SUPERCUT: Dr. Fauci Faces Merciless Grilling By Republican Senators In Explosive Senate Hearing

[0:00] begin a round of questioning Dr. Fausti your testimony today is compelled by a lawful subpoena [0:06] as you know it's a crime under 18 usc section 1001 to knowingly make a material false statement [0:14] to congress with a penalty up to five years of imprisonment understanding that you are under [0:20] oath the american people would like to understand your reasoning your rationale for why you chose [0:31] to fund the research in wuhan there have been um you know intelligence agencies the cia the fbi the [0:40] doe have all come to the conclusion that more likely than not the virus came from the lab in wuhan and so [0:47] we'd like to know what was the rationale what was the discussion how you know what went behind the [0:52] decision to fund the research uh in wuhan um how did you come to the conclusion that a totalitarian [0:59] country would be capable of doing this in a bsl2 lab a lab that lacked the security what was the [1:05] reasoning and are you are you sorry basically for making the decision would you you know like given [1:10] another chance say well gosh circumstances now as i know it maybe it wasn't a wise thing can you [1:16] explain to the committee why you chose to fund this dangerous research in china on the advice of counsel [1:23] i respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution [1:29] let the record record that the [1:39] in the red folder on your table is a copy of section 192 of title 2 of the u.s code [1:41] your counsel has been provided a copy as well that section makes it a crime for a witness appearing [1:45] under subpoena to refuse to answer any questions pertinent to the question under inquiry do you have [1:51] that in front of you on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the [2:00] fifth amendment of the constitution let the record record that the witness has refused to answer whether [2:06] there's a folder in front of him based on his fifth amendment right it is true that you're appearing under [2:13] direction of our subpoena to provide testimony on matters under consideration by the committee [2:18] including the origins of covet 19 risky life sciences research and your tenure as a federal government employee [2:25] additionally you've been provided a full and unconditional pardon dated january 19th 2025 [2:33] for any offenses against the united states which may have been committed or taken part [2:39] from january 1st 2014 through the date of the pardon for a 10-year period arising from or in any manner [2:49] related to your service as director of the national institute for allergy and infectious diseases [2:53] as a member of the white house coronavirus task force or the white house covet 19 response team or as [3:00] chief medical advisor to the president have you refused this pardon or do you have any reason to [3:06] believe this full and unconditional pardon this grant of immunity would somehow require you to plead the [3:13] fifth amendment on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the [3:21] fifth amendment of the constitution based on the facts presented i'm going to direct you to answer the [3:27] questions the committee has issued a valid subpoena they have requested your presence here [3:32] the questions are very pertinent to your decision making as head of niaid as well as uh as a chief [3:41] advisor to the president do you still refuse to answer the questions on the advice of counsel i respectfully [3:48] declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution dr falchi were you ever [4:05] made aware of gain of function research on monkey pox being conducted at the national biodefense analysis [4:11] and countermeasure center and back at fort dedrick on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to [4:20] answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution dr falchi did the cia ever transfer [4:29] funds to nih under an interagency agreement on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to answer [4:40] based upon my rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution dr falchi did the nih ever conduct [4:53] research for or in coordination with any element of the intelligence community cia odni on the advice [5:04] of counsel i respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the [5:09] constitution the reason why these questions are important is you know president trump has done a ban and [5:16] we're glad that he did a ban on gain of function research so we're better off than we were when [5:21] we had an advocate serving as head of niaid an advocate for gain of function research there is [5:27] still though a question though whether or not the intelligence community is adhering to that order [5:33] there's a question of whether or not gain of function research is still ongoing and these are [5:38] important questions the american people deserve to know dr falchi have you been read into any classified [5:44] department of homeland security program any prospective special access program concerning gain of function [5:50] research on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [5:57] fifth amendment of the constitution when we look at the research in china the gain of function research [6:08] that you've denied was gain of function one of the things that startled the scientists when they saw [6:14] covid in the first couple of weeks was when they looked at the sequence of it they said oh my god there's a [6:19] there's a furin cleavage site in it and in this particular family of coronaviruses the sarvico [6:25] viruses they'd never seen this before they were also startled to look at it and see how it was coded [6:31] for what the codons were and to discover that the codons used out of 36 different possibilities turned [6:38] out to be the one that was commonly used in gene manipulation by scientists dr falchi were the scientists [6:44] at the wuhan institute of virology capable of inserting a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus on the [6:53] advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment of [6:59] the constitution so one of the experiments that was pretty common was they would take the backbone [7:07] of a sars virus and this would be a sars virus that the backbone itself wasn't that dangerous but then [7:14] they would uh dig through guano 300 feet underground bat guano they'd find other viruses unknown viruses [7:21] they'd take the s protein off of an unknown virus and stick it on a backbone and then they would affect [7:26] mice that have humanized cells and they were trying to discover if they could create a virus that infects [7:33] humans now many people would say well gosh that doesn't sound like a really good idea to create [7:38] viruses that don't exist in nature to see if they'll infect human cells what if one escaped what if [7:45] you keep infecting this and do serial passage you actually adapt the virus to be infectious to humans [7:52] so the question is is whether or not dr falchi the wuhan institute of virology was combining an s protein [7:58] with one virus with the backbone of others and could this lead to a virus maybe it wasn't even predicted [8:05] but could it lead to viruses that gained in function and then could lead to a pandemic on [8:13] the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment [8:19] of the constitution one of the arguments that you and others have made against this virus coming from [8:26] the lab is uh it couldn't have come from the viruses that have been published and uh nobody's really [8:33] arguing that i think from the very beginning people acknowledge that the viruses that have been published [8:38] are too far evolutionarily distant from um a virus that could have become covet 19. but uh what has [8:46] never been acknowledged by the side who tries to call the other side of conspiracy theory which is [8:51] really something you don't usually see in a scientific debate this is the first time i've ever seen [8:55] an article printed in lancet by your friends who called this a conspiracy theory you know these are the [9:01] kind of things you see as a screed on a political you know website you don't really see this in science [9:07] but when they they released this as being a conspiracy theory you know we're wondering that when you do [9:15] this when you combine these viruses and uh are able to grow them in humanized cells whether or not [9:24] this kind of risky research whether or not whether you call it gain of function or not whether you use [9:28] the definition of gain of function whether this kind of research should have had more scrutiny i think in [9:33] your house testimony you testified that you never traveled to china and that you were unaware that [9:38] anybody in nih ever examined the labs that you you trusted the chinese scientists i think you've said [9:44] that even recently that uh with your discretion you trusted the chinese scientists the the problem [9:50] is is that even in our country we trust our scientists they're good american scientists probably doing [9:56] the right thing for america but at the same time we oversight to make sure it's not dangerous research [10:01] but we also investigate the lab i believe fort dietrich was one of our main labs was closed down [10:06] in the last year or two because of uh you know research institute a research incident that was dangerous [10:13] with uh dangerous pathogens and so the american people would want to know how could you approve this [10:20] dangerous research in china say that you trusted the chinese scientists and then in the end you had to [10:27] admit that you'd never been there none of your inspectors had ever been there dr fauci had any of [10:32] the labs where this dangerous research occurring were any american lab uh oversight or lab investigators did [10:40] they ever appear in these labs to make sure they were safe labs on the advice of counsel i respectfully [10:48] declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution so one of the main [10:55] theories for those who have looked at you know this being created in the lab was the idea that uh could have [11:01] come from a virus not previously published dr fauci are you aware that dr she who worked for the [11:07] wuhan institute of virology uh was said to and i think in her own words to have over a hundred viruses [11:14] that had not been previously published that could have been a close enough relative to create [11:18] covet 19 are you aware of that on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [11:27] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution under your testimony previously when you denied [11:34] the one uh research project that we do know you did fund uh is the one that [12:08] ron fuchier did and it's important to talk about because this sort of was the beginning of the [12:12] debate over gain of function this wasn't just me i wasn't even aware of the debate 10 years ago this [12:17] was other scientists over 200 scientists at the cambridge working group signed a protest because [12:22] they didn't think you should fund the research and they didn't think it should even be funded uh [12:26] published because it was sort of a road map as to how to make a bioweapon so what they did was the avian [12:32] flu and this is important it may be the most important question we get to here today [12:36] the avian flu has about 50 percent mortality for humans the good news though about animal viruses is [12:42] they don't infect humans very well it will infect humans but doesn't go human to human very well [12:48] ron fuchier with the money that you provided to him uh did an experiment where he caused purposeful [12:54] mutations to create a new virus an avian flu that didn't just infect birds well but actually infected [13:01] mammals well went ferret to ferret in an aerosolized manner people saw this and were aghast you know [13:08] at the decision making process that you decided to fund this but this is when you know the the debate [13:14] came about and you wrote in support of this in the washington post and you said even if a scientist [13:19] is bitten even if a pandemic should occur the knowledge is worth the risks do you still stand by that would [13:26] you like to qualify at all whether or not the knowledge of gain of function is worth the risks [13:32] particularly in this case since we now know 15 million people died worldwide many people believe [13:38] this came from the lab do you think that the risks really are worth the benefits for gain of function [13:42] research on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [13:50] fifth amendment to the constitution all right we're going to finish with this question [13:58] and it's based really on that statement that general statement in your support for gain of function [14:04] the idea that the the benefits outweigh the risks so there are many other people who disagree and they [14:10] aren't politicians or not i don't know what party they're in david relman is probably one of the most [14:14] esteemed and uh he is a scientist at stanford he i think has classified clearance he's been a consultant [14:22] to our government probably for a decade or more um and he's written about this publicly he [14:28] he says the opposite he said that the risks of this research do not outweigh the benefits he said [14:35] the risk we shouldn't do it uh richard ebright who's been involved in this debate for two decades says the [14:41] same thing does he really we really shouldn't be doing this at all there's a quote also by the kevin [14:52] esfeld quote is that at the very end kevin esfeld uh who's a crisper scientist at mit also wrote [15:10] about this gain of function i implore every scientist funder and nation working in the field [15:17] please stop no more trying to discover or make pandemic capable viruses no more experiments likely [15:23] to disseminate blueprints for plagues dr fauci would you like to at least answer this one question for us [15:30] today and let us know