Dr. Lynn Fynn-derella (ret) 🐭 的 X Spaces 播客合集

mRNA flu Vax, Fauci’s contempt vote, and the Food distraction

This week’s conversation focuses on the Senate committee’s decision to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt, examining the legal flaws in his use of the Fifth Amendment, the political realities of a full Senate vote, and the broader implications for other public health officials. The speakers also discuss the significance of Fauci’s government phone texts and the possibility of a DOJ referral, offering a mix of cautious optimism and skepticism about accountability. - The committee voted along party lines (8-7) to hold Fauci in contempt, prompted by his blanket invocation of the Fifth Amendment even for non-incriminating questions like the color of his shoes or carpet. - Legal experts point out four key errors in Fauci’s Fifth Amendment use: he opened the door with a broad opening statement, faced no “real and appreciable danger” of prosecution, invoked the privilege generally rather than question-specifically, and acted disrespectfully throughout. - The full Senate vote is uncertain, with a narrow 53-47 Republican majority and several “squishy” Republicans (e.g., Susan Collins, Murkowski, Cassidy) who might break ranks, while staunch conservatives like Rand Paul and Ron Johnson push hard for action. - Holding Fauci in contempt could set a precedent and encourage state-level investigations, but the actual punishment is unclear—historical examples range from Eric Holder facing no consequences to Steve Bannon going to prison. - Rand Paul separately sent a referral to the DOJ asking for investigation into the contempt issue, creating a second process outside the Senate vote that might bypass some partisan gridlock. - The leaked government phone texts reveal that other officials (e.g., Rochelle Walensky, Francis Collins, Robert Redfield) were warned but allegedly lied to the public, making them potential targets for future testimony or accountability. - The speakers caution against seeing Redfield as a whistleblower, noting his own history of complicity and damage, even as he now tries to distance himself. Conclusion: While the contempt vote is largely symbolic and may not lead to immediate punishment, it signals growing pressure and could be a catalyst for broader investigations into Fauci and other public health officials—so watch the full Senate vote and DOJ referral closely, and don’t assume accountability will quietly fade away.