet by your friends who [29:04] call this a conspiracy theory. You know, these are the kind of things you see as a screed on a political [29:10] website. You don't really see this in science. But when they released this as being a conspiracy theory, [29:17] you know, we're wondering that when you do this, when you combine these viruses and are able to [29:26] grow them in humanized cells, whether or not this kind of risky research, whether or not whether you call [29:32] it gain of function or not, whether you use the definition of gain of function, whether this kind [29:36] of research should have had more scrutiny. I think in your house testimony, you testified that you [29:41] never traveled to China and that you were unaware that anybody at NIH ever examined the labs, that you [29:47] trusted the Chinese scientists. I think you've said that even recently, that with your discretion, [29:53] you trusted the Chinese scientists. The problem is, is that even in our country, we trust our scientists. [30:00] They're good American scientists, probably doing the right thing for America. But at the same time, [30:04] we oversight to make sure it's not dangerous research, but we also investigate the lab. [30:09] I believe Fort Detrick was, one of our main labs was closed down in the last year or two because of, [30:14] you know, a research institute, a research incident that was dangerous with dangerous pathogens. [30:22] And so, the American people would want to know, how could you approve this dangerous research in [30:27] China, say that you trusted the Chinese scientists, and then in the end, you had to admit that you'd [30:33] never been there. None of your inspectors had ever been there. Dr. Fauci, had any of the labs where this [30:39] dangerous research was occurring, were any American lab oversight or lab investigators, did they ever [30:46] appear in these labs to make sure they were safe labs? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to [30:54] answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [31:00] So, one of the main theories for those who have looked at, you know, this being created in the lab, [31:05] was the idea that it could have come from a virus not previously published. Dr. Fauci, are you aware [31:10] that Dr. Xi, who worked for the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was said to, and I think in her own words, [31:18] to have over a hundred viruses that had not been previously published that could have been a close [31:23] enough relative to create COVID-19. Are you aware of that? On the advice of counsel, [31:30] I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [31:38] Under your testimony previously, when you denied ever having funded gain-of-function in China, [31:44] it was so adamant as to be striking to leave no room for any interpretation of what is or isn't [31:51] gain-of-function research. But there's another important question. Did you fund gain-of-function [31:57] research in other bio labs around the world? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to [32:05] answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The one research [32:11] project that we do know you did fund is the one that Ron Fuchier did. It's important to talk about [32:17] because this sort of was the beginning of the debate over gain-of-function. This wasn't just me. I wasn't even [32:23] aware of the debate 10 years ago. This was other scientists. Over 200 scientists at the Cambridge [32:28] Working Group signed a protest because they didn't think you should fund the research and they didn't [32:32] think it should even be published because it was sort of a road map as to how to make a bioweapon. [32:38] So what they did was the avian flu, and this is important. It may be the most important question we [32:42] get to here today. The avian flu has about 50 percent mortality for humans. The good news though about [32:48] animal viruses is they don't infect humans very well. It will infect humans, but doesn't go human [32:53] to human very well. Ron Fuchier, with the money that you provided to him, did an experiment where he [33:01] caused purposeful mutations to create a new virus, an avian flu that didn't just infect birds well, [33:07] but actually infected mammals well. Went ferret to ferret in an aerosolized manner. People saw this and were [33:14] aghast at the decision-making process that you decided to fund this. But this is when the debate [33:22] came about, and you wrote in support of this in the Washington Post, and you said, [33:26] even if a scientist is bitten, even if a pandemic should occur, the knowledge is worth the risks. [33:33] Do you still stand by that? Would you like to qualify at all whether or not the knowledge of gain [33:37] of function is worth the risks? Particularly in this case, since we now know 15 million people died [33:43] worldwide. Many people believe this came from the lab. Do you think that the risks really are worth [33:48] the benefits for gain of function research? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer [33:56] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. We're going to finish with this [34:06] question, and it's based really on that statement, that general statement in your support for gain of [34:10] function. The idea that the benefits outweigh the risks. So there are many other people who disagree, [34:17] and they aren't politicians. I don't know what party they're in. David Relman is probably one of the [34:22] most esteemed, and he is a scientist at Stanford. He, I think, has classified clearance. He's been a [34:29] consultant to our government probably for a decade or more, and he's written about this publicly. He says [34:36] the opposite. He said that the risks of this research do not outweigh the benefits. He said the risks [34:43] we shouldn't do it. Richard Ebright, who's been involved in this debate for two decades, says the [34:49] same thing. Does he really, we really shouldn't be doing this at all. There's a quote also by [34:59] the Kevin Esfeldt quote. Is that at the very end? Kevin Esfeldt, who's a CRISPR scientist at MIT, also [35:16] wrote about this gain of function. I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in the field, [35:25] please stop. No more trying to discover or make pandemic capable viruses. No more experiments [35:31] likely to disseminate blueprints for plagues. Dr. Fauci, would you like to at least answer this one [35:38] question for us today and let us know whether or not you've changed your mind on whether or not [35:44] the benefits of gain of function research outweigh the risks? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [35:51] decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [36:00] The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, [36:05] but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon. [36:10] The committee will have to consider after this hearing what appropriate action should be taken [36:15] against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so. It's against the law to obstruct [36:21] an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today. [36:26] Senator Peters, you're not recognized. You're not recognized. If you are unruly, you will be removed [36:40] from the proceeding. You are not recognized. And you are not recognized, sir. Sir, you are not recognized. [36:49] You are not recognized. Security will hold off. But you will respect these proceedings. You were told not to [36:59] sit at the table. You insist on sitting at the table. And we told you you would not be recognized. [37:05] You are not invited here for testimony, sir. You are being disruptive. Would you behave this way [37:12] in a courtroom? No, because the judge would put you in jail. I can't do that today, but I can have you [37:18] escorted from the premises. So I would say, sir, sit quietly and don't say another word. I said, sit quietly. [37:25] You are not recognized. Another word and you're gone. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear what the attorney [37:37] has to say. He is not recognized by the committee or the chair. If he speaks again, he will be removed [37:44] from the room. This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers. He can advise. [37:52] His lawyers can give him advice. He's got a half dozen here. They're all allowed to talk to him. Yes. [37:58] All right. But the attorneys are not recognized. In fact, the attorney was told not to sit at the [38:03] table and he's not obeying that recommendation. There's a row behind you, sir. That's where you were [38:08] told to sit and you're not. And now you're disrupting the proceedings. And so, look, this is the way [38:14] Anthony Fauci wants to be remembered for a lawyer not listening to the rules. That's the way you want [38:19] to be remembered. And that's what you're going to do. You are not recognized, sir. Security, [38:25] please remove him from the room. Let the record state that Dr. Fauci will still have the advice [39:03] of the other half a dozen attorneys that he brought along today. Senator Peters. Thank you, [39:10] Mr. Chairman. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first or the last public health crisis to impact our [39:20] nation. In December 2022, I released a report that identified significant failures in our federal [39:28] government's preparedness and initial response to COVID-19. This report contained 17 key findings. [39:36] It's a very large report, which I have right here. It contains 17 key findings and corresponding [39:42] recommendations, including the need to invest in sustainable domestic manufacturing capabilities for [39:49] critical medical supplies. Bill, the infrastructure needed to surge testing capacity for infectious diseases [39:57] and robustly fund public health emergency preparedness and responses across all levels of government. [40:05] Unfortunately, multiple administrations, including the current Trump administration, [40:10] have failed to fund or to reform our health preparedness. This is something that I would hope [40:17] the committee in the future would investigate. It needs to be taken a look at. It also feels like a new [40:25] public health threat is hitting us every month. There's a foodborne parasite affecting thousands of [40:31] people in Michigan and across the country, and our federal agencies still haven't fully pinned down [40:38] the source of that outbreak. Measle cases in this country are the highest they've been in 35 years. [40:47] More children are getting sick and even hospitalized from this preventable disease. [40:54] Over a thousand people have died from the Ebola virus in Africa, and we don't know how widespread this [41:00] crisis actually is. We have a Hunter virus scare on a cruise ship, and though it hasn't made headlines [41:07] in the way that the screw worm threatening our food security has, I remain concerned about bird flu [41:13] that is also spreading and could one day cause a pandemic. This is also something this committee should be [41:19] investigating and holding hearings on. Since January 2025, the Trump administration has taken a number of [41:25] actions to drastically weaken our ability to fight infectious diseases and biological threats that [41:31] endanger Americans. These actions are both incomprehensible and are also inexcusable. They include slashing [41:39] funding for public health and infectious disease research, canceling contracts for cutting-edge vaccine [41:46] technology, shutting agencies responsible for tackling infectious diseases around the world, firing [41:52] thousands of federal employees with keeping our communities and our medicines and our food supply safe, [41:59] and injecting political appointees in what should be non-political grant-making functions. That is [42:05] something this committee should be looking at. I could go on. I could go on on all the topics that we need to be looking [42:09] at moving forward to protect this country. We're not doing that in this committee. That's what this committee was [42:15] designed to do. It's what it has done throughout history. It has done it in a bipartisan way. We should get back to [42:20] that and think about the future of this country and keeping this country safe. When a crisis like COVID-19 [42:27] strikes, we have an obligation to examine what went right and what went wrong to provide accountability [42:33] for the American people. Congress certainly has done that. Between the House and Senate, nearly 20 different [42:40] committees, 20 different committees, including this committee, as I mentioned, have conducted oversight of [42:46] the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting transcribed interviews, holding dozens of hearings, [42:51] and released more than 10 reports. Today's exercise, unfortunately, is a stark departure from [42:57] those largely bipartisan, legitimate efforts. The chairman has shut the minority out of participating [43:04] equally in these efforts, withheld information, selectively released documents, actions that completely [43:09] undermine the credibility of this investigation. I will enter a record without objection, [43:15] Mr. Chairman, a letter that I sent to you that detailed all of those areas that we have concern with [43:20] and where we were shut out. Without objection. We'll provide other details as well. I think today's [43:28] hearing, unfortunately, does real damage. It's turning tempting to turn one person into the scapegoat [43:33] for a crisis that hundreds of officials across both the Trump and the Biden administration were responsible [43:40] for handling. It does so in a way that people that are facing death threats. This is only going to [43:48] unfortunately deter other scientific experts from public service to understand that this is what they [43:54] would have to go through as they provide their advice to us. We're not going to make our nation safer, [44:00] and I hope that we can restore by doing these kinds of activities, and I hope that we can restore our [44:06] legitimate bipartisan oversight that's going to help strengthen our public health and pandemic [44:11] preparedness and other homeland priorities. That's what this committee needs to focus on. It hasn't. [44:17] It lasts a year and a half. Let's hope it does in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson. [44:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fauci, I hope the American people listen very carefully to Chairman Paul's opening [44:33] statement. I think it's a stunning indictment of the actions you've taken that have been so destructive [44:43] to global health. I certainly understand why you needed a pardon. I certainly understand why, [44:52] on the advice of counsel, you're not answering any questions because I think it would be almost [44:58] impossible for you to answer the questions truthfully without really demonstrating what you did, [45:10] your culpability, self-incriminating. We have, all of us has prepared a lot. I've been deluged [45:23] with questions to ask Dr. Anthony Fauci. There are so many legitimate questions that deserve answers, [45:32] and now you're not willing to provide those answers. So with my limited time, I'm going to talk about [45:41] things that my investigation revealed that have not been adequately answered and, quite honestly, [45:47] haven't been adequately covered by the legacy media. I'll kind of combine the questions into kind of [45:56] one. But, you know, I certainly, let's put up the last COVID chart. I was warned pretty early on about [46:04] the dangers of the experimental gene therapy that you've called a vaccine, but it really falls on the [46:11] definition of gene therapy. So, I was going to ask you, I mean, were you carefully monitoring [46:18] the safety surveillance systems like VAERS and V-safe that literally were deluged with complaints? [46:28] Currently, worldwide, there have been almost 1.7 million adverse events reported to the VAERS system. [46:36] Of those, over 39,000 were deaths. And of those deaths, 24 percent occur on the day of vaccination [46:44] within one or two days. 24 percent, which, by the way, just happens to be the same percentage [46:48] that a Rasmussen poll pointed out, the American public believe they, 24 percent of the American [46:54] public believe they know somebody who died of the experimental gene therapy. Again, I was certainly [47:06] interested in asking you whether or not you were following this as carefully as I was. It's not my [47:11] responsibility to follow safety surveillance systems, but I did. And by the way, when I published, this is [47:18] this is actual government information. When I published it and people had me on their shows, [47:25] they would be censored by Facebook. They would be deplatformed. I think largely at the behest of the [47:32] actions you took to make sure that disinformation wasn't spread. This wasn't disinformation. [47:36] This was the truth. So, I was going to ask you whether you knew Dr. Marx. I think you do know him. He's [47:43] the head of CBER. He's the man who is in charge of approving vaccines and surveilling for the safety. [47:50] My investigation shows that on March 1st of 2021, less than three months after the emergency use [47:55] authorizations, he was warned by Dr. Anna Scharstman, data mining expert, that the algorithm [48:01] they were using to analyze their data was going to hide and mask safety signals. 