whether or not you've changed your mind on whether or not the benefits of gain [15:36] of function research outweigh the risks on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer [15:44] based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution the chairman has denied your [15:53] assertion of privilege and directed you to answer but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege [15:58] despite the existence of the pardon the committee will have to consider after this hearing what [16:03] appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed [16:08] to do so it's against the law to obstruct an investigation of congress there will be [16:14] repercussions to your refusal to testify today senator peters chairman paul thank you for doing this i [16:22] think uh i know in my state people have been asking questions about dr fauci for years so dr fauci your [16:30] entry has made clear that you love being a hero a celebrity and you're having the eyes of the world upon you [16:37] you loved every newspaper profile every photo shoot every fancy dinner with the elites to many [16:43] americans who lost family members who lost trust in our federal government you're not a hero [16:48] unfortunately you're a villain you made yourself the story and abandoned the american people to serve [16:53] your own ego to begin i'd like to talk about your relationship with david marins he was the senior [16:59] advisor in the niaid office of the director your office for 16 years he was your friend he was a [17:07] frequent guest at your house you reportedly co-offered over 50 scientific articles with him [17:13] you turned to him first right after covet 19 first occurred earlier this year the department of justice [17:19] charged him with conspiracy against the united states in addition to other charges as part of a [17:24] conspiracy to conceal information and falsify records to suppress alternative theories about the [17:29] origins of covet 19. now you've publicly ticked this man to the curb saying dr morance was not an [17:37] advisor to me on institute policy or other substantive issues so let's start with the use of personal gmail [17:44] accounts and david marins relationship with peter dasick if morance tells peter dasick president equal [17:51] alliance and you've got this in front of you it's exhibit one and it's in it's already in the record as [17:56] part of this it says quote ps i forgot to say that there is no worry about foya i can either send stuff to [18:04] tony on his private gmail or handed to him at work or as house he is too smart to a colleague send him [18:12] stuff that could cause trouble dr fashie did dr morance relationship with peter dasick concern you [18:20] yes or no on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [18:27] fifth amendment to the constitution did david marins ever bring documents to your house on the advice of [18:35] counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the [18:40] constitution do you ever receive a text about your work at niaid to your personal cell phone on the [18:47] advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to [18:52] the constitution did any text about your work at nid that went to your personal cell phone ever become [18:59] part of federal records on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights [19:06] under the fifth amendment to the constitution did you maintain a personal email account while [19:10] serving as director on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to answer based upon my [19:17] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution did you ever receive work-related [19:21] communications on that gmail account from david morin's on the advice of counsel i respectfully [19:28] declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution [19:33] did you preserve any work-related communications on that gmail account from david morin's [19:38] on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth [19:43] amendment to the constitution did david morans ever provide you with documents outside of those [19:47] two ways that would violate nih policy for four-year compliance on the advice of counsel [19:55] i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the [20:00] constitution now let's look at two other communications you emailed david morans on [20:05] january 26 2020 quote it is important that i speak with you tonight please call me at home [20:12] this is the part of exhibit two that you have in front of you this email sent the same day the exact [20:18] same day you write in an internal document quote now we know the market was not the source it was [20:25] the amplifier unquote would you call the origins of covet 19 a substantive issue on the advice of [20:34] counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the [20:39] constitution did you discuss code 19 origins with demorans on this phone on this phone call on the [20:47] advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to [20:53] the constitution now let's take a closer look at the last time you testified before congress this is [20:59] part of what you have in front of you is exhibit four which is part of the record in june 2024 you [21:04] testified to dr moran's quote was not an advisor to me on institute policy or other substantive issues [21:12] furthermore his office is located in a different building from that of the niaid director unquote [21:18] is that still your testimony today on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based [21:24] upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution so today under oath your testimony [21:29] remains that dr morans was not an advisor to you on institute policy or substantive matters on the [21:36] advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to [21:41] the constitution i've got exhibit five which you have in front of you on october 24 2021 david morans [21:48] texted you to provide information about an advocate for the controversial ecohealth alliance grant [21:54] you thank him and tell him that you will check the information would you agree that this shows an [21:59] advisory relationship between david morans and yourself on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline [22:05] to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution do you agree that [22:11] you two were discussing a substantive issue on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer [22:18] based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution if documentary evidence establishes [22:24] that dr morans advised you regarding ecohealth alliance covet origins or grant policy the new june [22:29] 2024 a testimony would have been inaccurate correct on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer [22:36] based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution is there any document in your [22:41] possession today that would contradict your prior congressional testimony on the advice of counsel i [22:47] respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution [22:52] have you deleted destroyed or instructed anyone to destroy records after learning congress and [22:56] investigating these matters on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my [23:03] rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution are you aware of anyone who did on the advice of [23:11] counsel I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the [23:15] Constitution. As you know Dr. Morantz, don't face his charges related to destroying records while [23:20] you distance yourself from him. Is that fair to a decades-long friend? On the advice of counsel [23:27] I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [23:32] When is the last time you spoke to him? On the advice of counsel I respectfully decline to answer [23:39] based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In hindsight, are you [23:44] disappointed how you handled COVID? Do you have any regrets? On the advice of counsel I respectfully [23:51] decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Dr. Fauci, [23:56] I want to close with this. Here's how you impacted my family and people close to me. I have daughters [24:02] with children. You can't imagine the questions they had around vaccines for their kids and themselves [24:07] and the pressure, the unbelievable pressure to make the right decision for their health. I can [24:13] tell you pregnant women who worked with me were so scared because every time they went to the doctor [24:17] they were told something different about taking the vaccine and you caused this. Imagine being a mom [24:23] trying to protect their kids or an expectant mother trying to figure out what to do. Every three weeks [24:28] a doctor tells you a new set of guidance on a vaccine. The haphazard information you released and [24:33] pushed on the American people with little research is appalling and why there is so little there's there's [24:39] so much distrust in our institutions today. That trust is crucial to public health and you more than [24:45] any person or event in my lifetime have destroyed that trust for millions of Americans. You lied to [24:51] hundreds of millions of people amid the worst public health crisis in its century. You failed to follow [24:56] your own guidance. You forced people to watch their loved ones die alone over the phone. It's disgusting. [25:02] You destroyed the federal government's credibility when it comes to public health. We have entire [25:06] generations of Americans who rightfully so do not trust your institution to keep people safe because of [25:12] you. This has destroyed decades of progress and lifetimes of work because you wanted to fuel your [25:17] own ego and be the center of attention. What would you do differently knowing what you know today Dr. Fauci? [25:25] On the advice of counsel I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth [25:29] amendment to the constitution. All the evidence is right here and you still can't bring yourself to [25:34] tell the truth or apologize because you received an auto pin pardon from a staffer in the Biden White House. [25:39] If we have another pandemic tomorrow millions could die because of what you did. What you did to make [25:45] Americans lose trust in their government when it comes to medicine and health care. How many families [25:50] have you apologized to had to watch their loved ones die alone? You breached up public trust and now you're [25:56] hiding behind a fraudulent pardon. Your legacy will not be as a man who has saved America from COVID but as [26:02] a man who destroyed the public trust in America's public health institutions in exchange for five minutes of [26:06] fame. This is how history will remember you. I yield back. Senator Kim. Senator Blackford. [26:15] Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Fauci, thanks for coming today. I know you're invoking your fifth [26:22] amendment right which you have the right to be able to do constitutionally but thanks for coming to be a [26:26] part of this. There are a lot of issues and a lot of questions that have come up and hopefully in some [26:32] day in the future we'll be able to get all this clarity to be able to pull together. There were over a million [26:38] Americans that died from COVID. You know that well. You were tracking the numbers literally every single [26:43] day. Those affected and those that died from the earliest days. There are a lot of lessons that [26:50] we've got to learn from this that we should put into history to be able to determine what happens in [26:55] the future. How do we respond in the future? How do we deal with something like this again? [27:00] It was uncharted territory for everyone. But I would tell you countless families including my own [27:08] watched a loved one die behind glass or through a screen because we couldn't get access to him. [27:12] Children couldn't get to school. People missed their prom or graduation ceremonies. There were [27:22] lots of things that happened that dramatically changed the future of the country. The mental health [27:27] issues that we have continued to deal with from the isolation have been profound. Even something as [27:32] simple as children that wore masks or around adults wearing masks for all that time are slower in [27:38] learning language now because they couldn't watch someone's lips moving and so they're slower in that. [27:43] Amazingly enough churches in places of worship were forced to be closed down. There were even churches [27:51] that met where the pastor preached in the parking lot and the congregants all met in their cars [27:57] with windows up and police came and scattered them and said you can't be here. The simple act of social [28:05] distancing became an issue as everyone guessed what's the right distance to be away from someone else. [28:13] Literacy rates have declined. All these things are results. Not to mention the loss of lives and the [28:18] health experiences that have been out there for many Americans. So there are legitimate questions. [28:23] I wanted to be able to raise some of those to be able to walk through some of this [28:26] because it has been very very challenging. As we've gone through some of your your notes and your diary [28:32] and other things that are out there we're trying to be able to pull bits and pieces of things to be able to learn [28:37] lessons. On May the 6th 2020 you wrote at that time I had a conversation with Robert Redfield as you know [28:46] well was then the director of CDC about the fact that greater than 1 million children worldwide have [28:53] missed their measles vaccination because of the shutdown. You stated this is terrible and needs to be addressed [29:01] since on that basis alone there would be far for far far more excess deaths from measles among children [29:09] than coronavirus deaths among children. I need to bring this up to the TF the task force. Did you ever [29:16] have an opportunity to bring up the potential of measles deaths among children and an infection rate [29:23] going around the world from measles based on the fact that so many children would not get their measles [29:28] vaccine because of the shutdown? I'm sorry senator but on the advice of counsel I respectfully decline [29:34] to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution. That is your right [29:40] to do. One of the big issues is really coming up is on the lab issue. This was greatly discussed [29:48] about whether this came from a lab or whether this came from nature. There are obvious issues and [29:52] differences between the two to be able to know this. You had a lot of conversation on this. Scientists around the [29:58] world were in conversation on this. There were different statements that you even made in your private [30:04] notes and your public notes on it. In January the 26th of 2020 this is before we had our even our first [30:10] tragic death of coronavirus in the United States. You wrote it now appears using epi data that the genomic data [30:17] the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market which was the big rumor that was [30:23] out there is this wet market in China. We know the market was not the source it was the amplifier. On January [30:30] the 31st you wrote about a phone call. You wrote the people on the phone on the phone felt the mutations [30:36] around the furin cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally since it would [30:41] require an evolutionary jump that they found nowhere in bat isolates. They bring up the possibility this [30:47] could have been deliberately inserted and either accidentally released or deliberately released by a crazy [30:52] person in the lab the former being the most likely. February the 1st same year 2020. This is again still [31:02] before our first death. There was not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion. Ron said [31:08] he was he was sure that this could occur naturally and we should not waste our time and divert our effort [31:13] to pursue this. This is expected of him since he was the original gain of function person with Yoshi. Also Christian [31:19] was withdrawn. The rest felt deliberate insertion was possible and given the fact that Dr. Jing Ling Shi [31:27] at the University of Wuhan has been working for years and gain of function in coronaviruses to allow [31:32] adaptation of the spike protein to bind to the human H2 receptor we could not let this go. That's a remarkable [31:40] statement for February the 1st of 2020 when there hadn't even been the first death here but we knew [31:47] something was moving you knew well that something was moving you identified February the 1st before [31:52] any of us had ever heard of the Wuhan lab not only the Wuhan lab in the conversation but literally the [31:58] scientist that you named in your own notes the lead scientist that was there. It's interesting to me [32:04] on that and the questions I was going to ask you was just your background and knowledge about the Wuhan lab [32:09] and Dr. Shi and all the details I'm aware of where you have been on trying to be able to plead your fifth [32:17] minute right which is your right to be able to do but I also want to be able to find out some facts to [32:22] be able to help us for the future on this. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in May of 2020 [32:29] put out a classified document that has only been recently unclassified on this that had this statement [32:35] when we assess all the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory modified [32:40] coronavirus specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors were present at the [32:46] Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid to late 2019. Now the question that I have for you is this [32:53] is May the 27th of 2020 this is the report that most people will see is this I have I have clearance I [33:02] served on the intelligence committee I've actually read this complete document unredacted my concern is [33:09] were you given the ability to see this document unredacted based on your position were you able to [33:15] see this and to be able to get this information I could I could see it and I know what's here everybody [33:20] else just has their conclusion at the beginning of it not this my question to you was going to be did you [33:28] have access because it's important for the future that people in your position do have access to [33:34] this kind of information and insight is there any way you could answer that question were you able to give [33:39] access to this data on the advice of counsel I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under [33:46] the fifth amendment to the constitution you wrote on January the 26th of 2020 we should be allowed to send our [33:57] CDC epidemiologists to China to work with them so you could so they could see the data firsthand [34:05] you you also wrote in February 12th 2020 that you had great concerns about the World Health Organization [34:12] because there depends greatly on China and as you stated often bows to them now this is a really [34:20] important issue that we've got to resolve for the future it's not just our cooperation with Chinese [34:25] scientists it's our acknowledgement that China covered up their data wouldn't allow our scientists to [34:32] be able to come in they cleaned up the wet market they cleaned up the other areas they wouldn't allow [34:38] you to get access to all the other scientists there including their health records what happened to them [34:44] or even all the sequencing that they had done in advance for the future of our research and our [34:50] cooperation with any scientists around the world I think it's really important that we resolve if we're [34:57] going to fund research and cooperate with you we've got to have certain things from you if things go [35:02] sideways we've got to have access to all information in all places you were noting not only that [35:08] China was affecting the World Health Organization and that China was bending them to their will and [35:14] so the World Health Organization was putting out data that you saw at least at that point [35:19] as being from a Chinese perspective covering up what was going on but you also noted we weren't [35:24] able to get access to all this information we've got to be able to figure this out for the future [35:29] to be able to make sure that research that is done we have access to all information if something goes [35:34] sideways at some point which clearly it did at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that being as was [35:40] noted by many people the only lab in the world that was doing research like this that had a lower standard [35:47] of actually their security standards there than many other labs around the world yet they were doing this [35:52] very dangerous research what can we gain and what advice could you give us to say in a future setting [35:59] we've got to make sure that we actually get information from people and we can be guaranteed that we're [36:03] going to get that insight yes sir on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon [36:13] my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution i yield back senator ernst thank you mr chairman for [36:24] holding this important hearing today dr fauci americans haven't forgotten the tragic stories of people [36:35] who lost loved ones during covid and those that were denied a chance to say goodbye to their family [36:44] members that were in hospitals or residing in nursing homes because of the covid-19 protocols americans [36:53] haven't forgotten the mandates the adverse reactions to vaccines the government misinformation [37:01] social media censorship hotlines to tattle on their neighbors the forced school closures the tragic rise [37:14] in suicides or those businesses that were forced to close during lockdowns americans haven't forgotten [37:26] the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by taxpayers for covid relief stolen by fraudsters who bought royals [37:38] excuse me rolls royces and yachts these were taxpayer dollars americans have lost trust in science and [37:49] government after the covid response trust which will be incredibly difficult for us to gain back dr fauci you [37:59] said that the science was evolving and that your recommendations evolved with it but americans remember [38:08] you as the public face of the coronavirus response as one of the nation's most trusted voices you urge [38:19] policies you said were absolutely necessary even when those policies came at an enormous human [38:28] and economic cost and americans deserve answers about reports that you may have worked with others [38:39] to pressure pres the president into adopting the slow the spread strategy and why you later sought an [38:49] unconditional pardon for crimes you may have committed dating back to 2014. dr fauci in 2022 you had a taxpayer [39:01] funded salary of 480 000 a year you were in fact the highest paid federal employee in the entire federal government [39:12] even making more than the nih director and the president of the united states according to now public documents [39:21] that was due in large part to your work on biodefense unreported is how niaid spent over one billion dollars from 2009 to [39:35] 2026 in biodefense and influence of federal contracts and subcontracts my office uncovered records on usaspending.gov [39:47] that show from 2015 to 2020 niaid paid out 515 418 dollars in subcontracts to harbin veterinary institute [40:01] in harbin china including 100 000 a few days after it opened a bsl4 bio lab in 2018. [40:11] that very same institute was criticized for doing gain of function bird flu research in 2013 and yet you [40:22] were funding them for years after that sending u.s taxpayer dollars to china these contracts which we [40:31] also trace to niaid show u.s taxpayers funded gain of function researchers in the netherlands and in [40:39] wisconsin funding the same folks whose controversial work led president obama to pause this exact type of [40:47] dangerous pandemic research dr fauci did you know that the nih's billion dollar sears contract programs [40:58] were funding gain of function researchers in china the u.s and in the netherlands upon the advice of [41:09] council i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the [41:14] constitution dr fauci dr deborah burks wrote in her book that you and president obama's former cdc [41:24] director were at a saturday march 14th uh were at a saturday march 14th yes 2020 meeting at her home [41:35] two days before the president announced his 15 days to slow the spread effort your now released diaries [41:42] said the meeting was a week before that dr burks said you all were trying to trap the president [41:49] into having no other options she wrote your plan was to quote block any of the president's escape routes [41:59] so quote he'd have no choice but to agree to our flatten the curve measures yes or no dr fauci did you [42:08] try to block or trap president trump into the slow the spread flatten the curve measures in march 2020. [42:18] on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment [42:23] to the constitution when the covet 19 virus broke out in wuhan china you dr fauci knew pretty much [42:30] right away that nih had funded chinese labs including those doing coronavirus research there's [42:37] email traffic from early january 2020 where your staff was flagging for you that nih funded coronavirus [42:45] research at the wuhan lab through eco health alliance yet few americans knew we funded the wuhan lab [42:52] because the funding went through a sub award and was not reported to the public database [42:58] like usaspending.gov as it should have been also eco health violated federal law by failing to report [43:06] in its research papers how much taxpayer funding it spent on that research at my request the government [43:14] accountability office helped track down that 1.4 million dollars of u.s taxpayer money that was sent to [43:21] the wuhan institute of virology both by you dr fauci and through usa id but first it passed through [43:30] eco health alliance which i helped to get defunded through the ndaa [43:35] dr fauci did you intentionally use sub award funding to obscure nih funding of chinese bio labs [43:43] and coronavirus research on the advice of counsel i respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights [43:51] under the fifth amendment to the constitution niaid awarded multi-million dollar grants to a number of [43:58] scientists shortly after they wrote publicly in the proximal origins paper that the covet virus likely came [44:06] from nature though documents chairman paul released last week show in up in private those same scientists [44:13] were much more open to the virus being from a lab in 2023 representative jordan insinuated that you [44:22] basically gave a nine million dollar bribe in the form of an nih grant to any nih funded virologist to say [44:32] the virus likely was from nature dr fauci yes or no did you reward the proximal origin authors by giving them [44:40] niaid grants or contracts will you decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to [44:51] the constitution dr fauci we have learned that u.s coronavirus researchers at unc shipped quote [45:00] humanized or transgenic mice to china by around 2017 for use in their dangerous coronavirus work [45:08] under your niaid coronavirus researchers also used aborted baby body parts in mice research and taxpayers [45:21] paid for them to do that nih funded coronavirus researcher dr ralph barrick and his colleagues at unc [45:30] put parts of livers thymosis and chunks of human fetal lung that they got from aborted [45:38] almost five month old human babies they put those parts in their research mice they disgustingly [45:47] named them blt l mice and wrote they had created a quote sandwich of aborted body parts in the mice [45:57] get it folks blt a blt sandwich your rml lab employees in montana also ordered and used aborted [46:08] baby body parts in their taxpayer funded research and emails show how they plan to use those mice for [46:16] post-covid work nih funded putting aborted babies fingers and scalps off the heads of aborted babies and [46:27] putting them into the backs of research mice the scalps later grew fine baby hair in the mice [46:34] they even included those disgusting photos in their research paper that you funded not all of those [46:43] were research on coronaviruses but some were thankfully the current nih director has said no more of this [46:52] dr fauci yes or no do you think that human aborted parts should be put into mice for coronavirus research [47:02] the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to [47:10] the constitution mr chairman would you direct the witness to answer the questions that we have been [47:16] asking you probably would if he was here but you know i can direct it but uh you know i think we [47:22] understand his answer we do understand that americans are asking for accountability dr fauci [47:30] and your silence is very telling thank you mr chair dr fauci did you personally receive any [47:38] royalty payments connected to covet related intellectual property on the advice of counsel [47:43] i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution [47:48] given that nih receives royalty payments from certain pharmaceutical companies why would [47:52] any american believe these financial ties did not influence decisions about which treatments [47:56] were promoted or restricted on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based [48:02] upon my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution why doesn't niaid publicly disclose [48:09] these payments on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [48:15] fifth amendment to the constitution did you partner with bill gates on global health initiatives or [48:20] vaccines on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the fifth [48:27] amendment to the constitution how much should bill gates entities provide in funding to niaid collectively [48:32] since 2005? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the [48:38] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. To your knowledge, did Bill Gates partner with China on [48:42] sensitive research? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my [48:48] rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, dual-use research [48:53] such as countermeasures or gain of function? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to [48:59] answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Do you know if [49:03] Bill Gates entities partnered with U.S. government classified programs? [49:07] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [49:13] You know if Bill Gates maintains an active national security clearance? [49:16] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [49:22] Did you advocate a request for Bill Gates to receive a security clearance? [49:26] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [49:32] Do you have any knowledge that NIAID or NIH through HHS sponsored or requested a security clearance for Bill Gates? [49:39] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [49:45] Around 2010, my understanding is that the government shifted its approach to biodefense countermeasure research. [49:50] Did NIAID, under your leadership, partner with the Obama White House or any other U.S. government classified entities on sensitive countermeasures research? [49:58] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [50:05] Did your office take steps to drive biological research investments? [50:10] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [50:15] What was private industry's take on the type of research in the 2010 timeframe and before? [50:21] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [50:26] Was it considered too dangerous to conduct an industry who was hesitant to take this on and invest in? [50:31] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [50:36] Why did you take steps to mature the government's approach to biodefense? [50:41] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [50:47] Were there any specific lines of effort or actions you felt were needed during this time to improve the research development and fielding model? [50:53] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [51:01] How was dual use and gain-of-function incorporated or accounted for in maturing biodefense countermeasures? [51:07] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [51:13] Did you ever discuss moving gain-of-function countermeasures research out of government space to private industry space? [51:20] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [51:26] How were these private organizations regulated through government oversight while conducting risky research, including gain-of-function or gene editing technology? [51:32] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [51:39] Did the Obama White House or any government entities take steps to inject funding into private industry? [51:44] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [51:50] How do you ensure that our national security and public health is protected when private organizations work with foreign countries of concern [51:56] and have the no government oversight, such as the EcoHealth Alliance research grant you funded in a CCP military lab? [52:06] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [52:11] Did any, did, given the culture of the pay-to-play at NIAID, did you or anyone acting on your behalf make any payment or injure any arrangement [52:21] in any way or fashion to secure influence the broad pardon you received from President Biden? [52:28] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [52:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [52:34] Let's be clear today, you know, what we've seen. [52:43] I really did want to hear from Dr. Fauci. [52:47] I wanted to hear perhaps an apology, perhaps some semblance of being sorry for what happened or that judgment errors were made. [52:58] We didn't hear any of that. [52:59] But he was subpoenaed here to testify, refused to answer any questions, even after being directed by the chair [53:05] and being advised of the law requiring him to do so. [53:08] He has cited a privilege that is unsupported because of his blanket pardon and because he waived the privilege by testifying at the start. [53:17] I'm going to give you one more opportunity to comply with the law. [53:20] Limited to the period of your pardon, at any point between January 1st, 2014 and January 19th, 2025, [53:30] did you destroy any federal record or tell anyone else to? [53:33] Under the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [53:45] Given that you have an unlimited presidential pardon, what is your specific objection that you are making? [53:53] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [53:59] My question was limited to the period of your pardon only. [54:01] I find your objection unsupported and direct you to answer the question. [54:06] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [54:13] Because you refuse to answer, citing a privilege that is unsupported because of your pardon, [54:18] and after being denied to do so, this committee has scheduled a vote next week on a resolution certifying your contempt. [54:26] I think we have another question or two from Senator Langford. [54:30] Mr. Chairman, really, this is a question for you, and it's a question to try to figure out how do we get a good answer on this. [54:39] Because clearly, Dr. Fauci's attorneys are saying that he has a Fifth Amendment right. [54:44] We've also subpoenaed him to be able to compel his testimony to be able to be here. [54:49] I happen to be in the committee where we're also dealing with Lois Lerner. [54:53] Lois Lerner came and testified, gave an opening statement, and then took the Fifth Amendment. [55:00] The committee then held her in contempt for that, saying, you can't do both. [55:05] You can't both testify and say, I'm not going to answer questions. [55:09] So the parliamentary question that I think we've got to be able to deal with is, [55:12] is this consistent with Lois Lerner? [55:14] What she also did when she came before Congress, gave an opening statement, testimony, [55:19] so made a statement, and then refused to answer questions. [55:22] Are we dealing with the same issue here where someone is making, [55:26] you can't make a statement and say, I'm not going to make statements at the same time? [55:29] I think it's a very good question. [55:31] I think that's something all of us will examine over the next week. [55:34] We're going to have a vote next week on contempt. [55:37] I think there's another legal question that the courts may have to decide upon, [55:42] and that is whether or not a presidential pardon that offers you complete immunity, [55:48] that you can still claim that you need protection from immunity when you've been protected. [55:52] Because Dr. Fauci isn't liable for anything as long as he tells the truth. [55:56] Even if he admits that he destroyed records on a routine basis, [56:00] his assistant said she destroyed a ton of emails. [56:03] I think it was a routine thing. [56:04] I think he destroyed throughout his career, there are probably thousands of emails. [56:09] Even if he did that, as long as he answered truthfully, [56:11] yes, I did, I didn't think that was important, I made a mistake, [56:16] you can't be prosecuted for it. [56:18] Many of the things are outside the statute of limitations as well. [56:21] All he had to do today, if he wanted to testify, was to be honest. [56:24] As long as he was honest, even about committing a crime, he would have no jeopardy. [56:28] But I think the pardon does, has given him more immunity than most people would ever get. [56:33] Like, if you offer a witness immunity in exchange for testimony, he has blanket immunity. [56:38] The president gave him blanket immunity for virtually anything he could have possibly done, [56:42] you know, while at NIH. [56:44] So, I think we all have to individually answer this question. [56:48] We welcome you to be part of helping us figure out the question. [56:52] But there will be a vote, at least right now, though. [56:54] We plan to be a vote next week on contempt. [56:57] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [56:58] We begin by asking unanimous consent to insert into record documents [57:02] that show that the CIA transferred funds to NIAID through interagency agreement. [57:08] Hearing no objection, so ordered. [57:12] We had hoped to hear testimony from Anthony Fauci today. [57:14] We haven't. [57:15] But I think it's important that we do hear from him. [57:18] So we will have a video we'll play in a moment. [57:22] For years, Anthony Fauci has been the public face of saying this, [57:26] in all likelihood, came from nature. [57:28] He kept saying, it's the marketplace, it's the marketplace, it's the marketplace. [57:32] He's been saying that on television up until recently. [57:36] But what we find is that what he was saying in public is different than what he was saying in private. [57:40] In January, in private, he wrote that it looks like the wet market was a super spreader of him. [57:47] It didn't originate there. [57:48] We know that some of the earliest deaths and sickness came from somewhere else. [57:52] But then for years and years, we got dishonesty. [57:56] So let's play the video so we can see a little juxtaposition of the problem we're dealing with. [58:00] Fauci's journal entries contradict what he said publicly about the origins of COVID-19. [58:09] Fauci admitted in January 2020 that the initial outbreak of COVID did not occur at a wet market. [58:17] Take a really good look at the animal-human interface and the fact that animals from the wild are being brought into wet markets. [58:25] You have animals that come out of the wild that are sold at these open, what they call them, wet markets. [58:31] Wet markets where you bring animals in from the wild who have these viruses. [58:37] The wet markets in Asia where people bring animals from the forest into a market. [58:44] There are wet markets in Wuhan that are ample opportunity for a virus to jump from an animal. [58:51] The origin was from a bat to an intermediate host to a human, very likely in a wet market. [58:57] And those animals should not have been in the Wuhan market. [59:01] They knew that those animals should not have been in the market, and they immediately cleaned out the market. [59:07] Put restrictions on the kinds of animals that come into these wet markets. [59:13] I think they should shut down those things right away. [59:15] I mean, it just, it boggles my mind. [59:21] So repeatedly saying in public different, something different than what he believed in private. [59:26] Now, this is interesting because, you know, the first SARS outbreak in 2000-2003 was traced to a wet market to animals there. [59:34] But interestingly, they had evidence. [59:35] They had evidence that the animals had the disease. [59:38] They also had evidence that the handlers had a disproportionately high number of antibodies to the disease. [59:43] So there was evidence, and the evidence was presented. [59:46] So when this came out, the same thing happened again. [59:48] They did look at the wet market. [59:50] They looked at the wet market and tested, I think, 80,000 animals and didn't find any animals that had COVID-19. [59:55] When they did find COVID-19 and trace samples there, they found that the DNA or the RNA was consistent with human spread. [1:00:05] This was known not later on, didn't take years to develop, was known in January of 2020. [1:00:10] And so, Dr. Fauci says privately he knows it didn't come from the wet market. [1:00:15] But as you saw, those were over a multi-year period. [1:00:17] One of the other discussions I've had with Dr. Fauci over the years is about natural immunity. [1:00:22] So, most infections, you get a degree of immunity. [1:00:25] Not perfect. [1:00:26] Some fairly perfect. [1:00:27] Smallpox, you just don't get again. [1:00:29] George