26 days later and [48:09] three months consecutively after that, they did data runs with a new algorithm that unmasked those safety [48:16] signals. They showed dozens of safety signals, including sudden sudden cardiac death, cerebral [48:23] artery occlusion, basal ganglia stroke, agonal rhythm, Bell's palsy, and pulmonary infarction. [48:34] Your diaries now show that you actually suffered pulmonary infarction in, I think, [48:40] probably June 2021. I was just wondering, I was just wondering whether it ever went through your mind [48:50] that maybe that injection, all those boosts you took might have caused that. You know, [48:54] and the question I was going to, and I'll ask this question, were you ever made aware of the fact [48:57] that Peter Marx was warned that the algorithm was going to hide the safety signals? And were you told [49:06] that senior FDA officials were given dozens, shown dozens of safety signals associated with the COVID [49:14] injection? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [49:22] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Next area I want to go through is, in that same month of March [49:30] 2021, an employee at NIH, Dr. Nath, led a team of researchers who were diagnosing and treating [49:42] individuals who'd never had COVID or were severely injured by the genetic therapy injections. Dr. Nath told [49:54] those individuals, stay quiet. You know, we want to make sure that, you know, we gather all the information [50:02] and then release it to doctors so they can treat people like yourself. There was a concerted effort, [50:07] and I'll enter this into the record. It appears inside NIH to quash Dr. Nath's publishing that study. [50:18] It finally was put on a preprint server with telling no one, and I think about May of 2022. I think what's [50:27] noteworthy about this is Dr. Nath told the injured participants that early treatment, early intervention [50:34] was crucial for them to be treated. And yet within the NIH, they were questioning what was Dr. Nath doing. [50:43] They didn't want to publish that because, and I don't want to take time searching for it, because [50:49] publishing it would create vaccine hesitancy, which is what we continue to hear time and time again, [50:57] is the reason they didn't promote, they lied about the safety signals they were seeing. Throughout the [51:03] pandemic, I always pushed early treatment. You know, we've got things in here where, you know, you were [51:11] really concerned about remdesivir because it was, it was untested, but hydroxychloroquine, yeah, [51:17] it was an improved drug, you know, maybe some safety issues, but we had a great deal of experience with it. [51:22] All of a sudden, you had the surgisphere study. It was retracted within two weeks because it was [51:27] completely false, totally blew up the use of hydroxychloroquine. And then, when it comes to [51:33] ivermectin, which by the way, because I had, I was contacted by so many people, I referred them to doctors [51:40] who actually had the courage and compassion to treat vaccine-injured individuals. It works. [51:46] But I was going to ask you whether you were involved in the FDA attack on ivermectin. You had a [51:59] interview on CNN on August 29th of 2021, where, again, I just don't want to take time to find the [52:07] exact quote, but you know, said there's no evidence, there's no evidence that ivermectin is helpful. [52:14] On that exact same day, and I've got the, I've got the studies right here. There was a website that was [52:22] tracking the random controlled studies. Here they are, showing 60, 70% efficacy of ivermectin. [52:34] The same thing you say there's no evidence, there was all kinds of evidence. Loved ones had to go to [52:44] hospitals, had to sue hospitals, just would you try it? So I would want to know, you know, to what extent [52:52] were you involved in sabotaging hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and, and did you do that because you [53:00] knew the only way you could get emergency use authorization for these drugs, these experimental [53:07] gene therapy, was if there was no effective treatment, you couldn't get the emergency use [53:13] authorization. So is that why you helped sabotage these cheap generic drugs in favor of remdesivir, [53:20] which by the way nurses, are you aware of the fact that nurses called it run death is near? [53:24] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth [53:33] amendment to the constitution. But let me end on this note because this, this just came to light. [53:38] You know, we've got 11 million pages of documents. We also have other people who are in the room. [53:43] But now you actually lied to your, you lied to your, you lied to your own diary. On March 27, 2020, [53:55] you wrote in your diary, to my surprise yesterday, the POTUS sent a letter to governors outlining a [53:59] plan to reopen county by county while monitoring the spread of virus in low-risk counties. This was [54:05] half-baked and never shown to Deb or I before it was sent out. So we have evidence that in fact, [54:15] you're not, you were fully aware of it and certainly approved if not authored it. [54:19] So I was simply asking you, I mean, is that, is that true? I mean, did you literally lie to your [54:26] own diary? Did, did, did, did you know of that letter sent out to governors about reopening county [54:31] by county? Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask you to ask the, the witness to just answer that one simple [54:37] question. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [54:44] fifth amendment to the constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hassan. [54:50] Thank you. Dr. Fauci, I want to start by thanking you for more than 50 years of service to this [54:58] country at the National Institutes of Health. And it is unfortunate that you have been put in the [55:04] position that you are in today. And it must be enormously frustrating to know that this hearing [55:11] is designed to entrap you. It must be very frustrating for your attorneys to hear the chair's [55:18] mischaracterization of the legal issues and posture that impact your decisions at the witness table [55:25] today. Meanwhile, I was going to ask you a series of questions about things that are relevant right [55:35] now to the people of the United States about the state of public health in this country. Since [55:44] President Trump took office in 2025, more than 4,500 cases of measles have been reported. That is more [55:55] cases in the year and a half since Donald Trump has been president than were reported from 2000 to 2024 [56:04] combined. Children are dying because there has been increased vaccine hesitancy fueled by Robert F. [56:14] Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, and frankly, his entire administration. [56:22] Thousands of people in the United States of America have been sickened by a foodborne parasite, [56:30] and the outbreak is nowhere near under control, as staffing at the FDA and other critical public [56:39] health entities has been slashed by Russell Vogt and Elon Musk. Last year, the National Institutes of Health [56:49] awarded 200 and I think it's 201 fewer grants compared to the previous years. 207, I am corrected, [56:59] compared to previous years. As those grants were either canceled or delays, especially at the beginning [57:06] of the Trump administration, I can tell you, I can tell my colleagues what the impact was [57:12] on people in New Hampshire, on scientists in New Hampshire, on clinical trials in New Hampshire, [57:17] where people's cancer treatment was interrupted because Elon Musk and Russell Vogt know better, [57:26] they say, than the people at NIH about what to fund. And because they did some sort of word search, [57:34] it seems, for some of the grants, and boy oh boy, if you were studying rural health in New Hampshire and [57:41] trying to understand how to better engage people who need health care in rural America, that was off the [57:48] table. America is losing researchers and scientists to other countries because researchers and scientists, [58:02] highly trained, highly qualified, invested in often by the American taxpayer, are finding the hostility [58:11] from this administration so strong that it interferes with their science and they want to pursue [58:18] science wherever that science takes them. I also sit on the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. [58:30] We have had a number of hearings with nominees recently to fill critical spots. One of those nominees is Dr. [58:39] Erica Schwartz, a brilliant woman, medical degree, biomedical engineering degree. I think she also told us she has a [58:48] law degree and a master's in public health. She was a two-star admiral in the United States Navy, an experienced [58:56] doctor. And yet, when I asked her if she would push back at Secretary Kennedy, if he instructed her to [59:11] suspend the promotion of the flu vaccine as he did some point in the last few months, there's an email to [59:22] prove it. She couldn't answer that question. She either could not, would not, or had been bullied into [59:33] evading a question about whether she, as the director of CDC, would stand up to Secretary Kennedy, [59:42] the most unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services this country has ever seen, [59:48] and more than unqualified, somebody who pursues conspiracy theories, degrades people with [59:57] disabilities, and continues to promote disproved science. That's the state of health care and public [1:00:08] health in this country right now, not to mention the trillion dollars or so of cuts to the Medicaid [1:00:14] program that is decimating health care in my state and decimating it around the country, not to mention [1:00:20] the refusal of my colleagues and this administration to extend critical tax cuts for people who are [1:00:29] trying to afford insurance on the Affordable Care Act. I just was at one of my community health clinics, [1:00:37] and they are reporting fewer and fewer people coming in for care, disrupting care because they can no [1:00:44] longer afford health insurance. And that is impacting, of course, the revenue stream to the community [1:00:50] health clinic, their ability to hire and pay people, their ability to take care of their community. [1:00:57] That's what I wish we were having hearings about in this committee and in the health committee. [1:01:04] That's what I wish we were trying to address in a bipartisan way. But instead, we are here in an attempt [1:01:16] to entrap you because you had a distinguished career trying to put Americans' public health first. [1:01:27] With that, I yield. Senator Lackford. Chairman, thank you. [1:01:36] Dr. Fauci, thanks for coming today. I know you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right, [1:01:41] which you have the right to be able to do constitutionally, but thanks for coming to be a part of [1:01:45] this. There are a lot of issues and a lot of questions that have come up, and hopefully in some [1:01:51] day in the future, we'll be able to get all this clarity to be able to pull together. There were over [1:01:56] a million Americans that died from COVID. You know that well. You were tracking the numbers [1:02:01] literally every single day. Those affected and those that died from the earliest days. [1:02:09] There are a lot of lessons that we've got to learn from this that we should put into history to be able [1:02:13] to determine what happens in the future. How do we respond in the future? How do we deal with something [1:02:19] like this again? It was uncharted territory for everyone. But I would tell you countless families, [1:02:26] including my own, watched a loved one die behind glass or through a screen because we couldn't get [1:02:33] access to them. Children couldn't get to school. People missed their prom or graduation ceremonies. [1:02:42] There are lots of things that happened that dramatically changed the future of the country. The mental health [1:02:48] issues that we have continued to deal with from the isolation have been profound. Even something as [1:02:54] simple as children that wore masks or around adults wearing masks for all that time are slower in [1:03:00] learning language now because they couldn't watch someone's lips moving and so they're slower in that. [1:03:06] Amazingly enough, churches in places of worship were forced to be closed down. There were even [1:03:12] churches that met with a pastor preached in the parking lot and the congregants all met in their cars [1:03:18] with windows up and police came and scattered them and said, you can't be here. The simple act of social [1:03:27] distancing became an issue. As everyone guessed, what's the right distance to be away from someone else? [1:03:35] Literacy rates have declined. All these things are results, not to mention the loss of lives and the [1:03:41] health experiences that have been out there for many Americans. So there are legitimate questions. [1:03:46] I wanted to be able to raise some of those to be able to walk through some of this because it has been [1:03:51] very, very challenging. As we've gone through some of your notes and your diary and other things that [1:03:56] are out there, we're trying to be able to pull bits and pieces of things to be able to learn lessons. [1:04:01] On May the 6th, 2020, you wrote at that time, I had a conversation with Robert Redfield, as you know [1:04:10] well, was then the director of CDC, about the fact that greater than one million children worldwide have missed [1:04:17] their measles vaccination because of the shutdown. You stated this is terrible and needs to be addressed [1:04:25] since on that basis alone, there will be far, far, far more excess deaths from measles among children [1:04:33] than coronavirus deaths among children. I need to bring this up to the TF, the task force. Did you ever [1:04:40] have an opportunity to bring up the potential of measles deaths among children and infection rate going [1:04:47] around the world from measles based on the fact that so many children would not get their measles [1:04:52] vaccine because of the shutdown? I'm sorry, Senator, but on the advice of counsel, [1:04:57] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:05:03] That is your right to do. One of the big issues that's really coming up is on the lab issue. [1:05:09] This was greatly discussed about whether this came from a lab or whether this came from nature. There [1:05:16] are obvious issues and differences between the two to be able to know this. You had a lot of conversation [1:05:21] on this. Scientists around the world were in conversation on this. There were different statements [1:05:27] that you even made in your private notes and your public notes on it. In January the 26th of 2020, [1:05:32] this is before we had our even our first tragic death of coronavirus in the United States. You wrote, [1:05:39] it now appears using epi data that the genomic data, the first infection was in early December and was not [1:05:45] connected to the market, which was the big rumor that was out there. It was this wet market in China. [1:05:50] We know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier. On January the 31st, [1:05:55] you wrote about a phone call. You wrote, the people on the phone on the phone felt the mutations [1:06:01] around the furin cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally since it would [1:06:05] require an evolutionary jump that they found nowhere in bat isolates. They bring up the possibility this [1:06:11] could have been deliberately inserted and either accidentally released or deliberately released by a crazy [1:06:16] person in the lab, the former being the most likely. February the 1st, same year 2020. This is, again, still [1:06:26] before our first death. There was not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion. Ron said he [1:06:32] was he was sure that this could occur naturally and we should not waste our time and divert our effort to pursue [1:06:37] this. This is expected of him since he was the original gain of function person with Yoshi. Also Christian was [1:06:44] withdrawn. The rest felt deliberate insertion was possible and given the fact that Dr. Jing Ling Shi [1:06:51] at the University of Wuhan has been working for years and gain of function in coronaviruses to allow [1:06:57] adaptation of the spike protein to bind to the human H2 receptor, we could not let this go. That's a [1:07:01] remarkable statement for February the 1st of 2020 when there hadn't even been the first death here, [1:07:11] but we knew something was moving. You knew well that something was moving. You identified February the 1st [1:07:16] before any of us had ever heard of the Wuhan lab. Not only the Wuhan lab in the conversation, but literally [1:07:23] the scientist that you named in your own notes, the lead scientist that was there. It's interesting to me on [1:07:28] that and the questions I was going to ask you was just your background and knowledge about the Wuhan lab [1:07:34] and Dr. Shi and and all the details. I'm aware of where you have been on trying to be able to plead your [1:07:42] fifth minute right, which is your right to be able to do, but also want to be able to find out some facts [1:07:47] to be able to help us for the future on this. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in May of 2020 [1:07:54] put out a classified document that has only been recently unclassified on this that had this statement. [1:08:01] We assess all the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory modified coronavirus, [1:08:07] specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors were present at the Chinese Wuhan [1:08:13] Institute of Virology in mid to late 2019. Now the question that I have for you is this is May the 27th of 2020. [1:08:21] This is the report that most people will see is this. I have I have clearance. I serve on the intelligence committee. [1:08:30] I've actually read this complete document unredacted. My concern is were you given the ability to see this [1:08:37] document unredacted based on your position? Were you able to see this and to be able to get this information? [1:08:43] I could I could see it and I know what's here. Everybody else just has their conclusion at the beginning of it. [1:08:49] Not this. My question to you was going to be did you have access because it's important for the future [1:08:57] that people in your position do have access to this kind of information and insight. Is there any way you could answer [1:09:03] that question? Were you able to give access to this data on the advice of counsel? I respectfully decline to answer [1:09:11] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:09:14] You wrote on January the 26th of 2020. We should be allowed to send our CDC epidemiologists to China [1:09:25] to work with them so you could so they could see the data firsthand. You you also wrote in February 12th 2020 [1:09:35] that you had great concerns about the World Health Organization because there depends greatly on China [1:09:41] and as you stated often bows to them. This is a really important issue that we've got to resolve for the future. [1:09:49] It's not just our cooperation with Chinese scientists. It's our acknowledgement that China covered up their data [1:09:57] wouldn't allow our scientists to be able to come in. They cleaned up the wet market. They cleaned up the other areas. [1:10:04] They wouldn't allow you to get access to all the other scientists there, including their health records, [1:10:10] what happened to them, or even all the sequencing that they had done in advance. For the future of our [1:10:16] research and our cooperation with any scientists around the world, I think it's really important [1:10:23] that we resolve if we're going to fund research and cooperate with you, we've got to have certain [1:10:27] things from you. If things go sideways, we've got to have access to all information in all places. [1:10:34] You were noting not only that China was affecting the World Health Organization and that China was [1:10:40] bending them to their will, and so the World Health Organization was putting out data that you saw, [1:10:45] at least at that point, as being from a Chinese perspective covering up what was going on, [1:10:50] but you also noted we weren't able to get access to all this information. We've got to be able to figure [1:10:55] this out for the future to be able to make sure that research that is done, we have access to all [1:11:00] information if something goes sideways at some point, which clearly it did at the Wuhan Institute of [1:11:05] Virology, and that being, as was noted by many people, the only lab in the world that was doing [1:11:11] research like this that had a lower standard of actually their security standards there than many [1:11:17] other labs around the world, yet they were doing this very dangerous research. What can we gain, [1:11:23] and what advice could you give us to say in a future setting, we've got to make sure that we [1:11:28] actually get information from people and we can be guaranteed that we're going to get that insight? [1:11:36] Yes, sir. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [1:11:42] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. I yield back. Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:51] I want to go back to the dark days of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the darkest days or times in our [1:12:04] history. Hospitals were overflowing. Navy medical ships were docked in the Hudson River. Emergency rooms [1:12:11] were forced into unprecedented triaging. During the worst week of the pandemic, which happens to have been [1:12:20] the last week of President Trump's first term, more than 25,000 Americans died of COVID-19. [1:12:30] Easy to forget those dark days. But for the past 18 months, the Trump administration has been engaged [1:12:37] in a campaign to rewrite this history. And today's proceeding, I fear, is part of that effort. One [1:12:47] of the darkest days in our Senate's history. The Trump administration has launched a baseless [1:12:55] set of smears against vaccines that help pull us out of that public health crisis. Vaccines that are [1:13:02] undoubtedly President Trump's greatest accomplishment. It has slashed funding to local public health [1:13:11] departments that were on the front lines of the pandemic. And those health care workers are heroes. [1:13:20] It has disparaged those heroes as woke or wasteful. And it has used a politicized Department of Justice [1:13:31] to target the researchers who helped us track and understand the novel virus. Today's hearing is [1:13:39] another page in that playbook. Sadly, tragically. Dr. Fauci, you spent five decades in public service, including [1:13:51] nearly four decades in leadership at the National Institutes of Health, helping to conquer COVID-19, [1:14:00] but also HIV, swine flu, Zika, Ebola, and other epidemics with real life results, saving human lives. [1:14:14] Put aside all the flowery rhetoric that we hear in the United States Senate, Dr. Fauci has saved lives, [1:14:25] as have public health officials in the United States and throughout the world. And today, [1:14:32] we are demeaning and degrading their life-saving service. Republicans are eager to rebrand you as a [1:14:42] villain in order to distract from their own failure to protect Americans from soaring health care costs. [1:14:50] They've been rising astronomically in the last couple of years, and from unsafe food, [1:14:59] which has caused cyclospora to spread, and resurgent measles as a result of the anti-vaccine policy. [1:15:09] This hearing is the culmination of a years-long crusade, which started more than six years ago, [1:15:17] when Dr. Fauci dared to contradict President Trump. The campaign to vilify you, Dr. Fauci, is just one [1:15:27] part of this larger campaign against science and facts, a campaign that has made Americans less safe. [1:15:35] It is shameful that in a country like ours, a dedicated public service like Dr. Fauci has [1:15:43] experienced persistent threats to his life since the pandemic because of the lies that are told about [1:15:50] him. His attorney has been gagged, thrown out of this hearing room, but he has written a letter to the [1:16:04] chairman that is an explanation for the reasons why Dr. Fauci is, in fact, invoking his constitutional [1:16:14] right. It is a right. And I would ask that this letter from David Shurtler and Danny Onato be made part of [1:16:22] the record if there's no objection. Without objection. [1:16:27] Mr. Fauci has been made part of the record. [1:16:31] His attorney has also issued a statement within the last half hour, I believe, that sets forth, [1:16:39] again, the reasons that he is here to help protect his clients' rights. And I would ask that that [1:16:47] statement be made part of the record as well, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:49] Without objection. [1:16:51] Let's be very clear. The Fifth Amendment is a right of everyone appearing before an authority like this one. [1:17:02] It should be respected. And the reason that Dr. Fauci has invoked it in the words of his attorney, [1:17:19] quote, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci appeared at least a dozen times for [1:17:29] congressional hearings in the Senate alone in answer to questions about the very issues [1:17:34] on which you purport to seek information. He has been thoroughly transparent and consistent in providing [1:17:40] factual information to Congress, and he is deeply familiar with the processes and protocols of [1:17:45] sharing information with the legislative branch. And then referring to the chairman, [1:17:52] this years-long public crusade against Dr. Fauci makes one thing clear. This is not a serious effort [1:17:58] to seek information from Dr. Fauci in a transcribed interview for a valid legislative purpose. You are [1:18:05] single-mindedly fixated on Dr. Fauci, seeing Dr. Fauci prosecuted for imaginary crimes, and you are so [1:18:15] invested in that outcome that you have created a personal brand around it. Those are the words of [1:18:24] his attorney. And he cites as well the statements of the chairman, which indicate a clear intent [1:18:38] that the result of this proceeding be a prosecution. Quote, the power of some of us must be used for good, [1:18:52] like putting Fauci in jail. That's from December 23, 2025. I want to give him a subpoena and a jail cell, [1:19:03] also from December of 2025. The first was 2024. Those kinds of statements by the chairman of a committee [1:19:15] in tweets certainly provide a well-founded fear that the proceeding underway is simply an effort to trap [1:19:26] Dr. Fauci in some kind of criminal wrongdoing. That is not the purpose of a congressional hearing, [1:19:35] not the valid purpose of a congressional hearing. During some of the dark days in this body, [1:19:45] under Senator Joe McCarthy, it became standard operating procedure to seek that kind of prosecutorial [1:19:55] objective. We should not be part of a rerun of that kind of effort. This attempt to rebrand one of the [1:20:06] most challenging times in our nation's history is a short-sighted act of desperation that will leave us [1:20:12] less prepared for the next pandemic. It is an insult to the memory of more than one million Americans [1:20:22] who died from COVID-19. If there are valid scientific questions about the origins of this pandemic, [1:20:33] COVID-19, about the kinds of steps that were taken to counter it, about the need for more preparation, [1:20:43] they should certainly be addressed, but not in a show trial, not as part of a continuing vendetta [1:20:52] against a single individual. And unfortunately, I fear that is what we are seeing today. America [1:21:01] deserves better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In no courtroom in America can you have your witness plead the Fifth [1:21:09] Amendment and then your attorney gets to testify? That's what that letter is. The attorney's complaining [1:21:14] and testifying, saying, he didn't do it. The prosecution's unfair. You don't get to do that. [1:21:19] That's one thing you give up when you take the Fifth Amendment. You say, I'm not going to testify. [1:21:23] I'm not going to give you any information. You don't then get to put your lawyer forward to justify it. [1:21:28] He can do it in the press, but you can't come and testify. He was not invited to testify, [1:21:33] and he was out of order, and it was appropriate to have him injected. Senator- Chairman Paul, [1:21:41] thank you for doing this. I think, I know in my state, people have been asking questions about [1:21:45] Dr. Fauci for years. So, Dr. Fauci, your entry has made clear that you love being a hero, a celebrity, [1:21:54] and you're having the eyes of the world upon you. You loved every newspaper profile, every photo shoot, [1:21:59] every fancy dinner with the elites. To many Americans who lost family members, who lost trust in our [1:22:05] federal government, you're not a hero. Unfortunately, you're a villain. You made yourself the story and [1:22:11] abandoned the American people to serve your own ego. To begin, I would like to talk about your [1:22:16] relationship with David Moritz. He was the senior advisor in the NIAID Office of the Director, your [1:22:22] office, for 16 years. He was your friend. He was a frequent guest at your house. You reportedly [1:22:28] co-offered over 50 scientific articles with him. You turned to him first, right after COVID-19 first [1:22:35] occurred. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice charged him with conspiracy against the [1:22:40] United States, in addition to other charges, as part of a conspiracy to conceal information [1:22:45] and falsify records to suppress alternative theories about the origins of COVID-19. Now, [1:22:51] you've publicly ticked this man to the curb, saying, Dr. Moritz was not an advisor to me on [1:22:58] institute policy or other substantive issues. So, let's start with the use of personal Gmail accounts [1:23:04] and David Moritz's relationship with Peter Daszak. David Moritz tells Peter Daszak, President of [1:23:10] Equal Alliance, and you've got this in front of you, it's Exhibit 1, and it's in, it's already in the [1:23:15] record as part of this. It says, quote, P.S. I forgot to say that there is no worry about FOIA. I can [1:23:23] either send stuff to Tony on his private Gmail or hand it to him at work or as house. He is too smart to [1:23:31] let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble. Dr. Fauci, did Dr. Moritz's relationship with [1:23:38] Peter Daszak concern you? Yes or no? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based [1:23:46] upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did David Moritz ever bring documents [1:23:52] to your house? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my [1:23:59] rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did you ever receive a text about your work at NIAID [1:24:05] to your personal cell phone? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my [1:24:12] rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did you maintain a personal email account while [1:24:31] serving as director? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my [1:24:38] rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did you ever receive work-related communications on [1:24:43] that Gmail account from David Moritz? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based [1:24:50] upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did you preserve any work-related [1:24:55] communications on that Gmail account from David Moritz? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer [1:25:02] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did David Moritz ever provide [1:25:07] you with documents outside of those two ways that would violate NIH policy for four-year compliance? [1:25:12] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [1:25:20] to the Constitution. Now let's look at two other communications. You emailed David Moritz on January 26, [1:25:28] 2020, quote, it is important that I speak with you tonight. Please call me at home. This is part of [1:25:34] Exhibit 2 that you have in front of you. This email is sent the same day, the exact same day you write in an [1:25:40] internal document. Quote, now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier, unquote. [1:25:48] Would you call the origins of COVID-19 a substantive issue? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline [1:25:57] to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Did you discuss COVID-19 [1:26:03] origins with David Moritz on this phone call? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer [1:26:11] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:26:15] Now let's take a closer look at the last time you testified before Congress. [1:26:20] This is part of what you have in front of you is Exhibit 4, which is part of the record. In June 2024, [1:26:25] you testified to Dr. Moritz, quote, was not an advisor to me on institute policy or other substantive issues. [1:26:33] Furthermore, his office is located in a different building from that of the NIAID director, unquote. [1:26:39] Is that still your testimony today? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based [1:26:45] upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. So today, under oath, your testimony [1:26:50] remains that Dr. Moritz was not an advisor to you on institute policy or substantive matters. On the [1:26:58] advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to [1:27:02] the Constitution. I've got Exhibit 5, which you have in front of you. On October 24, 2021, David Moritz texted [1:27:10] you to provide information about and advocate for the controversial EcoHealth Alliance grant. [1:27:15] You thank him and tell him that you will check the information. Would you agree that this shows [1:27:20] an advisory relationship between David Moritz and yourself? On the advice of counsel, [1:27:25] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:27:31] Would you agree that you two were discussing a substantive issue? On the advice of counsel, [1:27:38] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:27:43] If you deleted, destroyed, destroyed, or the Constitution. If documentary evidence establishes [1:27:45] that Dr. Moritz advised you regarding EcoHealth Alliance, COVID origins, or grant policy, [1:27:50] then your June 2024 testimony would have been inaccurate, correct? [1:27:53] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:27:59] Amendment to the Constitution. Is there any document in your possession today that would [1:28:03] contradict your prior congressional testimony? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to [1:28:10] answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:28:13] Dr. Moritz, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to [1:28:27] the Constitution. Are you aware of anyone who did? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to [1:28:35] answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As you know, Dr. Moritz now faces [1:28:41] charges related to destroying records while you distance yourself from him. Is that fair to a decades-long friend? [1:28:47] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:28:53] Amendment to the Constitution. When is the last time you spoke to him? [1:28:56] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [1:29:04] to the Constitution. In hindsight, are you disappointed in how you handled COVID? Do you have any regrets? [1:29:10] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to [1:29:17] the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, I want to close with this. Here's how you impacted my family and people [1:29:23] close to me. I have daughters with children. You can't imagine the questions they had around vaccines for [1:29:28] their kids and themselves and the pressure, the unbelievable pressure, to make the right decision for [1:29:33] their health. I can tell you pregnant women who worked with me were so scared because every time they went to the [1:29:39] doctor, they were told something different about taking the vaccine and you caused this. Imagine being a mom [1:29:45] trying to protect their kids or an expectant mother trying to figure out what to do. Every three weeks, a doctor [1:29:51] tells you a new set of guidance on a vaccine. The haphazard information you released and pushed on the American [1:29:56] people with little research is appalling and why there are so little there's there's so much distrust in our [1:30:03] institutions today. That trust is crucial to public health and you, more than any person or event in my [1:30:09] lifetime, have destroyed that trust for millions of Americans. You lied to hundreds of millions of [1:30:14] people amid the worst public health crisis in its century. You failed to follow your own guidance. You [1:30:21] forced people to watch their loved ones die alone over the phone. It's disgusting. You destroyed the federal [1:30:26] government's credibility when it comes to public health. We have entire generations of Americans who rightfully [1:30:31] so do not trust our institution to keep people safe because of you. This has destroyed decades of [1:30:37] progress and lifetimes of work because you wanted to fuel your own ego and be the center of attention. [1:30:43] What would you do differently knowing what you know today, Dr. Fauci? [1:30:46] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:30:52] Amendment to the Constitution. All the evidence is right here and you still can't bring yourself to tell [1:30:57] the truth or apologize because you received an auto-pinned pardon from a staffer in the Biden White House. [1:31:03] If we have another pandemic tomorrow, millions could die because of what you did. What you did to make [1:31:07] Americans lose trust in their government when it comes to medicine and health care. How many families [1:31:13] have you apologized to had to watch their loved ones die alone? You breached public trust and now you're [1:31:19] hiding behind a fraudulent pardon. Your legacy will not be as a man that saved America from COVID, [1:31:24] but as a man who destroyed the public trust in America's public health institutions in exchange for [1:31:28] five minutes of fame. This is how history will remember you. I yield back. Senator Kim. [1:31:41] Thank you, Dr. Fauci for coming on out in front of this committee. I know it's not what you would [1:31:49] want. It's not what you deserve. I just want to say and start by just saying thank you to you for your [1:31:58] service to this nation. I didn't know much about you prior to the pandemic. I came to learn about you [1:32:09] from how many Americans did, but I also had the opportunity to talk to you and engage with you [1:32:13] as someone who is a member of the select committee on the coronavirus crisis over in the House of [1:32:18] Representatives. When I learned about your background, 38 years as the director of the National Institute of [1:32:26] Allergy and Infectious Disease, appointed by President Reagan, served under seven presidents, [1:32:34] four Republicans and three Democrats. I admire that greatly. I myself had a chance to serve [1:32:43] in the executive branch serving government under both a Republican president and a Democratic president. [1:32:50] And I believe that we need more of that, more of that type of work, a place where we can understand [1:32:57] our jobs not as coming from a place of partisanship and politics, but that of just public service. [1:33:06] And right now, I feel the hyper partisanship growing in this country in dangerous ways. [1:33:11] I feel it much more present here on the Hill than I did back when I served as a nonpartisan career [1:33:17] public servant at the State Department. And I worry about it. I worry about what kind of trajectory [1:33:24] we're on as a country and what this causes when it comes next for public service and those willing [1:33:31] to step up for our nation. And it's not just in the attacks, but we see it brought out with the cuts [1:33:40] to funding, to the firing of federal workers, to the demonization of their motivations, people calling [1:33:48] our public servants criminals, thinking that they are there solely to undermine others that are trying to [1:33:56] engage. I look at it right now. You know, it's not just that the people are being attacked, [1:34:04] our public servants being attacked, but that it's undermining the very nature of the work of [1:34:09] governance. You know, these cuts to HHS funding, to NIH funding, to the grants, cuts to the researchers [1:34:18] doing the critical work to find cures and medicines. These firing, these cuts, they're creating a chilling [1:34:25] effect, honestly, a chilling effect for the next generation of people who might consider stepping [1:34:32] up to serve our nation, to be the next generation of researchers who now are wondering whether or not [1:34:39] this is the right thing for them to do at a time when they see some of their colleagues or those that [1:34:46] they looked up to being attacked, their funding being cut. Researchers that I talked to who are now [1:34:53] either leaving the country or considering leaving the country to do their work because of the sheer [1:34:58] unpredictability of America, that this nation so great, so powerful, has now been crippled with [1:35:07] this sense of unpredictability and unreliability. That is not the type of country that I hope we strive to be. [1:35:16] I've raised this because these attacks upon Dr. Fauci, it's not just about him. It's sending signals to [1:35:23] others, others who are thinking about serving our country, our scientists, our doctors, our healthcare [1:35:29] professionals, our researchers, trying to show to them that if you don't get in line with the politics [1:35:36] that you will also potentially be subject to attacks. And from the work that he has done from HIV, [1:35:46] AIDS, to Ebola, to COVID, you know, we've seen him try to engage in these crises. They're not easy, [1:35:53] especially when it's a novel disease, when you don't know what comes next. A lot of unknowns having [1:35:59] to make decisions without the full breadth of knowledge we always wish we had in hindsight. But [1:36:04] there is nothing perfect, no perfect clarity when it comes to pandemics, when it comes to crises. [1:36:10] I worked in national security and wars and crises. I made judgment calls, gave my best advice to generals, [1:36:17] to ambassadors, even to a president. Did I get it all right? No. Did I do my best? I did everything [1:36:25] I thought I could with the information that I had. The public servants, they do this work [1:36:33] because they love this country and that they strive to improve it. It's not an easy job, but it is [1:36:41] because there is so much at stake in our country. But these public servants do it because they are in the [1:36:48] arena. I just want to end by just reading a portion of this because I think it's important as we're [1:36:56] thinking about how to be able to treat public servants to this country to think through this. [1:37:03] And in the words of Teddy Roosevelt saying, it's not the critic who counts, [1:37:07] not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done [1:37:12] them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and [1:37:19] sweat and blood, who strive valiantly, who errors but comes short again and again, [1:37:25] who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumphs of high [1:37:30] achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his [1:37:36] place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Thank you for [1:37:43] your service, Dr. Fauci. I yield back. Senator Holling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:37:50] Well, nothing says honesty like taking the fifth, huh, Doc? Let's try something. [1:37:55] What day of the week is it today? On the advice of counsel, [1:38:03] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:38:08] What color tie are you wearing? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline [1:38:14] to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:38:18] What color is the carpet in front of you? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline [1:38:27] to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:38:31] Let's just get one thing straight. You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment, [1:38:34] because you've been pardoned. As you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for [1:38:39] a century and more, Brown versus Walker, 1896, when he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his [1:38:46] privilege. You know that. Your lawyers sitting behind you now shifting nervously in their chairs, [1:38:51] they know it. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the law. This is about contempt. [1:38:56] Contempt for this body and contempt for the American people. But I think I know why you're [1:39:01] doing it. It's because you don't want to answer questions. It's because you did all kinds of [1:39:08] terrible things. It's because during the pandemic, you got rich, didn't you? You got rich while people [1:39:14] were dying, hundreds of thousands of Americans, over a million in the end, and you were getting rich. [1:39:20] And not only were you doing that, you were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply [1:39:26] for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars. [1:39:35] You did all of that during the pandemic, didn't you? That's a question. [1:39:40] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [1:39:46] to the Constitution. You remember Greg Folkers? Who was that? [1:39:52] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:39:56] Amendment to the Constitution. Your chief of staff is the answer. Do you remember Patricia Conrad? Who [1:40:01] was that? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the [1:40:08] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Uh-huh. She was your personal assistant. And what were these [1:40:12] individuals doing in the depth of the pandemic? In November of 2020, when millions of Americans were [1:40:18] suffering from COVID, what were they doing? I'll tell you what they're doing. Folkers was on your behalf [1:40:25] soliciting and gathering information for a cash award. Let's look at it. We've got his email right here, [1:40:31] right over my shoulder. Folkers says, I'm working on this nomination for the Dan David Award for Fauci. We [1:40:36] need to beef up the COVID part. Do you have language in the can that you could share that delineates how [1:40:42] we responded in new ways to COVID? He sends this to multiple federal employees. What was the Dan David [1:40:48] Award? Do you remember, Doc? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights [1:40:55] under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It was a $900,000 cash award. $900,000 cash award. And he got it [1:41:08] because he used federal employees to get it. And this wasn't the only award, was it, Dr. Fauci? In fact, [1:41:15] you applied for and received at least eight other federal cash prizes on federal time using federal [1:41:22] employees and federal resources. Here they are over my shoulder. Besides the Dan David Award, [1:41:28] you've got the Partnership for Public Service. You've got the Adelson Prize. You've got the Smithsonian [1:41:32] Award. You've got the National Academy of Medicine Award. You've got the CDC Foundation. In fact, [1:41:36] you turned your staff into a full-time application machine. You actually wrote to people and said, [1:41:43] do you think maybe I'd qualify? And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, [1:41:50] was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources [1:41:58] to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon [1:42:06] my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Here they are right over my shoulder. Here's all of [1:42:10] them. The people that you use, federal employees, so that you could go and get cash money. And the most [1:42:18] hilarious part is that you weren't content to even dragoon them into applying for all of these cash [1:42:23] awards. You then had them go out to the ethics agencies and ethics watchdogs and demand that you be [1:42:30] able to get the money. That's right. We've got it in your emails. Your staff and employees on federal [1:42:39] time using federal resources being paid with federal dollars are soliciting cash for you. And then they're [1:42:45] turning around and saying to the agency, we don't want just an answer. We want to get to yes. Because [1:42:50] Fauci wants the money. He wants it. We want to get to yes. And yes takes time. This is your chief of [1:42:58] staff again using federal email to pressure the agency's own ethics people so that you could get [1:43:06] money, so that you could get rich. And it violated the law, didn't it, Dr. Fauci? Didn't it? It violated [1:43:16] the law, didn't it? It is a question you can answer. Go ahead. On the advice of counsel, [1:43:23] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:43:28] Federal law, as you very well know, prohibits the solicitation of cash awards or other [1:43:34] personal benefits for federal employees. And it certainly prohibits using your own employees to do [1:43:41] this. 5 CFR Section 2635205B. It says it right there in black and white. You cannot use federal [1:43:51] resources, federal dollars, federal employees, federal offices, federal email, federal time to solicit cash [1:43:59] awards. And you did all of it. And the worst part is thousands of people were dying while you were doing it. [1:44:04] You were supposed to be the nation's doctor and you're playing one on TV. But this is what you [1:44:09] were doing with your time. Isn't that true? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer [1:44:18] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Yeah. Yeah, I can see why. [1:44:24] I can certainly see why. You know what I can't quite figure out is that why you were so obsessed with it, [1:44:29] because you're already rich. I mean, and your your scheme worked here. I mean, [1:44:33] your net worth now is north of 12 million dollars. You got over a million dollars in cash awards during [1:44:41] COVID during a 12 month, 24 month span during COVID. A million bucks you knocked down in cash money [1:44:50] using federal resources. Now you're worth more than 12 million dollars. You've got a pension that in its [1:44:55] first year paid out north of $400,000 a year. A million people dead. You're getting rich. A million [1:45:04] people dead. You're using federal employees to get cash awards for you. A million people dead. And you're [1:45:10] here taking the fifth because you don't want to admit that what really happened in all that time [1:45:15] was a multi-month, multi-year course of self dealing. Isn't that true, Dr. Fauci? On the advice [1:45:24] of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the [1:45:29] Constitution. Yeah, we'll silence his admission. And here's the real thing. At the end of the day, [1:45:35] it wasn't just about the money really, was it? It was really about a power trip. I mean, through all of [1:45:40] this, you want to be the most famous scientist in the world. You were so focused on getting every award and [1:45:46] every drop of cash that you could, all because you wanted to be on TV. You wanted to be the sun god of [1:45:52] science. You wanted to be the guy who was in charge of it all. You wanted to blambass Trump. You wanted [1:45:57] to make sure that nobody else stole your spotlight. You wanted to be the guy. You had time to sit for [1:46:04] InStyle Magazine. Here's what you were doing with your time. You could sit for InStyle Magazine, [1:46:10] but you can't answer questions for the American people. You could sit for InStyle Magazine, but you're here [1:46:16] taking the Fifth. You could sit for InStyle Magazine and get a million bucks in cash awards. [1:46:22] But now the cat's got your tongue. I bet he does. I tell you what, here's my conclusion from all of this. [1:46:29] This was really all about you the whole time. Somewhere along the way, you lost your way. [1:46:33] You may have been a good public servant at one time. I don't know. But what I can tell you from [1:46:38] reading your emails now, from looking at what you did, how you used your employees, somewhere along the [1:46:43] line, it became all about you. You became a narcissist and a megalomaniac and a liar. [1:46:50] And you've lied to the American people. And you've lied to this body. And you've disgraced your [1:46:55] profession by doing it. You called yourself the most famous scientist in the world. You've done more [1:46:59] to harm science than anybody in my lifetime. And I hope you'll go home and write that in your diary. [1:47:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:47:13] Dr. Fauci, I'm not here to perhaps attack you or defend or anything. It's really just more, [1:47:22] honestly, I just want to acknowledge I have had members of my family die from COVID. And now I also [1:47:30] grieve for people that I've met that have lost their business through the pandemic. And they'll never [1:47:37] been the same. Now, as during the pandemic, I was the lieutenant governor. So we were in the middle of [1:47:45] of all of that maelstrom, trying to find the right balance between protect life and protect the [1:47:52] economics and for all of it. And I'm not sure if we got it all right or wrong. But without a doubt, [1:47:59] I can continue to question myself. But one that I it's not about much more your regrets, but I have one. [1:48:07] And that is early on that there was the theory that the virus could have emerged from the lab. [1:48:16] And early on, that became like a right wing kinds of theory. And I thought it seemed to make sense. [1:48:25] Now, there was a really advanced lab that was close by. And then you have this unknown virus out. [1:48:33] So but that became a very partisan thing. And now it seems now it's more and more emerging theory that [1:48:42] that would have come from from the lab. Now, you know, I hope I think that the next time our nation's [1:48:49] facing something like this, we are not become, you know, as I might have been blinded by the partisan idea that [1:48:56] maybe the truth might come from a side that's different than than you are. But I think we should [1:49:02] really be willing to pursue truth, no matter where that may have emerged, you know, after for all of [1:49:09] that. So and I now see the remain back to the chair. Thank you, Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:49:18] And I will echo Senator Johnson's comments about your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I think it was [1:49:23] it was dead on. Very, very well done. Mr. Fauci, do you know who David Shurtler is? [1:49:29] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [1:49:37] to the Constitution. Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. What does the Fifth Amendment [1:49:44] of the Constitution say? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights [1:49:58] under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. No, I'm just asking you what it says. [1:50:02] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:50:08] Amendment to the Constitution. I'm going to give the Constitution to my aide. He'll bring it over [1:50:13] to you so you can have it for future reference. I think it's something that every American should [1:50:18] know what the Constitution says. Do you know who wrote the Fifth Amendment? On the advice of counsel, [1:50:24] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights on the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. So [1:50:29] you're invoking a right that you don't know who wrote it or what it says. Is that correct? [1:50:33] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:50:39] Amendment to the Constitution. Wow. Well, let me tell you who David Shurtler is for the audience [1:50:45] because he was ejected by the chairman. He's a high-profile criminal attorney. He's represented [1:50:52] some really great people like Senator Bob Menendez. Maybe that's somebody who my Democrat colleagues [1:50:58] may remember took gold bars as bribes from the Egyptians. And there's an article here in the [1:51:07] Washington Free Beacon that talks about why you would hire Guy Lake-Divers Shurtler. And the comment [1:51:13] is, if you're in deep shit, that's who you call. Do you feel like you're in deep shit? On the advice of [1:51:20] counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:51:25] Clearly, what you think today is that somehow you're above reproach. Somehow you feel like you [1:51:37] don't need to be treated like a normal American. Can you do me a favor in the audience and stand up if [1:51:48] during the time of the COVID pandemic you were called a racist for calling the virus a Wuhan virus or the [1:51:57] China virus. If you thought the six-foot rule was total crap, if you thought the vaccine wasn't [1:52:03] something that you should take, if you thought it was outrageous the way the mass policy was rolled out, [1:52:09] if you were fired from your job for not taking that vaccine, including members of the military, [1:52:15] if you thought closing schools was catastrophically stupid, and that you thought that during these times [1:52:23] saying these things made you somehow a lesser human being. Dr. Frederick, can you just turn around [1:52:32] and look at the people behind you? You're not willing to do that? Is that a question? It's not a question [1:52:42] to your lawyers. It's not a question. It's a request. All you have to do is look up from your lawyers [1:52:50] and look at the people who were absolutely shamed for saying what we know now to be the truth. [1:52:58] You can't even look at them? That's a question. Are you able to look at them? You can sit down in the [1:53:06] audience. There was a mom in Ohio during the depth of the coronavirus pandemic, decided to go to her [1:53:24] high school football game for her son. They hadn't been out much. The kids had been learning at school, [1:53:34] and then the school got shut down. They hadn't really gotten much out of that education. As any parent [1:53:41] knew, that remote learning was no learning at all. But it was a Friday night. Her son wanted to go [1:53:49] watch a buddy go play football. So they went to the stadium. They sat alone, far from everybody else, [1:53:57] just a mom, a dad, a few kids. They didn't feel they needed to wear masks because it was stupid, [1:54:06] because they were outside. They all live together. They're not near anybody. Dr. Fauci, [1:54:16] do you know what happened to that mom and that family? That's a question. On the advice of counsel, [1:54:23] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:54:29] They were dragged out of that stadium and arrested. Those policies were put in place [1:54:43] because you had moronic politicians that listened to the words of a megalomaniac [1:54:50] who was more interested in having met a Kardashian than the suffering of the American people. And that [1:54:57] is you. Your advice to communities like that, to idiotic politicians who enforce those rules, [1:55:10] arrested that mom for watching a football game with her own family outside. When that story broke, [1:55:22] I said to myself, I cannot stand Ilee on the side and watch this happen. It was about six years ago today [1:55:31] that I decided I'm going to give up my businesses, sell them all, run for office, run for the United [1:55:37] States Senate. Here I am sitting in front of you six years later saying, who the fuck do you think [1:55:42] you were for doing that? It is a total disgrace what you did to this country. And if my Democrat [1:55:51] colleagues are standing there defending you, I hope the voters of the United States of America watch the [1:55:57] clips of every one of you doting on a guy who is more interested in being a celebrity than saving American [1:56:05] people. I will make it my mission to make certain that every single one of those republic Democrats [1:56:15] who did that will see that clip over and over and over again because defending there is no defense of [1:56:25] what you did. You may have had a 50 plus year legacy of public service, but it ends in total and complete [1:56:37] disgrace. So let me ask you an opportunity to answer one question. Will you apologize, just apologize [1:56:49] to the people who you harmed through your actions? Will you say, do you have the dignity to just say you're [1:56:58] sorry? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [1:57:07] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. So you won't apologize to the military members who Joe Biden [1:57:12] is summerly dismissed from the military for not taking the vaccine? On the advice of counsel, [1:57:19] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:57:24] Will you apologize to the business owners that lost their business, shattered their lives, [1:57:29] and they'll never recover? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my [1:57:35] rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Will you apologize to the moms who had to force [1:57:41] their infant children, two, three, four-year-olds, to put masks on and what that did and how that [1:57:47] traumatized those kids? Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Will you apologize to the family [1:57:58] members of the people who died because they took your advice and not only got the first vaccine, [1:58:04] but the five, six other boosters that they did not need? To answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [1:58:15] Amendment to the Constitution. Will you apologize to that mom from Ohio for being arrested for watching [1:58:22] a football game with her family? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. So you didn't know who wrote [1:58:35] the Fifth Amendment? It's James Madison, lived in this town. I can only wonder what he would think [1:58:46] of somebody like you invoking his writings to shield culpability for the actions that you took. It's no secret [1:58:58] why you have to hire the biggest dirtbag attorney on the planet because of what you did. I hope you're [1:59:06] paying him well. And I hope that one way or the other, somewhere, sometime, you answer for your crimes. [1:59:14] Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. Dr. Fauci, Americans [1:59:27] haven't forgotten the tragic stories of people who lost loved ones during COVID and those that were [1:59:36] denied a chance to say goodbye to their family members that were in hospitals or residing in nursing [1:59:45] homes because of the COVID-19 protocols. Americans haven't forgotten the mandates, [1:59:52] the adverse reactions to vaccines, the government misinformation, social media censorship, [2:00:01] hotlines to tattle on their neighbors, the forced school closures, the tragic rise in suicides, [2:00:14] or those businesses that were forced to close during lockdowns. Americans haven't forgotten the hundreds of [2:00:24] billions of billions of dollars spent by taxpayers for COVID relief stolen by fraudsters who bought Royals, [2:00:37] excuse me, Rolls, Royces, and yachts. These were taxpayer dollars. Americans have lost trust in science [2:00:48] and government after the COVID response. Trust which will be incredibly difficult for us to gain back. [2:00:58] Dr. Fauci, you said that the science was evolving and that your recommendations evolved with it. [2:01:06] But Americans remember you as the public face of the coronavirus response. As one of the nation's most [2:01:18] trusted voices, you urged policies you said were absolutely necessary, [2:01:26] even when those policies came at an enormous human and economic cost. And Americans deserve answers [2:01:37] about reports that you may have worked with others to pressure the president into adopting the slow the [2:01:47] spread strategy and why you later sought an unconditional pardon for crimes you may have committed dating back [2:01:55] to 2014. Dr. Fauci, in 2022, you had a taxpayer-funded salary of $480,000 a year. You were, in fact, [2:02:09] the highest paid federal employee in the entire federal government, even making more than the NIH director [2:02:18] and the president of the United States. According to now public documents, that was due in large part to your [2:02:28] work on biodefense. Unreported is how NIAID spent over $1 billion from 2009 to 2026 in biodefense and [2:02:42] influence of federal contracts and subcontracts. My office uncovered records on usaspending.gov that show [2:02:51] from 2015 to 2020 NIAID paid out $515,418 in subcontracts to Harbin Veterinary Institute in Harbin, China, [2:03:06] including $100,000 a few days after it opened a BSL-4 biolab in 2018. That very same institute was [2:03:18] criticized for doing gain-of-function bird flu research in 2013. And yet you were funding them [2:03:27] for years after that, sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to China. These contracts, which we also trace to NIAID, [2:03:37] show U.S. taxpayers funded gain-of-function researchers in the Netherlands and in Wisconsin, [2:03:44] funding the same folks whose controversial work led President Obama to pause this exact type of [2:03:51] dangerous pandemic research. Dr. Fauci, did you know that the NIH's billion-dollar Sears contract programs [2:04:03] were funding gain-of-function researchers in China, the U.S., and in the Netherlands? [2:04:11] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [2:04:19] to the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx wrote in her book that you and President Obama's former CDC [2:04:31] director were at a Saturday, March 14th, were at a Saturday, March 14th, yes, 2020 meeting at her home [2:04:42] two days before the president announced his 15 days to slow the spread effort. Your now-release [2:04:49] diary said the meeting was a week before that. Dr. Birx said you all were trying to trap the president [2:04:57] into having no other options. She wrote, your plan was to, quote, block any of the president's escape [2:05:06] routes. So, quote, he'd have no choice but to agree to our flatten the curve measures. Yes or no, [2:05:15] Dr. Fauci, did you try to block or trap President Trump into the slow the spread flatten the curve measures [2:05:25] in March 2020? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:05:31] rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. When the COVID-19 virus broke out in Wuhan, China, [2:05:39] you, Dr. Fauci, knew pretty much right away that NIH had funded Chinese labs, including those doing [2:05:46] coronavirus research. There's email traffic from early January 2020 where your staff was flagging for you [2:05:54] that NIH funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab through EcoHealth Alliance. Yet, few Americans [2:06:02] knew we funded the Wuhan lab because the funding went through a sub-award and was not reported to the [2:06:09] public database like usaspending.gov as it should have been. Also, EcoHealth violated federal law by failing [2:06:19] to report in its research papers how much taxpayer funding it spent on that research. At my request, [2:06:27] the Government Accountability Office helped track down that 1.4 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money [2:06:34] that was sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, both by you, Dr. Fauci, and through USAID. But first, [2:06:42] it passed through EcoHealth Alliance, which I helped to get defunded through the NDAA. Dr. Fauci, [2:06:50] did you intentionally use sub-award funding to obscure NIH funding of Chinese bio labs and coronavirus [2:06:58] research? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [2:07:05] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. NIAID awarded multi-million dollar grants to a number of scientists [2:07:13] shortly after they wrote publicly in the proximal origins paper that the COVID virus likely came [2:07:20] from nature. Though documents Chairman Paul released last week show in private, those same scientists [2:07:27] were much more open to the virus being from a lab. In 2023, Representative Jordan insinuated that you [2:07:35] basically gave a nine million dollar bribe in the form of an NIH grant to NIH-funded virologists to say the [2:07:46] virus likely was from nature. Dr. Fauci, yes or no, did you reward the proximal origin authors by giving them [2:07:54] NIAID grants or contracts? I absolutely decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to [2:08:05] the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, we have learned that U.S. coronavirus researchers at UNC shipped, quote, [2:08:14] humanized or transgenic mice to China by around 2017 for use in their dangerous coronavirus work. [2:08:23] Under your NIAID coronavirus, researchers also used aborted baby body parts in mice research and [2:08:34] taxpayers paid for them to do that. NIH-funded coronavirus researcher Dr. Ralph Baric and his colleagues at UNC [2:08:44] put parts of livers, thymuses, and chunks of human fetal lung that they got from aborted almost five-month-old [2:08:53] human babies. They put those parts in their research mice. They disgustingly named them BLTL mice and wrote they had [2:09:05] created a, quote, sandwich of aborted body parts in the mice. Get it, folks? BLT. A BLT sandwich. Your RML lab [2:09:18] employees in Montana also ordered and used aborted baby body parts in their taxpayer-funded research. An [2:09:27] email show how they plan to use those mice for post-COVID work. NIH-funded putting aborted babies' fingers [2:09:37] and scalps off the heads of aborted babies and putting them into the backs of research mice. [2:09:44] The scalps later grew fine baby hair in the mice. They even included those disgusting photos in their [2:09:52] research paper that you funded. Not all of those were research on coronaviruses, but some were. [2:10:01] Thankfully, the current NIH director has said, no more of this. Dr. Fauci, yes or no? Do you think that [2:10:11] human aborted parts should be put into mice for coronavirus research? The advice of counsel, [2:10:21] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:10:27] Mr. Chairman, would you direct the witness to answer the questions that we have been asking? [2:10:33] You probably would if he was here, but I can direct it. But I think we understand his answer. [2:10:40] We do understand that Americans are asking for accountability, Dr. Fauci, and your silence is [2:10:47] very telling. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm the most [2:10:56] junior member of the Senate here, showing from where I sit. I just got here last year. Many of you may [2:11:03] remember I was the attorney general in Florida who fought back against the lockdowns, the school closures, [2:11:11] the church closures, the everything to embrace sanity and science. We fought back. We got ridiculed for [2:11:21] it. And we didn't just call people names. We actually impaneled a grand jury of people of all walks [2:11:32] of life, all political persuasions. So that's how I came here, fighting for a free state amongst states [2:11:44] that had locked their own people down. We are now called the free state of Florida. And I believe our [2:11:51] responsibility here is to make sure that government remembers the people are our bosses, that we [2:12:00] report to them, that we're accountable to them. Government shouldn't operate for itself. Government [2:12:07] operates on behalf of and for the American people. And any time we get close to reporting back to our bosses [2:12:15] about what government has done or how it's been abused or how individuals that are employed by the [2:12:21] government had acted in their own self-interest or against the interests of the American people, [2:12:25] every time we get close, if we start uncovering outrageous fraud, we'll have a hearing. And the [2:12:34] tactics have been to not show up. So you'll have all of us over here trying to drill down on why we've [2:12:39] been given money that actually works against American citizens and no one shows up. Today there's, [2:12:47] well, nobody's here at the moment. Today there seems to be a difficult, a different tactic. Today, [2:12:52] we have Democrats showing up and trying to spin why we shouldn't even be having this hearing to report [2:13:00] back to our bosses. One said, today's hearing does damage. It will deter others from public service. [2:13:06] Another said, this hearing is designed to entrap you. Another said, oh, one fell all over himself, [2:13:13] flattering you, thanking you for your service multiple times, quoting man in the marina. [2:13:19] Another said that we are demeaning first responders. And today is a sad play in a repeated playbook. [2:13:31] Or we're going after one man. I mean, all of their time was used on why we should not be having the [2:13:38] hearing to report back to our bosses and give the people accountability. So I would like to talk about [2:13:48] that because I believe that trust, the trust the American people place in our public health institutions [2:13:55] and what happened to that trust during COVID is important because in a public health emergency, [2:14:00] they are asked to make extraordinary sacrifices based on advice given to them by the government that [2:14:08] is supposed to be working for them. And for that system to work, the public public has to be able to [2:14:15] trust them, trust the people giving them instructions. That trust depends on candor. Would you agree with that, [2:14:22] Dr. Fauci? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [2:14:31] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. When the evidence is uncertain, officials need to say so. [2:14:37] When recommendations are based on assumptions rather than hard data, they need to say so. And when they [2:14:43] get something wrong, they need to own it. And when the trust is lost and the consequences extend far beyond [2:14:51] any single pandemic, the next time public health officials genuinely need Americans to listen, [2:14:57] millions of people may simply ignore them or not believe them. And Dr. Fauci, you were undeniably the [2:15:04] face of the federal government's COVID response. You said so yourself in your diary. You said it's not [2:15:10] hyperbole to say I've become the most famous and talked about person in the country. So I want to [2:15:17] understand how we got here. Let's start at the beginning. On March 8, 2020, you appeared on 60 [2:15:27] Minutes to discuss the spread of COVID-19. You were specifically asked to clear up the confusion [2:15:31] and misinformation surrounding masks. You told the American people right now in the United States, [2:15:37] people should not be walking around with a mask. The interviewer immediately stopped you and said, [2:15:42] are you sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this. And instead of walking back [2:15:47] or qualifying your statement in any way, you've doubled down. There's no reason to be walking [2:15:52] around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel [2:15:56] a little better. It might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that [2:16:01] people think it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with their masks. [2:16:06] They keep touching their face. Just a few weeks later, the CDC released its guidance recommending that [2:16:11] Americans wear masks in public. You were asked to explain your original recommendation. You emphasized a very [2:16:18] different consideration. You said, well, back then the critical issue was to save the mask for the [2:16:24] people who really needed them because it was felt there was a shortage of masks. So I want everybody [2:16:30] to sit with that. The critical issue driving your initial recommendation to the American public was [2:16:36] scarcity, logistics, not medical evidence. So when you told the American people there was no reason to [2:16:44] wear a mask, what was your principal objective? Giving them an honest assessment of the medical evidence or [2:16:51] discouraging them from consuming a scarce supply of masks. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [2:17:00] decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Well, [2:17:05] unfortunately, that was just the beginning of a broader pattern. Let's talk about the six-foot [2:17:10] distancing rule. In April 5th, 2020, an interview on CBS said, every time I get to that podium in the [2:17:17] White House briefing room, I always essentially plead with people, please take a look at those very simple [2:17:22] guidelines of physical separation. And they're very, very clear, physically separate six feet away. [2:17:28] Yet when Congress finally asked you in 2024 what science supported that evidence, six-foot distance [2:17:33] rule for COVID, you admitted you were not aware of any studies supporting it. Incredibly, you said the six-foot [2:17:40] rule sort of just appeared and described it as an empiric decision that wasn't based on data. That rule had real [2:17:50] consequences. Schools didn't open back up. Businesses didn't open back up. Churches didn't open back up. [2:17:58] I could go on and on and on. And Americans were kept physically separated from one another during the [2:18:05] most difficult moments of their lives. Many lost loved ones during that time. So, Dr. Fauci, did you have [2:18:14] any evidence to support a six-foot separation rule when you gave that advice to Americans? On the advice of [2:18:23] counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the [2:18:28] Constitution. All right. Well, let's look at the lockdowns then. By 2022, the consequences of [2:18:32] prolonged COVID lockdowns on our children were clear, from delayed development to social isolation, [2:18:38] which is probably why you were asked in July 2022 whether you would recommend locking down schools [2:18:43] again. And you said, first of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. But now we have your diary. [2:18:51] And it tells a very different story from the one you told the public. And I will quote, [2:18:57] I spoke with Bill de Blasio, the mayor of NYC, and convinced him based on what I was saying publicly [2:19:02] in my conversation tonight to close the NYC schools, he had already decided based on what I was saying on [2:19:07] TV. I went on to tell him he should close the bars and restaurants in NYC. And he said he would do [2:19:12] this based on my recommendation. You even said that you told the president we should shut the whole [2:19:18] country down. So Dr. Fauci, how do you square telling the American people publicly that you [2:19:25] didn't recommend locking anything down with your own diary entry kept on federal government equipment, [2:19:31] saying that your recommendation to lock things down? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [2:19:42] declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Now, I just want to [2:19:48] make clear that when in Florida, we were pleading with people to give us advice based on scientific [2:19:55] evidence, that we were getting these conflicting statements by you that didn't match scientific data. [2:20:07] And in fact, when we impaneled a grand jury, the grand jury's conclusion, not surprising to anyone, [2:20:15] and by the way, we're still the only state to have impaneled a grand jury. I was the only attorney general [2:20:20] to do this. We did this in 2023. That conclusion was the lockdown mask and social distancing advice [2:20:27] ministered by federal agencies and implemented by certain local state and federal agencies was not [2:20:32] based on the best available scientific data. In fact, many recommendations and their accompanying [2:20:37] mandates departed significantly from available research. Again, people from all walks of life, [2:20:47] all political persuasions. That is what they found. And yet, during that time, while you were giving [2:20:53] those statements, knowing there was no scientific basis for it, and we know now you knew it because [2:20:59] we have your diary entries, you called the governor that I worked with to fight to keep Washington and D.C. [2:21:09] out of our state so that we could indeed respect the rights of our citizens. You called our governor, [2:21:17] Governor DeSantis, and I'm going to quote this so I get it right, right out of your journals, [2:21:22] a total jerk that he is a complete disgrace, that he is blocking local authorities from mandating masks [2:21:31] in various locations, including schools. And you were very concerned and upset that we were actively, [2:21:39] and I'm going to quote, criticizing you. And we talked to virtually every day about being wrong on [2:21:45] everything. And what is astounding is that you wrote you feared because of that, because we were [2:21:54] questioning our government, because we were fighting back for the truth from our government, [2:21:59] from scientifically based recommendations, because we were pushing for that. You said you feared that [2:22:06] our democracy is in dire danger. Thank goodness we have people up here that I work with that understand [2:22:17] our role, which is to report to our bosses, the people, because they are in charge, calling for our [2:22:27] government to be honest with us and transparent with us, transparent with us and accountable to us. [2:22:34] That is a democracy. What you did is the opposite. And I cannot believe I have to explain this to someone [2:22:45] who represented our government and some of the most important issues for so long. And before I conclude, [2:22:51] if I can just put up our pardon, this is the pardon you have heard so much about. And Dr. Fauci, the only [2:23:01] other person that got a pardon like this, I believe, had a last name of Biden. This pardon goes back to, [2:23:07] and if you'll see, January the 1st of 2014. Did you talk to President Biden and ask for this pardon? [2:23:15] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to [2:23:22] the Constitution. Who did you talk to in the White House about this pardon? [2:23:28] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:23:32] Amendment to the Constitution. Did you specifically ask that it be dated back to the beginning of 2014? [2:23:38] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [2:23:44] to the Constitution. Did you do that so that you would be given immunity going back to the beginning of [2:23:52] 2014? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:24:00] amendment to the constitution i'm just very interested why it was this date did it have [2:24:04] anything to do with the fact that 2014 was also the year that the niaid or nih began funding [2:24:11] eco health alliances understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence grant on the advice of [2:24:19] counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the [2:24:24] constitution and this is the same grant that funded the work on bat coronaviruses at the wuhan [2:24:29] institute on virology millions of americans are questioning what happened during covid why we [2:24:40] were getting given misleading information misleading advice why you gave conflicting statements based on [2:24:47] i guess how you were feeling that day and americans rightfully we've also for a million americans [2:24:55] they should be insulted when the democrats insult our chair that he's doing this because he's on [2:25:01] an obsessive mission to go after one man could his obsession obsessive mission be to find out why [2:25:08] american a million americans died and who might be responsible for that and where that started [2:25:14] could that be his mission dr falchi on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based [2:25:24] upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution and after everything we have just [2:25:28] walked through can you sit here today and tell the american people our bosses that you bear no [2:25:34] responsibility for their collapse and trust of their government it's based upon my rights under the [2:25:45] fifth amendment to the constitution time has expired we're going to do another quick round for [2:25:50] those who remain about five minutes any questions that haven't come up uh that are pressing let's try [2:25:56] not to re go over territory that's already been done i'll begin by asking unanimous consent to insert into [2:26:02] the record documents show that show that the cia transferred funds to niaid through interagency [2:26:08] agreement hearing no objection so ordered we had hoped to hear testimony from anthony falchi today we [2:26:16] haven't but i think it's important that we do hear from him so we will have a video we'll play in a moment [2:26:22] for years anthony falchi has been the public face of saying this in all likelihood came from nature [2:26:30] he kept saying it's the marketplace it's the marketplace it's the marketplace he's been saying that [2:26:34] on television up until recently but what we find is that what he was saying in public is different [2:26:40] than what he was saying in private in january in private he wrote that looks like the wet market [2:26:47] was a super spreader event it didn't originate there we know that some of the earliest deaths and sickness [2:26:52] came from somewhere else but then for years and years we got dishonesty so let's play the video so [2:26:59] we can see a little juxtaposition of the problem we're dealing with voucher's journal entries contradict [2:27:08] what he said publicly about the origins of covet 19. falchi admitted in january 2020 that the [2:27:14] initial outbreak of covid did not occur at a wet market take a really good look at the animal human [2:27:21] interface and the fact that animals from the wild are being brought into wet markets you have animals [2:27:28] that come out of the wild that are sold at these open what they call them wet markets wet markets where [2:27:35] you bring animals in from the wild who have these viruses the wet markets in asia where people bring [2:27:42] animals from after the hospital but they we'd recovered two weeks she was still alive two to [2:29:52] three weeks later we'd all recovered and they wouldn't let us be with her and to this day it's one of the [2:29:57] saddest things and it just you know i think all of us should think about this they were not allowed to [2:30:02] visit their mom he wasn't allowed to visit his wife in the hospital but based on this misunderstanding of [2:30:07] natural immunity that for some reason two weeks later they were a problem but this was all promulgated by [2:30:13] you we had the uh workers in the uh you know the meat factories they were essential they had to keep [2:30:19] working most of them got covered they got it in the first couple weeks most of them were younger the [2:30:23] reassurance should have come from public health the reassurance should have said congratulations you've [2:30:28] recovered it also should be acknowledged what's the number one thing we can do if we get another [2:30:33] pandemic before we have a vaccine before we have monoclonal antibodies it would be to utilize natural [2:30:39] immunity so instead of the advice you were giving to cuomo and others in new york that led to the [2:30:44] deaths of hundreds of thousands of people or tens of thousands of people you could have been saying [2:30:49] well maybe the nurses taking care of the elderly should be people who are two weeks out from covet [2:30:54] infection we could have used natural immunity as somewhat of a block of protection imperfect [2:31:00] but the only protection we had and the only thing we could have done instead the nursing homes were [2:31:05] seated seated with people who had covet so i think the discussion of natural immunity is one where [2:31:11] there wasn't sufficient honesty humility there wasn't enough presentation to encourage people that was [2:31:17] the only encouraging thing we had for a while is you've got it you're very very if not impossible close [2:31:23] to impossible chance that you'll die if you get it again everybody could have been reassured nobody was [2:31:28] reassured it's like well we don't know we just don't quite understand natural immunity my favorite [2:31:33] quote from that is from martin kuldor from from uh harvard you called him one of the people he had to [2:31:38] take down the fringe epidemiologist which i've never ever heard a scientist call another scientist that [2:31:44] but uh he jokingly said on twitter he said yeah we knew about natural immunity from 486 bc from the time [2:31:51] of the athenian plague we lost all knowledge of it in 2020. the good news is it's slowly coming back [2:31:59] 24 to 20 20 25 we're beginning to understand what natural immunity is again not something perfect but [2:32:05] a useful tool that could have been used but also something that could have helped people by telling [2:32:10] the public my goodness you're not going to die now you have a chance if you've already had it you're 85 [2:32:15] years old you're at risk for it you're wanting to feed your wife and they're telling you to wear [2:32:18] four masks and not be around your wife when you've already had it it made no sense i visited with a [2:32:24] man whose mom was 83 and she was dying from covid they go to the hospital in orange county they won't [2:32:32] admit her to the hospital till she's vaccinated because we have a policy that everybody in the [2:32:36] hospital must be vaccinated she's got covid and they wanted to vaccinate her again at one point in time [2:32:42] the cdc understood this they told people don't get vaccinated if you've had covid within three months why [2:32:48] because it may give you a heightened immune response when you've already got a heightened [2:32:52] immune response but giving a person very sick and many of the people who died from covid died from [2:32:57] so to this this uh storm of uh of of response this immune storm the answer wouldn't be try to stir up [2:33:04] their immune response more by giving them a vaccine the answer was actually steroids and good old-fashioned [2:33:09] steroids 37 percent reduction in death it turned out to be way more valuable than remdesivir way more [2:33:16] valuable than any of the treatments but i don't remember ever hearing a complimentary word on [2:33:20] natural immunity or steroids or anything else and you know i wish we could have done more today i would [2:33:26] have been willing to accept an apology today uh i'm sorry i made mistakes we all made mistakes and you [2:33:31] know at the time i thought the gain of function research was you know the risks of it were worth the [2:33:36] benefits but um but i've reassessed since 15 million people died people say well gosh these things never [2:33:42] happened we know it happened in 1977 we know with a hundred percent certainty a virus escaped [2:33:48] in 1977 there's something called the russian flu nobody's exactly positive how it got out but when [2:33:53] they sequenced it they found out that a flu in 1977 had exactly the same rna as a 1954 one that they had [2:34:01] in the lab and they had created a vaccine for in fact turns out anybody born before 1954 was immune [2:34:08] and the only people got it were people who had been born between 1954 and 1977 but it was identical [2:34:14] the the genetic sequence was identical to this vaccine or the virus from 1954 and that doesn't happen [2:34:20] because these respiratory viruses are always mutating to be identical means it had to have leaked from [2:34:25] the lab proof positive that it had so we know this happens uh uh an author by the name of young wrote a [2:34:33] book and said there was 1200 cases of significant accidents that have occurred we knew all of this [2:34:40] and yet it was completely discounted because i think you were worried that if it was seen that [2:34:46] you funded dangerous research to start the pandemic you'd get blamed and it was a concerted effort wasn't [2:34:51] just you anybody associated with the funding decided we needed to protect ourselves senator johnson [2:34:58] mr chairman you mentioned that we lost knowledge of natural immunity i didn't dr fauci did i suppose [2:35:06] i had an asymptomatic case of covid because of the very faulty pcr test i never got vaccinated there's [2:35:12] or injected there's no way i would have done that because i found out enough about the mrna gene therapy [2:35:18] but you also brought up the issue of hospital protocols i'm going to be holding a public event [2:35:24] on hospital protocols we've already received a couple hundred testimonies they are heart-wrenching [2:35:30] they are heart-wrenching here's an excerpt from the testimony of a staff surgeon very experienced you [2:35:37] know doctor for decades at providence regional medical center everett washington quote after our [2:35:43] hospital was given remdesivir by the cdc we were provided misleading slash inaccurate information about [2:35:48] the drug biomedical leadership when i had a young trauma patient who was a perfect candidate for [2:35:53] remdesivir the infectious disease doctor on call told me to not give it to her because quote [2:36:01] she seemed like a nice girl he concludes it was known early their remdesivir kills i said nurses [2:36:09] referred to it as run death is near so again i've always been okay i was never made sense to me that we [2:36:17] put all of our eggs in the experimental gene therapy um if you knew anything about it would have [2:36:23] you would have avoided it like a plague and we didn't we sabotaged early treatment but the only [2:36:29] treatment we really approved monoclonal antibodies which i think basically worked pretty well but [2:36:34] those weren't particularly available they were denied an awful lot of patients it was all remdesivir [2:36:39] based on a study that the nih changed the endpoint from mortality because it had no impact on mortality [2:36:46] today's recovery a drug that the who recommended against its use in covid in november of 2020 but [2:36:54] a drug that cost over three thousand dollars for a course of treatment versus things like ivermectin [2:37:02] hydroxychloroquine who even dr fauci and i should have got that one out because i want to take this time [2:37:08] to enter things in the record said you know we need to have a very tight protocol on remdesivir because it's [2:37:12] unknown but hydroxychloroquine i mean that's approved some side effects but we have a long history of it [2:37:18] let's put up my my latest chart again i was tracking adverse events on on the inspire experimental injection [2:37:26] uh but i i use this chart as a comparison so you've got ivermectin hydroxychloroquine [2:37:32] these are average again evaders doesn't improve core causation but you know there's correlation [2:37:38] it's there it's there for safety signals so ivermectin over 30 years of fda reports 17 deaths per year [2:37:45] hydroxychloroquine over 38 years of reporting 142 deaths per year remdesivir over five and a half [2:37:55] years 546 deaths per year the covid injection almost 7 000 deaths per year what which is safest what what [2:38:03] did the fda freak us out about ivermectin hydroxychloroquine when they turn a complete blinds eye [2:38:10] toward the injections injury so i want to enter the quote from the surgeon by the way here's here's the [2:38:15] answer uh cheryl atkinson in an interview said that when it comes to money we check financial ties [2:38:21] among experts on the government panel devising coronavirus treatment guidelines which had the [2:38:26] effect of dialing back hydroxychloroquine use and giving an edge to remdesivir we found the 11 members [2:38:31] reporting links to a drug company nine of them named relationships to remdesivir's maker gilead seven [2:38:37] more including two of the committee leaders have ties to gilead beyond the 11 months they had to disclose [2:38:42] two were on gilead's advisory board others were paid