Washington knew this. [1:00:31] He had his wife get vaccinated, but he didn't because he'd already had smallpox. [1:00:34] But there's one particular story that a man came up to me who'd lost his wife to COVID. [1:00:39] He said, we all got it. [1:00:41] We all got sick. [1:00:43] And my wife ended up getting sick enough to go to the hospital. [1:00:46] But they, we'd recovered two weeks. [1:00:48] She was still alive. [1:00:49] Two to three weeks later, we'd all recovered. [1:00:51] And they wouldn't let us be with her. [1:00:52] And to this day, it's one of the saddest things. [1:00:55] And it just, you know, I think all of us should think about this. [1:00:58] They were not allowed to visit their mom. [1:01:00] He wasn't allowed to visit his wife in the hospital. [1:01:02] But based on this misunderstanding of natural immunity, that for some reason, two weeks [1:01:07] later, they were a problem. [1:01:08] But this was all promulgated by you. [1:01:11] We had the workers in the, you know, the meat factories. [1:01:15] They were essential. [1:01:15] They had to keep working. [1:01:16] Most of them got COVID. [1:01:17] They got it in the first couple weeks. [1:01:19] Most of them were younger. [1:01:20] The reassurance should have come from public health. [1:01:22] The reassurance should have said, congratulations, you've recovered. [1:01:26] It also should be acknowledged. [1:01:27] What's the number one thing we can do if we get another pandemic? [1:01:30] Before we have a vaccine, before we have monoclonal antibodies, it would be to utilize natural [1:01:35] immunity. [1:01:36] So instead of the advice you were giving to Cuomo and others in New York that led to the [1:01:41] deaths of hundreds of thousands of people or tens of thousands of people, you could have [1:01:45] been saying, well, maybe the nurses taking care of the elderly should be people who are [1:01:49] two weeks out from COVID infection. [1:01:51] We could have used natural immunity as somewhat of a block of protection. [1:01:56] Imperfect, but the only protection we had and the only thing we could have done. [1:02:00] Instead, the nursing homes were seeded, seeded with people who had COVID. [1:02:05] So I think the discussion of natural immunity is one where there wasn't sufficient honesty, [1:02:10] humility. [1:02:11] There wasn't enough presentation to encourage people. [1:02:13] That was the only encouraging thing we had for a while is you've got it. [1:02:17] You're very, very, if not impossible, close to impossible chance that you'll die if you [1:02:22] get it again. [1:02:23] Everybody could have been reassured. [1:02:24] Nobody was reassured. [1:02:25] It's like, well, we don't know. [1:02:26] We just don't quite understand natural immunity. [1:02:29] My favorite quote from that is from Martin Kulldor from Harvard. [1:02:33] You called him one of the people that you had to take down, the fringe epidemiologist, [1:02:37] which I've never, ever heard a scientist call another scientist that. [1:02:40] But he jokingly said on Twitter, he said, yeah, we knew about natural immunity from 486 B.C. [1:02:47] from the time of the Athenian plague. [1:02:50] We lost all knowledge of it in 2020. [1:02:53] The good news is it's slowly coming back, 24 to 2025. [1:02:57] We're beginning to understand what natural immunity is again. [1:03:00] Not something perfect, but a useful tool that could have been used, but also something that [1:03:04] could have helped people by telling the public, my goodness, you're not going to die now. [1:03:09] You have a chance. [1:03:10] If you've already had it and you're 85 years old and you're at risk for it and you're wanting [1:03:12] to feed your wife and they're telling you to wear four masks and not be around your wife [1:03:16] when you've already had it, it made no sense. [1:03:19] I visited with a man whose mom was 83 and she was dying from COVID. [1:03:25] They go to the hospital in Orange County. [1:03:27] They won't admit her to the hospital till she's vaccinated because we have a policy that everybody [1:03:32] in the hospital must be vaccinated. [1:03:34] She's got COVID and they wanted to vaccinate her again. [1:03:36] At one point in time, the CDC understood this. [1:03:40] They told people, don't get vaccinated if you've had COVID within three months. [1:03:44] Why? [1:03:45] Because it may give you a heightened immune response when you've already got a heightened [1:03:47] immune response. [1:03:48] But giving a person very sick, and many of the people who died from COVID died from this [1:03:53] storm of response, this immune storm, the answer wouldn't be try to stir up their immune [1:04:01] response more by giving them a vaccine. [1:04:03] The answer was actually steroids, and good old-fashioned steroids, 37% reduction in death. [1:04:08] It turned out to be way more valuable than remdesivir, way more valuable than any of the other treatments. [1:04:13] But I don't remember ever hearing a complimentary word on natural immunity or steroids or anything [1:04:18] else. [1:04:19] And, you know, I wish we could have done more today. [1:04:21] I would have been willing to accept an apology today. [1:04:24] I'm sorry I made mistakes. [1:04:26] We all made mistakes. [1:04:27] And, you know, at the time, I thought the gain-of-function research was, you know, the risks of it were worth [1:04:31] the benefits. [1:04:33] But I've reassessed since 15 million people died. [1:04:37] People say, well, gosh, these things never happen. [1:04:39] We know it happened in 1977. [1:04:41] We know with 100% certainty a virus rescaped. [1:04:44] In 1977, there was something called the Russian flu. [1:04:47] Nobody was even exactly positive how it got out. [1:04:49] But when they sequenced it, they found out that a flu in 1977 had exactly the same RNA as a 1954 one that they had in the lab and they had created a vaccine for. [1:05:00] In fact, it turns out anybody born before 1954 was immune, and the only people who got it were people who had been born between 1954 and 1977. [1:05:08] But it was identical. [1:05:10] The genetic sequence was identical to this vaccine or the virus from 1954, and that doesn't happen because these respiratory viruses are always mutating. [1:05:19] To be identical means it had to have leaked from the lab, proof positive that it had. [1:05:23] So we know this happens. [1:05:26] An author by the name of Young wrote a book and said there were 1,200 cases of significant accidents that have occurred. [1:05:33] We knew all of this, and yet it was completely discounted because, I think, you were worried. [1:05:38] That if it was seen that you funded dangerous research to start the pandemic, you'd get blamed. [1:05:44] And it was a concerted effort. [1:05:46] It wasn't just you. [1:05:47] It was anybody associated with the funding decided we needed to protect ourselves. [1:05:52] I'll echo Senator Johnson's comments about your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. [1:05:56] I think it was dead on. [1:05:57] Very, very well done. [1:05:59] Mr. Fauci, do you know who David Shirtler is? [1:06:01] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:06:13] Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. [1:06:16] What does the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution say? [1:06:27] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. [1:06:33] No, I'm just asking you what it says. [1:06:36] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:06:43] I'm going to give the Constitution to my aide. [1:06:45] He'll bring it over to you so you can have it for future reference. [1:06:48] I think it's something that every American should know what the Constitution says. [1:06:52] Do you know who wrote the Fifth Amendment? [1:06:55] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. [1:07:01] So you're invoking a right that you don't know who wrote it or what it says. [1:07:04] Is that correct? [1:07:05] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:07:13] Wow. [1:07:14] Well, let me tell you who David Shertler is for the audience because he was ejected by the chairman. [1:07:19] He's a high-profile criminal attorney. [1:07:22] He's represented some really great people like Senator Bob Menendez. [1:07:27] Maybe that's somebody who my Democrat colleagues may remember took gold bars as bribes from the Egyptians. [1:07:35] And there's an article here in the Washington Free Beacon that talks about why you would hire Guy Lake-Divers Shertler. [1:07:43] And the comment is, if you're in deep shit, that's who you call. [1:07:47] Do you feel like you're in deep shit? [1:07:50] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:07:56] Clearly, what you think today is that somehow you're above reproach. [1:08:06] Somehow you feel like you don't need to be treated like a normal American. [1:08:13] Can you do me a favor in the audience and stand up if, during the time of the COVID pandemic, you were called a racist for calling the virus a Wuhan virus or the China virus, [1:08:29] if you thought the six-foot rule was total crap, if you thought the vaccine wasn't something that you should take, [1:08:36] if you thought it was outrageous the way the mask policy was rolled out, [1:08:40] if you were fired from your job for not taking that vaccine, including members of the military, [1:08:47] if you thought closing schools was catastrophically stupid, [1:08:51] and that you thought that during these times, saying these things made you somehow a lesser human being. [1:09:03] Dr. Frederick, can you just turn around and look at the people behind you? [1:09:08] You're not willing to do that? [1:09:09] Is that a question? [1:09:12] It's not a question to your lawyers. [1:09:14] It's not a question. [1:09:15] It's a request. [1:09:18] All you have to do is look up from your lawyers and look at the people who were absolutely shamed for saying what we know now to be the truth. [1:09:29] You can't even look at them? [1:09:32] That's a question. [1:09:33] Are you able to look at them? [1:09:35] You can sit down in the audience. [1:09:43] There was a mom in Ohio during the depth of the coronavirus pandemic, [1:09:50] decided to go to her high school football game for her son. [1:09:58] They hadn't been out much. [1:10:00] The kids had been learning at school, and then the school got shut down. [1:10:07] They hadn't really gotten much out of that education. [1:10:10] As any parent knew, that remote learning was no learning at all. [1:10:14] But it was a Friday night. [1:10:16] Her son wanted to go watch a buddy go play football. [1:10:21] So they went to the stadium. [1:10:23] They sat alone, far from everybody else, just a mom, a dad, a few kids. [1:10:31] They didn't feel they needed to wear masks because it was stupid, because they were outside. [1:10:38] They all live together. [1:10:39] They're not near anybody. [1:10:44] Dr. Fauci, do you know what happened to that mom and that family? [1:10:49] That's a question. [1:10:49] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:10:58] They were dragged out of that stadium and arrested. [1:11:08] Those policies were put in place because you had moronic politicians [1:11:14] that listened to the words of a megalomaniac [1:11:18] who was more interested in having met a Kardashian than the suffering of the American people. [1:11:26] And that is you. [1:11:29] Your advice to communities like that, to idiotic politicians who enforced those rules, [1:11:39] arrested that mom for watching a football game with her own family outside. [1:11:46] When that story broke, I said to myself, [1:11:52] I cannot stand Ilee on the side and watch this happen. [1:11:56] It was about six years ago today that I decided I'm going to give up my businesses, [1:12:03] sell them all, run for office, run through the United States Senate. [1:12:08] Here I am sitting in front of you six years later saying, [1:12:10] who the fuck do you think you were for doing that? [1:12:15] It is a total disgrace what you did to this country. [1:12:19] And if my Democrat colleagues are standing there defending you, [1:12:22] I hope the voters of the United States of America [1:12:25] watch the clips of every one of you doting on a guy [1:12:29] who was more interested in being a celebrity than saving American people. [1:12:36] I will make it my mission to make certain that every single one of those Democrats who did that [1:12:44] will see that clip over and over and over again. [1:12:50] Because defending, there is no defense of what you did. [1:12:53] You may have had a 50-plus year legacy of public service, [1:13:01] but it ends in total and complete disgrace. [1:13:07] So let me ask you an opportunity to answer one question. [1:13:11] Will you apologize, just apologize, [1:13:16] to the people who you harmed through your actions? [1:13:21] Will you say, do you have the dignity to just say you're sorry? [1:13:26] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights [1:13:34] under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:13:36] So you won't apologize to the military members who Joe Biden is summerly dismissed from the military [1:13:42] for not taking the vaccine? [1:13:45] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights [1:13:49] under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:13:51] Will you apologize to the business owners that lost their business, [1:13:55] shattered their lives, and they'll never recover? [1:13:59] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights [1:14:02] under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:14:05] Will you apologize to the moms who had to force their infant children, [1:14:09] two-, three-, four-year-olds, to put masks on, [1:14:12] and what that did and how that traumatized those kids? [1:14:15] Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:14:23] Will you apologize to the family members, [1:14:26] or the people who died because they took your advice [1:14:29] and not only got the first vaccine, [1:14:31] but the five-, six other boosters that they did not need? [1:14:34] To answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:14:43] Will you apologize to that mom from Ohio for being arrested [1:14:46] for watching a football game with her family? [1:14:50] Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:15:00] So you didn't know who wrote the Fifth Amendment. [1:15:02] It's James Madison. [1:15:06] Lived in this town. [1:15:09] I can only wonder what he would think [1:15:12] of somebody like you invoking his writings [1:15:16] to shield culpability for the actions that you took. [1:15:23] It's no secret why you have to hire [1:15:25] the biggest dirtbag attorney on the planet [1:15:28] because of what you did. [1:15:32] I hope you're paying him well. [1:15:34] And I hope that one way or the other, [1:15:38] somewhere, sometime, you answer for your crimes. [1:15:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:15:47] You know, I'm the most junior member of the Senate here, [1:15:52] showing from where I sit. [1:15:53] I just got here last year. [1:15:56] Many of you may remember [1:15:57] I was the attorney general in Florida [1:15:58] who fought back against the lockdowns, [1:16:03] the school closures, the church closures, [1:16:05] the everything to embrace sanity and science. [1:16:12] We fought back. [1:16:13] We got ridiculed for it. [1:16:15] And we didn't just call people names. [1:16:18] We actually impaneled a grand jury [1:16:22] of people of all walks of life, [1:16:26] all political persuasions. [1:16:28] So that's how I came here, [1:16:33] fighting for a free state [1:16:35] among states that had locked their own people down. [1:16:41] We are now called the free state of Florida. [1:16:44] And I believe our responsibility here [1:16:45] is to make sure [1:16:47] that government remembers [1:16:49] the people are our bosses, [1:16:52] that we report to them, [1:16:54] that we're accountable to them. [1:16:56] Government shouldn't operate for itself. [1:16:59] Government operates on behalf of [1:17:01] and for the American people. [1:17:03] And anytime we get close [1:17:06] to reporting back to our bosses [1:17:08] about what government has done [1:17:10] or how it's been abused, [1:17:11] or how individuals that are employed [1:17:13] by the government [1:17:14] had acted in their own self-interest [1:17:16] or against the interest [1:17:17] of the American people, [1:17:18] every time we get close, [1:17:20] if we start uncovering outrageous fraud, [1:17:24] we'll have a hearing. [1:17:26] And the tactics have been to not show up. [1:17:29] So you'll have all of us over here [1:17:31] trying to drill down [1:17:32] on why we've been giving money [1:17:33] that actually works [1:17:35] against American citizens [1:17:36] and no one shows up. [1:17:39] Today there's, well, [1:17:40] nobody's here at the moment. [1:17:42] Today there seems to be a difficult, [1:17:43] a different tactic. [1:17:44] Today, we have Democrats showing up [1:17:49] and trying to spin [1:17:50] why we shouldn't even be having this hearing [1:17:52] to report back to our bosses. [1:17:54] One said, [1:17:55] today's hearing does damage. [1:17:56] It will deter others from public service. [1:17:59] Another said, [1:17:59] this hearing is designed to entrap you. [1:18:02] Another said, [1:18:04] oh, one fell all over himself, [1:18:06] flattering you, [1:18:07] thanking you for your service multiple times, [1:18:10] quoting man in the arena. [1:18:11] Another said that we are demeaning first responders [1:18:17] and today is a sad play [1:18:19] in a repeated playbook [1:18:24] or we're going after one man. [1:18:26] I mean, all of their time was used on [1:18:29] why we should not be having the hearing [1:18:31] to report back to our bosses [1:18:33] and give the people accountability. [1:18:40] So I would like to talk about that [1:18:41] because I believe that trust, [1:18:44] the trust the American people place [1:18:45] in our public health institutions [1:18:47] and what happened to that trust during COVID [1:18:49] is important [1:18:50] because in a public health emergency, [1:18:53] they are asked to make extraordinary sacrifices [1:18:55] based on advice given to them [1:18:58] by the government [1:18:59] that is supposed to be working for them. [1:19:03] And for that system to work, [1:19:04] the public has to be able to trust them, [1:19:06] trust the people giving them instructions. [1:19:09] That trust depends on candor. [1:19:11] Would you agree with that, Dr. Fauci? [1:19:17] On the advice of counsel, [1:19:18] I respectfully decline to answer [1:19:20] based upon my rights [1:19:21] under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:19:23] And when the evidence is uncertain, [1:19:25] officials need to say so. [1:19:27] When recommendations are based on assumptions [1:19:29] rather than hard data, [1:19:31] they need to say so. [1:19:32] And when they get something wrong, [1:19:34] they need to own it. [1:19:36] And when the trust is lost [1:19:37] and the consequences extend far beyond [1:19:39] any single pandemic, [1:19:42] the next time public health officials [1:19:44] genuinely need Americans to listen [1:19:46] and millions of people [1:19:47] and millions of people may simply ignore them [1:19:48] or not believe them. [1:19:51] And Dr. Fauci, you were undeniably the face [1:19:53] of the federal government's COVID response. [1:19:56] You said so yourself in your diary. [1:19:58] You said it's not hyperbole to say [1:20:00] I've become the most famous [1:20:02] and talked about person in the country. [1:20:05] So I want to understand how we got here. [1:20:12] Let's start at the beginning. [1:20:13] On March 8th, 2020, [1:20:15] you appeared on 60 Minutes [1:20:16] to discuss the spread of COVID-19. [1:20:18] You were specifically asked [1:20:19] to clear up the confusion [1:20:20] and misinformation surrounding masks. [1:20:23] You told the American people, [1:20:24] right now in the United States, [1:20:25] people should not be walking around with a mask. [1:20:28] The interviewer immediately stopped you [1:20:30] and said, are you sure of it? [1:20:31] Because people are listening really closely to this. [1:20:34] And instead of walking back [1:20:36] or qualifying your statement [1:20:37] in any way, you've doubled down. [1:20:39] There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. [1:20:41] When you're in the middle of an outbreak, [1:20:43] wearing a mask might make people feel a little better. [1:20:45] It might even block a droplet, [1:20:46] but it's not providing the perfect protection [1:20:49] that people think it is. [1:20:50] And often there are unintended consequences. [1:20:53] People keep fiddling with their masks. [1:20:54] They keep touching their face. [1:20:56] Just a few weeks later, [1:20:57] the CDC released its guidance [1:20:59] recommending that Americans wear masks in public. [1:21:03] You were asked to explain [1:21:04] your original recommendation. [1:21:05] You emphasized a very different consideration. [1:21:08] You said, well, back then, [1:21:09] the critical issue was to save the masks [1:21:12] for the people who really needed them [1:21:13] because it was felt there was a shortage of masks. [1:21:18] So I want everybody to sit with that. [1:21:21] The critical issue driving your initial recommendation [1:21:23] to the American public was scarcity, [1:21:26] logistics, not medical evidence. [1:21:29] So when you told the American people [1:21:31] there was no reason to wear a mask, [1:21:35] what was your principal objective? [1:21:36] Giving them an honest assessment [1:21:38] of the medical evidence [1:21:39] or discouraging them [1:21:40] from consuming a scarce supply of masks? [1:21:42] On the advice of counsel, [1:21:47] I respectfully decline to answer [1:21:49] based upon my rights [1:21:50] under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. [1:21:53] Well, unfortunately, [1:21:54] that was just the beginning [1:21:54] of a broader pattern. [1:21:56] Let's talk about [1:21:57] the six-foot distancing rule. [1:21:59] In April 5, 2020, [1:22:01] an interview on CBS said, [1:22:02] every time I get to that podium [1:22:03] in the White House briefing room, [1:22:05] I always essentially plead with people, [1:22:07] please take a look [1:22:08] at those very simple guidelines [1:22:09] of physical separation, [1:22:11] and they're very, very clear. [1:22:12] Physically separate six feet away. [1:22:15] Yet when Congress finally asked you [1:22:17] in 2024 what science supported [1:22:19] that evidence, [1:22:19] six-foot distance rule for COVID, [1:22:21] you admitted you were not aware [1:22:22] of any studies supporting it. [1:22:25] Incredibly, you said [1:22:26] the six-foot rule sort of just appeared [1:22:28] and described it as an empiric decision [1:22:30] that wasn't based on data. [1:22:35] That rule had real consequences. [1:22:38] Schools didn't open back up. [1:22:40] Businesses didn't open back up. [1:22:43] Churches didn't open back up. [1:22:45] I could go on and on and on. [1:22:47] And Americans were kept physically separated [1:22:51] from one another [1:22:52] during the most difficult moments [1:22:53] of their lives. [1:22:54] Many lost loved ones during that time. [1:23:00] So, Dr. Fauci, [1:23:00] did you have any evidence [1:23:02] to support a six-foot separation rule [1:23:04] when you gave that advice to Americans? [1:23:09] On the advice of counsel, [1:23:11] I respectfully decline to answer [1:23:12] based upon my rights [1:23:13] under the Fifth Amendment [1:23:14] to the Constitution. [1:23:16] All right, well, let's look [1:23:16] at the lockdowns then. [1:23:17] By 2022, the consequences [1:23:19] of prolonged COVID lockdowns [1:23:20] on our children were clear. [1:23:22] From delayed development [1:23:23] to social isolation, [1:23:24] which is probably why [1:23:26] you were asked in July 2022 [1:23:27] whether you would recommend [1:23:29] locking down schools again. [1:23:30] And you said, first of all, [1:23:32] I didn't recommend [1:23:33] locking anything down. [1:23:36] But now we have your diary. [1:23:38] And it tells a very different story [1:23:40] from the one you told the public. [1:23:43] And I will quote, [1:23:44] I spoke with Bill de Blasio, [1:23:46] the mayor of NYC, [1:23:47] and convinced him [1:23:47] based on what I was saying publicly [1:23:49] in my conversation tonight [1:23:50] to close the NYC schools, [1:23:52] he had already decided [1:23:53] based on what I was saying on TV. [1:23:54] I went on to tell him [1:23:55] he should close the bars [1:23:56] and restaurants in NYC. [1:23:58] And he said he would do this [1:23:59] based on my recommendation. [1:24:01] You even said [1:24:02] that you told the president [1:24:03] we should shut [1:24:04] the whole country down. [1:24:06] So, Dr. Fauci, [1:24:07] how do you square telling [1:24:08] the American people publicly [1:24:09] that you didn't recommend [1:24:12] locking anything down [1:24:13] with your own diary entry [1:24:15] kept on federal government equipment [1:24:17] saying that your recommendation [1:24:19] is what convinced the mayor [1:24:21] and the president [1:24:22] to lock things down? [1:24:23] On the advice of counsel, [1:24:28] I respectfully decline [1:24:29] to answer based upon my rights [1:24:31] under the Fifth Amendment [1:24:32] to the Constitution. [1:24:34] Now, I just want to make clear [1:24:36] that when in Florida, [1:24:37] we were pleading with people [1:24:39] to give us advice [1:24:40] based on scientific evidence, [1:24:42] that we were getting [1:24:48] these conflicting statements [1:24:50] by you that didn't match [1:24:52] scientific data. [1:24:53] And in fact, [1:24:55] when we impaneled a grand jury, [1:24:58] the grand jury's conclusion, [1:25:00] not surprising to anyone, [1:25:01] and by the way, [1:25:02] we're still the only state [1:25:03] to have impaneled a grand jury. [1:25:05] I was the only attorney general [1:25:07] to do this. [1:25:08] We did this in 2023. [1:25:10] That conclusion was [1:25:11] the lockdown mask [1:25:12] and social distancing advice [1:25:14] administered by federal agencies [1:25:15] and implemented [1:25:16] by certain local, state, [1:25:17] and federal agencies [1:25:18] was not based on [1:25:20] the best available scientific data. [1:25:22] In fact, many recommendations [1:25:23] and their accompanying mandates [1:25:25] departed significantly [1:25:26] from available research. [1:25:29] Again, people from all walks of life, [1:25:34] all political persuasions, [1:25:36] that is what they found. [1:25:37] And yet, during that time, [1:25:39] while you were giving [1:25:40] those statements, [1:25:40] knowing there was [1:25:41] no scientific basis for it, [1:25:45] and we know now you knew it [1:25:46] because we have your diary entries, [1:25:48] you called the governor [1:25:50] that I worked with [1:25:51] to fight to keep Washington [1:25:54] and D.C. out of our state [1:25:56] so that we could indeed [1:25:58] respect the rights [1:25:59] of our citizens. [1:26:01] You called our governor, [1:26:04] Governor DeSantis, [1:26:05] and I'm going to quote this [1:26:06] so I get it right, [1:26:07] right out of your journals, [1:26:09] a total jerk [1:26:10] that he is a complete disgrace, [1:26:15] that he is blocking [1:26:15] local authorities [1:26:16] from mandating masks [1:26:18] in various locations, [1:26:19] including schools. [1:26:20] And you were very concerned [1:26:24] and upset [1:26:24] that we were actively, [1:26:26] and I'm going to quote, [1:26:27] criticizing you, [1:26:28] and we talked virtually every day [1:26:30] about being wrong on everything. [1:26:32] And what is astounding [1:26:36] is that you wrote, [1:26:37] you feared because of that, [1:26:40] because we were questioning [1:26:41] our government, [1:26:42] because we were fighting back [1:26:43] for the truth from our government, [1:26:45] from scientifically-based recommendations, [1:26:49] because we were pushing for that. [1:26:51] You said you feared [1:26:52] that our democracy [1:26:53] is in dire danger. [1:26:58] Thank goodness we have people up here [1:27:01] that I work with [1:27:02] that understand our role, [1:27:04] which is to report to our bosses, [1:27:06] is the people, [1:27:07] because they are in charge. [1:27:12] Calling for our government [1:27:13] to be honest with us [1:27:15] and transparent with us [1:27:17] and accountable to us, [1:27:20] that is a democracy. [1:27:25] What you did is the opposite. [1:27:28] And I cannot believe [1:27:29] I have to explain this [1:27:30] to someone [1:27:31] who represented our government [1:27:33] and some of the most important issues [1:27:35] for so long. [1:27:36] And before I conclude, [1:27:37] if I can just put up our pardon, [1:27:41] this is the pardon [1:27:42] you have heard so much about. [1:27:44] And Dr. Fauci, [1:27:46] the only other person [1:27:47] that got a pardon like this, [1:27:48] I believe, [1:27:49] had a last name of Biden. [1:27:52] This pardon goes back to, [1:27:54] and if you'll see, [1:27:54] January the 1st of 2014. [1:27:57] Did you talk to President Biden [1:27:59] and ask for this pardon? [1:28:03] On the advice of counsel, [1:28:05] I respectfully decline to answer [1:28:06] based upon my rights [1:28:07] under the Fifth Amendment [1:28:08] to the Constitution. [1:28:10] Who did you talk to [1:28:10] in the White House [1:28:11] about this pardon? [1:28:14] On the advice of counsel, [1:28:15] I respectfully decline to answer [1:28:16] based upon my rights [1:28:18] under the Fifth Amendment [1:28:18] to the Constitution. [1:28:20] Did you specifically ask [1:28:21] that it be dated back [1:28:22] to the beginning of 2014? [1:28:24] On the advice of counsel, [1:28:27] I respectfully decline to answer [1:28:28] based upon my rights [1:28:29] under the Fifth Amendment [1:28:30] to the Constitution. [1:28:34] Did you do that [1:28:34] so that you would be given [1:28:35] immunity going back [1:28:38] to the beginning of 2014? [1:28:40] On the advice of counsel, [1:28:42] I respectfully decline to answer [1:28:44] based upon my rights [1:28:45] under the Fifth Amendment [1:28:46] to the Constitution. [1:28:47] I'm just very interested [1:28:48] why it was this date. [1:28:50] Did it have anything to do [1:28:51] with the fact that 2014 [1:28:52] was also the year [1:28:53] that the NIAID or NIH [1:28:56] began funding [1:28:57] EcoHealth Alliances [1:28:58] Understanding the Risk [1:29:00] of Bat Coronavirus [1:29:01] Emergence Grant? [1:29:05] On the advice of counsel, [1:29:06] I respectfully decline [1:29:07] to answer based upon my rights [1:29:08] under the Fifth Amendment [1:29:09] to the Constitution. [1:29:10] And this is the same grant [1:29:11] that funded the work [1:29:12] on bat coronaviruses [1:29:14] at the Wuhan Institute [1:29:15] on Virology. [1:29:20] Millions of Americans [1:29:21] are questioning [1:29:22] what happened during COVID, [1:29:25] why we were given [1:29:26] misleading information, [1:29:28] misleading advice, [1:29:29] why you gave conflicting [1:29:31] statements based on, [1:29:33] I guess, how you were [1:29:34] feeling that day. [1:29:36] And Americans, rightfully, [1:29:38] we lost over a million Americans. [1:29:41] They should be insulted [1:29:43] when the Democrats [1:29:44] insult our chair [1:29:46] that he's doing this [1:29:47] because he's on an obsessive [1:29:48] mission to go after one man. [1:29:50] Could his obsessive [1:29:51] obsessive mission be [1:29:52] to find out why [1:29:54] a million Americans died [1:29:56] and who might be [1:29:57] responsible for that [1:29:58] and where that started? [1:30:00] Could that be his mission, [1:30:01] Dr. Fauci? [1:30:07] On the advice of counsel, [1:30:08] I respectfully decline [1:30:09] to answer based upon my rights [1:30:11] under the Fifth Amendment [1:30:12] to the Constitution. [1:30:13] And after everything [1:30:13] we have just walked through, [1:30:14] can you sit here today [1:30:15] and tell the American people, [1:30:18] our bosses, [1:30:19] that you bear no responsibility [1:30:20] for their collapse [1:30:22] in trust of their government? [1:30:29] Based upon my rights [1:30:30] under the Fifth Amendment [1:30:31] to the Constitution? [1:30:32] Time has expired. [1:30:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:30:36] Well, nothing says honesty [1:30:37] like taking the Fifth, huh, Doc? [1:30:38] Let's try something. [1:30:42] What day of the week is it today? [1:30:47] On the advice of counsel, [1:30:49] I respectfully decline [1:30:50] to answer based upon my rights [1:30:52] under the Fifth Amendment [1:30:53] to the Constitution. [1:30:54] What color tie are you wearing? [1:30:55] On the advice of counsel, [1:30:58] I respectfully decline [1:31:00] to answer based upon my rights [1:31:02] under the Fifth Amendment [1:31:03] to the Constitution. [1:31:04] What color is the carpet [1:31:05] in front of you? [1:31:09] On the advice of counsel, [1:31:10] I respectfully decline to answer [1:31:12] based upon my rights [1:31:13] under the Fifth Amendment [1:31:14] to the Constitution. [1:31:16] Let's just get one thing straight. [1:31:17] You don't have any rights [1:31:17] under the Fifth Amendment [1:31:18] because you've been pardoned. [1:31:20] As you very well know, [1:31:21] as the Supreme Court [1:31:22] has been clear [1:31:23] for a century and more, [1:31:24] Brown v. Walker, 1896, [1:31:27] when he has been pardoned, [1:31:28] he may not stand [1:31:29] upon his privilege. [1:31:31] You know that. [1:31:32] Your lawyers sitting behind you [1:31:33] now shifting nervously [1:31:34] in their chairs. [1:31:35] They know it. [1:31:36] This isn't about the Constitution. [1:31:37] This isn't about the law. [1:31:38] This is about contempt. [1:31:39] Contempt for this body [1:31:41] and contempt for the American people. [1:31:43] But I think I know [1:31:44] why you're doing it. [1:31:45] It's because you don't [1:31:46] want to answer questions. [1:31:48] It's because you did [1:31:50] all kinds of terrible things. [1:31:51] It's because during the pandemic, [1:31:53] you got rich, didn't you? [1:31:55] You got rich while people [1:31:57] were dying, [1:31:58] hundreds of thousands [1:31:59] of Americans, [1:32:00] over a million in the end, [1:32:01] and you were getting rich. [1:32:02] And not only were you doing that, [1:32:04] you were using federal employees [1:32:06] with taxpayer money [1:32:07] to apply for and solicit [1:32:10] cash prizes [1:32:11] for you personally. [1:32:13] Cash prizes [1:32:14] totaling over a million dollars. [1:32:17] You did all of that [1:32:18] during the pandemic, [1:32:19] didn't you? [1:32:21] That's a question. [1:32:24] On the advice of counsel, [1:32:25] I respectfully decline [1:32:26] to answer based upon my rights [1:32:27] under the Fifth Amendment [1:32:28] to the Constitution. [1:32:30] You remember Greg Fulkers? [1:32:32] Who was that? [1:32:34] On the advice of counsel, [1:32:35] I respectfully decline [1:32:36] to answer based upon my rights [1:32:38] under the Fifth Amendment [1:32:39] to the Constitution. [1:32:40] Your chief of staff [1:32:41] is the answer. [1:32:42] Do you remember Patricia Conrad? [1:32:43] Who was that? [1:32:45] On the advice of counsel, [1:32:47] I respectfully decline [1:32:48] to answer based upon my rights [1:32:49] under the Fifth Amendment [1:32:50] to the Constitution. [1:32:51] Uh-huh. [1:32:51] She was your personal assistant. [1:32:53] And what were these individuals [1:32:54] doing in the depth [1:32:55] of the pandemic [1:32:56] in November of 2020 [1:32:58] when millions of Americans [1:33:00] were suffering from COVID? [1:33:01] What were they doing? [1:33:02] I'll tell you what they're doing. [1:33:04] Fulkers was on your behalf [1:33:05] soliciting and gathering information [1:33:08] for a cash award. [1:33:10] Let's look at it. [1:33:10] We've got his email right here, [1:33:12] right over my shoulder. [1:33:15] Fulkers says, [1:33:15] I'm working on this nomination [1:33:16] for the Dan David Award [1:33:18] for Fauci. [1:33:18] We need to beef up the COVID part. [1:33:20] Do you have language in the can [1:33:22] that you could share [1:33:23] that delineates how we responded [1:33:24] in new ways to COVID? [1:33:26] He sends this to multiple [1:33:27] federal employees. [1:33:29] What was the Dan David Award? [1:33:30] Do you remember, Doc? [1:33:33] On the advice of counsel, [1:33:34] I respectfully decline [1:33:36] to answer based upon my rights [1:33:37] under the Fifth Amendment [1:33:38] to the Constitution. [1:33:39] It was a $900,000 cash award. [1:33:43] $900,000 cash award. [1:33:48] And he got it [1:33:49] because he used [1:33:51] federal employees to get it. [1:33:53] And this wasn't the only award, [1:33:55] was it, Dr. Fauci? [1:33:56] In fact, you applied for [1:33:57] and received at least [1:33:58] eight other federal cash prizes [1:34:01] on federal time [1:34:03] using federal employees [1:34:04] and federal resources. [1:34:06] Here they are over my shoulder. [1:34:08] Besides the Dan David Award, [1:34:09] you've got the Partnership [1:34:10] for Public Service. [1:34:11] You've got the Adelson Prize. [1:34:12] You've got the Smithsonian Award. [1:34:13] You've got the National Academy [1:34:14] of Medicines Award. [1:34:15] You've got the CDC Foundation. [1:34:16] In fact, you turned your staff [1:34:18] into a full-time application machine. [1:34:21] You actually wrote to people [1:34:23] and said, [1:34:24] do you think maybe I'd qualify? [1:34:26] And you got cash for all of this. [1:34:28] And it wasn't just [1:34:29] one or two employees, was it? [1:34:30] In fact, you used [1:34:31] eight separate federal employees [1:34:34] on federal time [1:34:36] using federal resources [1:34:37] to solicit cash awards. [1:34:39] Isn't that true? [1:34:42] On the advice of counsel, [1:34:43] I respectfully decline to answer [1:34:45] based upon my rights [1:34:46] under the Fifth Amendment [1:34:47] to the Constitution. [1:34:48] Here they are right over my shoulder. [1:34:49] Here's all of them. [1:34:50] The people that you use, [1:34:52] federal employees, [1:34:53] so that you could go [1:34:54] and get cash money. [1:34:57] And the most hilarious part [1:34:58] is that you weren't content [1:34:59] to even dragoon them [1:35:01] into applying [1:35:02] for all of these cash awards. [1:35:03] You then had them go out [1:35:05] to the ethics agencies [1:35:06] and ethics watchdogs [1:35:07] and demand that you be able [1:35:09] to get the money. [1:35:11] That's right. [1:35:12] We've got it in your emails. [1:35:15] Your staff and employees [1:35:17] on federal time [1:35:18] using federal resources [1:35:20] being paid with federal dollars [1:35:21] are soliciting cash for you. [1:35:23] And then they're turning around [1:35:24] and saying to the agency, [1:35:25] we don't want just an answer. [1:35:27] We want to get to yes. [1:35:28] Because Fauci wants the money. [1:35:31] He wants it. [1:35:33] We want to get to yes. [1:35:35] And yes takes time. [1:35:36] This is your chief of staff again [1:35:38] using federal email [1:35:39] to pressure the agency's [1:35:42] own ethics people [1:35:43] so that you could get money, [1:35:45] so that you could get rich. [1:35:48] And it violated the law, [1:35:50] didn't it, Dr. Fauci? [1:35:52] Didn't it? [1:35:54] It violated the law, didn't it? [1:35:58] It is a question. [1:35:59] You can answer. [1:36:00] Go ahead. [1:36:00] On the advice of counsel, [1:36:02] I respectfully decline [1:36:03] to answer based upon my rights [1:36:05] under the Fifth Amendment [1:36:05] to the Constitution. [1:36:07] Federal law, [1:36:07] as you very well know, [1:36:09] prohibits the solicitation [1:36:11] of cash awards [1:36:12] or other personal benefits [1:36:14] for federal employees. [1:36:15] And it certainly prohibits [1:36:17] using your own employees [1:36:19] to do this. [1:36:22] 5 CFR section 2635-205B. [1:36:25] It says it right there [1:36:27] in black and white. [1:36:28] You cannot use federal resources, [1:36:31] federal dollars, [1:36:32] federal employees, [1:36:33] federal offices, [1:36:35] federal email, [1:36:36] federal time [1:36:36] to solicit cash awards. [1:36:38] And you did all of it. [1:36:39] And the worst part is [1:36:40] thousands of people were dying [1:36:42] while you were doing it. [1:36:43] You were supposed to be [1:36:44] the nation's doctor [1:36:45] and you were playing one on TV. [1:36:46] But this is what you were doing [1:36:48] with your time. [1:36:48] Isn't that true? [1:36:54] On the advice of counsel, [1:36:55] I respectfully decline [1:36:56] to answer based upon my rights [1:36:58] under the Fifth Amendment [1:36:59] to the Constitution. [1:37:00] Yeah. [1:37:01] Yeah, I can see why. [1:37:03] I can certainly see why. [1:37:05] You know what I can't quite figure out [1:37:06] is that why you were so obsessed [1:37:08] with it because you're already rich. [1:37:09] I mean, and your scheme worked here. [1:37:12] I mean, you're not worth now [1:37:13] is north of $12 million. [1:37:16] You got over a million dollars [1:37:18] in cash awards during COVID, [1:37:20] during a 12-month, [1:37:22] 24-month span during COVID. [1:37:24] A million bucks [1:37:25] you knocked down in cash money [1:37:28] using federal resources. [1:37:29] Now you're worth [1:37:30] more than $12 million. [1:37:32] You've got a pension [1:37:32] that in its first year [1:37:34] paid out north of $400,000 a year. [1:37:38] A million people dead, [1:37:39] you're getting rich. [1:37:40] A million people dead, [1:37:42] you're using federal employees [1:37:43] to get cash awards for you. [1:37:45] A million people dead, [1:37:47] and you're here taking the fifth [1:37:48] because you don't want to admit [1:37:50] that what really happened [1:37:52] in all that time [1:37:52] was a multi-month, [1:37:54] multi-year course [1:37:55] of self-dealing. [1:37:57] Isn't that true, Dr. Fauci? [1:38:01] On the advice of counsel, [1:38:02] I respectfully decline [1:38:03] to answer based upon my rights [1:38:05] under the Fifth Amendment [1:38:06] to the Constitution. [1:38:07] Yeah, we'll silence his admission. [1:38:10] And here's the real