consultants received research support and [2:38:47] honoraria by the way within the study i think one of the study participants was employee of gilead [2:38:54] bunch also had conflicts with gilead so gee i wonder why you know their conflicts of interest gilead made [2:38:59] billions of dollars off remdesivir and people died um in terms of uh ignoring safety signals you can [2:39:06] probably put that down now uh this has come to light uh this is dr drew weissman who got the nobel prize [2:39:13] for the mrna platform he wrote to dr fauci on february 8th of 2020. tony i wanted to alert you to [2:39:20] some new data we generated with our mrna lmp vaccine now it was a higher fold dose but that mrna lmp [2:39:30] go to the placenta and fetus measured by translation of the mrna and cause of immune response in an [2:39:36] amniotic fluid so that same day dr fauci responds it'd be interesting to see what human dose levels [2:39:45] given intermuscular due so about a month later dr wiseman replies he said we still have some concerns [2:39:55] over the data after they tested it im now again there's more documentation in terms of the fda blew it [2:40:01] off it's like ah don't worry about that there was the whole thing that's that's what peter marx did when [2:40:06] he was said shown that uh his algorithm was going to mass safety signals the last thing i want to enter [2:40:12] in the record here is and i want to make the point you know why is this important that that they buried [2:40:20] the treatment of severely injection injured the fact that we haven't acknowledged these injection [2:40:26] injuries these people can't get treatment they're being gaslit by their doctors so it's all in your [2:40:32] head the rate of the injection injured of suicides is increasing because they've given up hope because [2:40:38] our medical establishment federal health agencies completely failed them failing to acknowledge it so [2:40:42] again dr nath was treating diagnosing treating injection injured in march of 2021 this concerned people so [2:40:51] you had uh dr walter koroshetz uh writes dr fauci one of the points he made there's been a steady slow [2:40:59] stream of reports to me of post vaccination neurological conditions dr nath has been collecting a bunch he [2:41:05] has reports sent out to publish well that alarmed everybody boy you can't let the public know what's [2:41:12] actually happening you can't actually let the public know what the science is showing so on uh april 29th [2:41:21] a email from francis collins head of nih2 that to dr koroshetz says i find this approach troubling and [2:41:30] will have the main consequence of feeding vaccine hesitancy and social media over overreaction then [2:41:37] dr lawrence tabak writes to francis collins i don't understand what walter why walter does not shut this [2:41:45] thing down why don't you shut down that dr nath who's actually treating injection injured why because [2:41:53] of vaccine hesitancy and because we haven't acknowledged that and the reason i've been advocating [2:41:58] for this is because i know the injection injured i know people who lost loved ones within days of the [2:42:06] injection and we've turned our backs on them they deserve acknowledgement they deserve to be heard [2:42:15] seen and believed so they can get treatment i also know the doctors whose careers were destroyed [2:42:22] because you denigrated things like ivermectin and denied ivermectin to people in hospitals who got [2:42:28] their kidneys knocked out by the randesivir but got put on ventilators never got to hug their loved ones [2:42:34] goodbye because those hospital protocols that's what your science did to people so dr fauci my only [2:42:41] question is based on your lack of testimony here today uh based quite honestly on our our investigation [2:42:49] into the cover-up of safety signals and injection injuries we have issued letters to a number of [2:42:55] former fda officials to come in for transcribed interviews you'll be getting a letter today asking [2:43:02] for a volunteer try to screw it in transcribed interview so i'd be asking will you comply or [2:43:07] will i have to subpoena you on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon [2:43:13] my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution expected subpoena thank you senator scott [2:43:20] dr fauci did you personally receive any royalty payments connected to covet related intellectual [2:43:25] property on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [2:43:31] fifth amendment to the constitution given that nih receives royalty payments from certain pharmaceutical [2:43:36] companies why would any american believe these financial ties did not influence decisions about [2:43:41] which treatments were promoted or restricted on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer [2:43:47] based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution why doesn't niaid publicly [2:43:53] disclose these payments on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:43:59] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution did you partner with bill gates on global health [2:44:04] initiatives or vaccines on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:44:11] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution how much did bill gates entities providing funding to [2:44:16] niaid collectively since 2005 on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:44:22] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution to your knowledge did bill gates partner with china [2:44:27] on says sensitive research on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:44:33] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution specifically dual use research such as counter [2:44:38] measures or gain of function on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:44:44] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution you know if bill gates entities partnered with [2:44:49] u.s government classified programs on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [2:44:55] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution you know bill gates maintains an active national [2:45:00] security clearance on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under [2:45:05] the fifth amendment to the constitution did you advocate a request for bill gates to receive a security [2:45:10] clearance? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [2:45:16] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Do you have any knowledge that NIAID or NIH through HHS sponsored [2:45:22] or requested a security clearance for Bill Gates? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline [2:45:27] to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Around 2010, [2:45:31] my understanding is that the government shifted its approach to biodefense countermeasure research. [2:45:36] Did NIAID, under your leadership, partner with the Obama White House or any other U.S. government [2:45:41] classified entities on sensitive countermeasures research? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [2:45:46] decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:45:50] Did your office take steps to drive biological research investments? On the advice of counsel, [2:45:57] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:46:01] What was private industry's take on the type of research in the 2010 timeframe and before? [2:46:07] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:46:11] Amendment to the Constitution. Was it considered too dangerous to conduct [2:46:14] and industry was hesitant to take this on and invest in? [2:46:18] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:46:22] Amendment to the Constitution. [2:46:23] Why did you take steps to mature the government's approach to biodefense? [2:46:28] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under [2:46:32] the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:46:34] Were there any specific lines of effort or actions you felt were needed during this time [2:46:38] to improve the research, development, and fielding model? [2:46:42] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:46:46] Amendment to the Constitution. How was dual use and gain-of-function incorporated or accounted [2:46:50] for in maturing biodefense countermeasures? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [2:46:56] declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:46:59] Did you ever discuss moving gain-of-function countermeasures research out of government [2:47:03] space to private industry space? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [2:47:08] declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:47:12] How were these private organizations regulated through government oversight while conducting [2:47:16] risky research, including gain-of-function or gene-editing technology? [2:47:20] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment [2:47:25] to the Constitution. Did the Obama White House or any government entities take steps to inject [2:47:29] funding into private industry? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [2:47:33] declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:47:37] How do you ensure that our national security and public health is protected when private organizations [2:47:41] work with foreign countries of concern and have the no government oversight, such as the [2:47:46] eco-health alliance research grant you funded in CCP, in a CCP military lab? [2:47:53] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:47:57] Amendment to the Constitution. [2:47:59] Did any, did, given the culture of the pay-to-play NIAID, did you or anyone acting on your behalf [2:48:07] make any payment or injure any arrangement in any way or fashion to secure influence the broad [2:48:12] pardon you received from President Biden? [2:48:14] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:48:19] Amendment to the Constitution. [2:48:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:48:23] I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the Department of [2:48:26] Energy that confirms during Anthony Fauci's tenure that Bill Gates was given Q security clearance [2:48:34] from 2014 to 2021. [2:48:38] Without objection, that will be entered into the record. [2:48:40] I'd also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the contents of the folder of authorities [2:48:46] provided to Dr. Fauci, including the pardon. [2:48:55] Let's be clear today, you know, what we've seen. [2:48:59] I really did want to hear from Dr. Fauci. [2:49:02] I wanted to hear perhaps an apology, perhaps some semblance of being sorry for what happened [2:49:10] or that judgment errors were made. [2:49:12] We didn't hear any of that. [2:49:13] But he was subpoenaed here to testify, refused to answer any questions even after being directed [2:49:19] by the chair and being advised of the law requiring him to do so. [2:49:24] He has cited a privilege that is unsupported because of his blanket pardon and because he [2:49:29] waived the privilege by testifying at the start. [2:49:32] I'm going to give you one more opportunity to comply with the law limited to the period [2:49:37] of your pardon at any point between January 1st, 2014 and January 19th, 2025. [2:49:46] Did you destroy any federal record or tell anyone else to? [2:49:55] Under the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [2:49:59] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [2:50:01] Given that you have a unlimited presidential pardon, what is your specific objection that [2:50:07] you are making? [2:50:10] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:50:14] Amendment to the Constitution. [2:50:15] My question was limited to the period of your pardon only. [2:50:18] I find your objection unsupported and direct you to answer the question. [2:50:23] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth [2:50:27] Amendment to the Constitution. [2:50:29] Because you refused to answer citing a privilege that is unsupported because of your pardon and [2:50:35] after being denied to do so, this committee has scheduled a vote next week on arrest on [2:50:40] a resolution certifying your contempt. [2:50:43] I think we have another question or two from Senator Langford. [2:50:48] Chairman, really, this is a question for you, and it's a question to try to figure out [2:50:53] how do we get a good answer on this? [2:50:55] Because clearly, Dr. Fauci's attorneys are saying that he has a Fifth Amendment right. [2:51:00] We've also subpoenaed him to be able to compel his testimony to be able to be here. [2:51:06] I happen to be in the committee where we're also dealing with Lois Lerner. [2:51:09] Lois Lerner came and testified, gave an opening statement, and then took the Fifth Amendment. [2:51:17] The committee then held her in contempt for that, saying, you can't do both. [2:51:21] You can't both testify and say, I'm not going to answer questions. [2:51:25] So the parliamentary question that I think we've got to be able to deal with is, is this consistent [2:51:29] with Lois Lerner? [2:51:30] What she also did when she came before Congress, gave an opening statement, testimony, so made [2:51:36] a statement, and then refused to answer questions. [2:51:39] Are we dealing with the same issue here, where someone is making, you can't make a statement [2:51:44] and say, I'm not going to make statements at the same time? [2:51:47] I think it's a very good question, and I think that's something all of us will examine over [2:51:51] the next week. [2:51:51] We're going to have a vote next week on contempt. [2:51:53] I think there's another legal question that the courts may have to decide upon, and that [2:52:00] is whether or not a presidential pardon that offers you complete immunity, that you can [2:52:06] still claim that you need protection from immunity when you've been protected, because [2:52:10] Dr. Fauci isn't liable for anything, as long as he tells the truth. [2:52:14] Even if he admits that he destroyed records on a routine basis, his assistant said she destroyed [2:52:19] a ton of emails. [2:52:20] I think it was a routine thing. [2:52:22] I think he destroyed, throughout his career, there are probably thousands of emails. [2:52:27] Even if he did that, as long as he answered truthfully, yes, I did, I didn't think that [2:52:31] was important, I made a mistake, you can't be prosecuted for it. [2:52:36] Many of the things are outside the statute of limitations, as well. [2:52:39] All he had to do today, if he wanted to testify, was be honest. [2:52:42] As long as he was honest, even about committing a crime, he would have no jeopardy. [2:52:46] But I think the pardon does, has given him more immunity than most people would ever get. [2:52:51] Like, if you offer a witness immunity in exchange for testimony, he has blanket immunity. [2:52:56] The President gave him blanket immunity for virtually anything he could have possibly done, [2:53:00] you know, while at NIH. [2:53:02] So, I think we all have to individually answer this question. [2:53:06] We welcome you to be part of helping us figure out the question. [2:53:10] But there will be a vote, at least right now, though, will be planned to be a vote next week [2:53:13] on contempt. [2:53:15] Okay. [2:53:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:53:17] Today will be the capstone to Anthony Fauci's 40 years of abuse of power at NIH. [2:53:23] In the end, must imagine, Fauci believes he got away with it. [2:53:27] But still, late at night, even the guilty must become anxious, rerunning the scenarios through [2:53:32] his mind, wondering, latching on to lingering doubts, and worrying, did his actions lead to [2:53:37] the largest man-made plague in human history. [2:53:40] Are the millions dead the result of his experiments or experiments that he approved that increase [2:53:46] the pathogenicity of deadly viruses? [2:53:48] History will judge, but the facts as we now know them paint a sordid tale of dishonesty, [2:53:54] misjudgment, and ultimately the hubris, the likes of which the world has rarely seen. [2:54:00] If everyone will remain seated for a few minutes, we're going to let Dr. Fauci exit. [2:54:03] Thank you.