thing. [1:38:12] At the end of the day, [1:38:12] it wasn't just about the money, [1:38:14] really, was it? [1:38:14] It was really about a power trip. [1:38:17] I mean, through all of this, [1:38:18] you want to be [1:38:19] the most famous scientist [1:38:20] in the world. [1:38:20] You were so focused [1:38:21] on getting every award [1:38:23] and every drop of cash [1:38:24] that you could, [1:38:25] all because you wanted [1:38:26] to be on TV. [1:38:27] You wanted to be [1:38:28] the sun god of science. [1:38:30] You wanted to be the guy [1:38:31] who was in charge of it all. [1:38:32] You wanted to blambass Trump. [1:38:34] You wanted to make sure [1:38:35] that nobody else [1:38:36] stole your spotlight. [1:38:37] You wanted to be the guy. [1:38:40] You had time to sit [1:38:41] for InStyle Magazine. [1:38:44] Here's what you were doing [1:38:44] with your time. [1:38:45] You could sit [1:38:45] for InStyle Magazine, [1:38:47] but you can't answer questions [1:38:49] for the American people. [1:38:51] You could sit [1:38:51] for InStyle Magazine, [1:38:53] but you're here [1:38:53] taking the Fifth. [1:38:54] You could sit [1:38:55] for InStyle Magazine [1:38:56] and get a million bucks [1:38:57] in cash awards, [1:38:58] but now the cat's [1:38:59] got your tongue. [1:39:01] I bet he does. [1:39:03] I tell you what, [1:39:04] here's my conclusion [1:39:05] from all of this. [1:39:06] This was really all about you [1:39:07] the whole time. [1:39:08] Somewhere along the way, [1:39:09] you lost your way. [1:39:12] You may have been [1:39:12] a good public servant [1:39:13] at one time. [1:39:14] I don't know. [1:39:14] But what I can tell you [1:39:15] from reading your emails now, [1:39:17] from looking at what you did, [1:39:18] how you used your employees, [1:39:20] somewhere along the line, [1:39:20] it became all about you. [1:39:23] You became a narcissist [1:39:24] and a megalomaniac [1:39:26] and a liar. [1:39:27] And you've lied [1:39:28] to the American people [1:39:29] and you've lied to this body. [1:39:31] And you've disgraced [1:39:32] your profession by doing it. [1:39:33] You called yourself [1:39:33] the most famous scientist [1:39:34] in the world. [1:39:36] You've done more [1:39:36] to harm science [1:39:37] than anybody in my lifetime. [1:39:39] And I hope you'll go home [1:39:40] and write that in your diary. [1:39:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:39:44] Senator Fetterman. [1:39:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:39:50] Dr. Fauci, [1:39:50] I hope the American people [1:39:52] listen very carefully [1:39:54] to Chairman Paul's [1:39:55] opening statement. [1:39:57] I think it's a stunning [1:39:58] indictment [1:39:59] of the actions [1:40:02] you've taken [1:40:02] that have been so destructive [1:40:03] to global health. [1:40:06] I certainly understand [1:40:08] why you needed a pardon. [1:40:13] I certainly understand [1:40:13] why, on the advice of counsel, [1:40:15] you're not answering [1:40:16] any questions [1:40:17] because I think [1:40:19] it would be almost impossible [1:40:20] for you to answer [1:40:21] the questions truthfully [1:40:22] without really demonstrating [1:40:27] what you did. [1:40:34] Your culpability. [1:40:36] Self-incriminating. [1:40:39] We have, all of us, [1:40:41] prepared a lot. [1:40:42] I've been deluged [1:40:44] with questions [1:40:46] to ask Dr. Anthony Fauci. [1:40:50] There are so many [1:40:51] legitimate questions [1:40:52] that deserve answers [1:40:53] and now you're not willing [1:40:54] to provide those answers. [1:40:56] So, with my limited time, [1:40:59] I'm going to talk about [1:41:02] things that my investigation [1:41:04] have revealed [1:41:04] that have not been [1:41:06] adequately answered [1:41:08] and, quite honestly, [1:41:09] haven't been adequately [1:41:09] covered by the legacy media. [1:41:13] I'll kind of combine [1:41:14] the questions [1:41:15] into kind of one, [1:41:17] but, you know, [1:41:18] I certainly, [1:41:18] let's put up [1:41:19] the last COVID chart. [1:41:22] I was warned [1:41:24] pretty early on [1:41:25] about the dangers [1:41:25] of the experimental [1:41:26] gene therapy [1:41:27] that you've called [1:41:29] a vaccine, [1:41:30] but it really falls [1:41:32] under the definition [1:41:32] of gene therapy. [1:41:33] So, I was going to ask you, [1:41:37] I mean, [1:41:37] were you carefully monitoring [1:41:39] the safety surveillance systems [1:41:41] like VAERS and V-SAFE [1:41:43] that literally were deluged [1:41:45] with complaints? [1:41:48] You know, [1:41:49] currently, [1:41:50] worldwide, [1:41:51] there have been [1:41:52] almost 1.7 million [1:41:53] adverse events [1:41:54] reported to the VAERS system. [1:41:57] Of those, [1:41:57] over 39,000 [1:41:59] were deaths [1:42:00] and of those deaths, [1:42:01] 24% occur [1:42:03] on the day of vaccination [1:42:05] within one or two days. [1:42:06] 24%, [1:42:07] which, by the way, [1:42:08] just happens [1:42:08] to be the same percentage [1:42:09] that a Rasmussen poll [1:42:11] pointed out [1:42:12] the American public [1:42:13] believe they, [1:42:14] 24% of the American public [1:42:15] believe they know [1:42:16] somebody who died [1:42:17] of the experimental [1:42:20] gene therapy. [1:42:24] So, again, [1:42:25] I was certainly [1:42:26] interested in asking you [1:42:28] whether or not [1:42:28] you were following [1:42:29] this as carefully [1:42:30] as I was. [1:42:30] It was not my responsibility [1:42:32] to follow [1:42:32] safety surveillance systems, [1:42:35] but I did. [1:42:35] And by the way, [1:42:36] when I published, [1:42:37] this is actual [1:42:39] government information. [1:42:41] When I published it [1:42:41] and people had me [1:42:44] on their shows, [1:42:45] they would be censored [1:42:45] by Facebook. [1:42:46] They would be de-platformed, [1:42:50] I think, [1:42:50] largely at the behest [1:42:51] of the actions [1:42:52] you took [1:42:52] to make sure [1:42:53] that disinformation [1:42:54] wasn't spread. [1:42:55] This wasn't disinformation. [1:42:56] This was the truth. [1:42:59] So I was going to ask you [1:43:00] whether you knew [1:43:00] Dr. Marks. [1:43:01] I think you do know him. [1:43:02] He's the head of CBER. [1:43:03] He's the man [1:43:04] who was in charge [1:43:04] of approving vaccines [1:43:07] and surveilling [1:43:08] for the safety. [1:43:10] My investigation [1:43:10] shows that [1:43:12] on March 1st of 2021, [1:43:13] less than three months [1:43:14] after the emergency [1:43:15] use authorizations, [1:43:16] he was warned [1:43:16] by Dr. Anna Scharfman, [1:43:19] data mining expert, [1:43:19] that the algorithm [1:43:20] they were using [1:43:21] to analyze [1:43:22] Veer's data [1:43:23] was going to hide [1:43:24] and mask safety signals. [1:43:27] 26 days later [1:43:28] and three months [1:43:29] consecutively after that, [1:43:30] they did data runs [1:43:31] with a new algorithm [1:43:32] that unmasked [1:43:35] those safety signals. [1:43:36] They showed dozens [1:43:37] of safety signals [1:43:38] including sudden cardiac death, [1:43:42] cerebral artery occlusion, [1:43:43] basal ganglia stroke, [1:43:45] agonal rhythm, [1:43:46] Bell's palsy, [1:43:49] and pulmonary infarction. [1:43:54] Your diaries now [1:43:55] show that you actually [1:43:56] suffered pulmonary infarction [1:43:59] in I think probably [1:44:00] June 2021. [1:44:01] I was just wondering, [1:44:02] I was just wondering [1:44:04] whether it ever [1:44:06] went through your mind [1:44:07] that maybe that injection, [1:44:11] all those boosts you took [1:44:12] might have caused that. [1:44:13] And the question I was going to, [1:44:14] and I'll ask this question, [1:44:15] were you ever made aware [1:44:16] of the fact [1:44:17] that Peter Marks [1:44:18] was warned [1:44:20] that the algorithm [1:44:22] was going to hide [1:44:22] the safety signals [1:44:23] and were you told [1:44:26] that senior FDA officials [1:44:27] were given dozens, [1:44:30] shown dozens [1:44:30] of safety signals [1:44:31] associated with [1:44:33] the COVID injection? [1:44:36] On the advice of counsel, [1:44:38] I respectfully decline [1:44:39] to answer [1:44:39] based upon my rights [1:44:41] under the Fifth Amendment [1:44:42] to the Constitution. [1:44:45] Next area I want [1:44:46] to go through is [1:44:47] in that same month [1:44:49] of March 2021, [1:44:52] an employee at NIH, [1:44:53] which Dr. Nath [1:44:55] led a team of researchers [1:44:57] who were diagnosing [1:44:59] and treating individuals [1:45:02] who'd never had COVID [1:45:03] but were severely injured [1:45:06] by the genetic therapy injections. [1:45:12] Dr. Nath told those individuals, [1:45:14] stay quiet. [1:45:17] We want to make sure [1:45:18] that we gather all the information [1:45:20] and then release it to doctors [1:45:22] so they can treat people [1:45:23] like yourself. [1:45:23] There was a concerted effort [1:45:26] and I'll enter this [1:45:27] into the record. [1:45:28] It appears inside NIH [1:45:30] to quash Dr. Nath's [1:45:33] publishing that study. [1:45:37] It finally was put [1:45:38] on a pre-print server [1:45:39] telling no one [1:45:41] in I think about May of 2022. [1:45:45] I think what's noteworthy [1:45:46] about this is Dr. Nath [1:45:47] told the injured participants [1:45:50] that early treatment, [1:45:52] early intervention [1:45:53] was crucial [1:45:54] for them to be treated. [1:45:57] And yet within the NIH, [1:45:59] they were questioning, [1:45:59] what was Dr. Nath doing? [1:46:02] They didn't want to publish that [1:46:03] because, [1:46:05] and I don't want to take time [1:46:06] searching for it, [1:46:07] because publishing it [1:46:08] would create vaccine hesitancy, [1:46:12] which is what we continue [1:46:13] to hear time and time again [1:46:15] is the reason they didn't promote, [1:46:17] they lied about the safety signals [1:46:19] they were seeing. [1:46:21] Throughout the pandemic, [1:46:22] I always push early treatment. [1:46:27] We've got things in here [1:46:29] where you were really concerned [1:46:31] about remdesivir [1:46:32] because it was untested, [1:46:34] but hydroxychloroquine, [1:46:35] yeah, it was an approved drug, [1:46:37] you know, maybe some safety issues, [1:46:38] but we had a great deal [1:46:39] of experience with it. [1:46:41] All of a sudden, [1:46:42] you had the Surgisphere study. [1:46:44] It was retracted within two weeks [1:46:46] because it was completely false. [1:46:47] Totally blew up [1:46:48] the use of hydroxychloroquine. [1:46:51] And then when it comes [1:46:52] to ivermectin, [1:46:53] which by the way, [1:46:54] because I had, [1:46:55] I was contacted by so many people, [1:46:57] I referred them to doctors [1:46:58] who actually had the courage [1:46:59] and compassion to treat [1:47:00] vaccine-injured individuals. [1:47:02] It works. [1:47:07] But I was going to ask you [1:47:08] whether you were involved [1:47:09] in the FDA attack [1:47:13] on ivermectin. [1:47:15] You had an interview on CNN [1:47:18] on August 29th of 2021, [1:47:23] where, again, [1:47:23] I just don't want to take time [1:47:24] to find the exact quote, [1:47:25] but you said, [1:47:26] there's no evidence, [1:47:28] there's no evidence [1:47:29] that ivermectin is helpful. [1:47:32] On that exact same day, [1:47:33] and I've got the studies right here, [1:47:36] there was a website [1:47:38] that was tracking [1:47:39] the random controlled studies. [1:47:46] Here they are, [1:47:48] showing 60%, 70% efficacy [1:47:50] of ivermectin. [1:47:52] The same day, [1:47:52] and you say there's no evidence, [1:47:54] there was all kinds of evidence. [1:48:00] Loved ones had to go to hospitals, [1:48:02] had to sue hospitals. [1:48:03] Just, would you try it? [1:48:07] So I would want to know, [1:48:09] to what extent were you involved [1:48:10] in sabotaging hydroxychloroquine, [1:48:13] ivermectin, [1:48:14] and did you do that [1:48:16] because you knew [1:48:17] the only way you could get [1:48:20] emergency use authorization [1:48:21] for these drugs, [1:48:23] these experimental gene therapy, [1:48:24] was if there was no effective treatment, [1:48:27] you couldn't get the emergency [1:48:28] use authorization. [1:48:30] So is that why you helped sabotage [1:48:33] these cheap generic drugs [1:48:35] in favor of remdesivir, [1:48:37] which, by the way, nurses, [1:48:38] are you aware of the fact [1:48:38] that nurses called it run, [1:48:40] death is near? [1:48:45] On the advice of counsel, [1:48:46] I respectfully decline to answer [1:48:48] based upon my rights [1:48:49] under the Fifth Amendment [1:48:50] to the Constitution. [1:48:51] Let me end on this note [1:48:53] because this just came to light. [1:48:55] You know, we've got [1:48:56] 11 million pages of documents. [1:48:58] We also have other people [1:48:59] who are in the room. [1:49:01] But now you actually lied [1:49:04] to your own diary. [1:49:09] On March 27, 2020, [1:49:11] you wrote in your diary, [1:49:12] to my surprise yesterday, [1:49:13] the POTUS sent a letter [1:49:14] to governors outlining a plan [1:49:16] to reopen county by county [1:49:17] while monitoring the spread of virus [1:49:19] in low-risk counties. [1:49:21] This was half-baked [1:49:22] and never shown to Deb or I [1:49:24] before it was sent out. [1:49:29] So we have evidence [1:49:29] that, in fact, [1:49:31] you were fully aware of it [1:49:32] and certainly approved [1:49:34] if not authored it. [1:49:36] So I was simply asking you, [1:49:37] I mean, is that true? [1:49:38] I mean, did you literally [1:49:40] lie to your own diary? [1:49:42] Did you know of that letter [1:49:45] sent out to governors [1:49:46] about reopening county by county? [1:49:48] Again, Mr. Chairman, [1:49:49] I'd ask you to ask the witness [1:49:51] to just answer that one simple question. [1:49:55] On the advice of counsel, [1:49:57] I respectfully decline [1:49:58] to answer based upon my rights [1:49:59] under the Fifth Amendment [1:50:00] to the Constitution. [1:50:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:50:04] Thank you, Mr.