Pardoning Fauci Would Be Disservice to Him and Americans
By: RealClearNews
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It seems President Biden won't stop at letting his convicted son Hunter off the hook. The White House staff is reportedly pondering an unprecedented, pre-emptive set of presidential pardons for numerous officials who haven't been formally charged or convicted of federal crimes but may be liable for indictment or conviction under the incoming Trump administration.
Prominent on that list is Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).
Why Fauci? Team Biden is mum. But the most likely rationale is a possible perjury charge: Fauci testified under oath in congressional inquiries. At issue: Fauci's responses to the crucial question of whether American taxpayers' dollars were used to fund viral "gain-of-function" experiments - research designed to enhance transmissibility or virulence of a pathogen - in a Chinese laboratory.
That issue just resurfaced in a meticulous 520-page report issued by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. "Dr. Fauci's testimony was, at a minimum, misleading," congressional investigators concluded. "As established, at the time of Dr. Fauci's testimony senior NIH (National Institute of Health) officials and the NIH website defined gain of function research as a 'type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers a new or enhanced activity to that agent.' Further witness testimony and a plain reading of Eco Health's research conducted at the WIV (Wuhan Institute of Virology) using U.S. taxpayers' dollars confirm it facilitated an experiment that conveyed new or enhanced activity to a pathogen—thus, satisfying the definition of gain of function research."
The Tangled Web
For over three years, congressional investigators have been trying to untangle a complex web of relationships, financial and otherwise, between NIH grantees and American scientists and subgrantees, including top scientists in China, particularly at the WIV, a center of coronavirus research. Congressional investigators have also struggled to get clarity on certain controversial lab experiments in China, especially those conducted under the auspices of the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based recipient of substantial taxpayer funding courtesy of Fauci's agency.
Over the period 2017 and 2018, researchers at the WIV, a subgrantee of EcoHealth, experimented with genetically engineered bat coronaviruses that made them more pathogenic. In that experiment, "humanized mice" (mice engrafted with human cells) were infected with these coronaviruses, and a number of them were sickened and died.
There is no evidence that this particular Wuhan-EcoHealth experiment was, in itself, responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Several scientists examining the case concluded that the viruses used in this specific set of experiments were too far removed from SARS-CoV-2 to have originated it. Nonetheless, in the EcoHealth case, the virulence of the coronavirus had clearly been enhanced. And, in his Jan. 5, 2024, testimony, as cited by the subcommittee report, Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak agreed that this case was clearly "generic" gain-of-function research.
Examining the evidence, including the testimony of top NIH officials, the subcommittee thus concluded that EcoHealth was, in fact, facilitating gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV.
The Big Questions
The central questions are these:
- Did the American taxpayers inadvertently fund dangerous gain-of-function research in China?
- Did Dr. Fauci and his colleagues know that its grantee (the EcoHealth Alliance) and its subgrantee (the Wuhan Institute of Virology) were conducting such research?
- Did they fully comprehend the grave dangers involved in such experiments?
- Did Dr. Fauci truthfully respond to congressional investigators concerning these matters?
Complicating the problem is that the technical term "gain of function" has more than one meaning, and various viral gain-of-function experiments have very different levels of risk.
There is a difference between (a) the broader or generic NIH definition of gain-of-function research (cited by the subcommittee) that "modifies" a biological agent that confers "new or enhanced activity to that agent" and (b) the P3CO Framework (2017) that imposes funding restrictions on "potential pandemic pathogens." The latter is a subset of pathogens that are highly transmissible, have the potential of an "uncontrollable spread, and are "highly virulent" and likely to cause "significant morbidity and mortality" in humans. This is a narrower category, or subset, of gain-of-function research. And that category is subject to funding restrictions.
Based on the record, these definitional differences are at the heart of the Fauci controversy. On May 11, 2021, Fauci told the Senate that his agency did not fund coronavirus gain-of-function research in China. His credibility came into sharp focus on July 20, 2021, during a contentious Senate hearing. Warning him that lying to Congress was a crime, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) again asked Fauci whether his agency funded viral gain-of-function research in China, and Fauci repeatedly denied it.
Following a bitter exchange and dissatisfied with Fauci's responses, the next day, Sen. Paul requested Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate the truthfulness of Fauci's sworn testimony. Garland ignored the request. On July 14, 2023, Sen. Paul renewed the request. Again, no response. Citing new circumstantial evidence, on Aug. 8, 2023, Sen. Paul then asked Matthew Graves, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate the matter. Again, no response.
Competing Definitions
Today, Fauci claims that he and Sen. Paul were talking past each other in using different definitions of gain-of-function research. For example, in his Jan. 8, 2024, sworn testimony to House investigators, Fauci summarized his position:
I said that the NIH subaward to the Wuhan Institute was not to do gain of function research. I was referring specifically to the operative definition of gain of function at the time, which is the P3CO framework. And the P3CO framework is a policy and a framework that came out of a policy guidance from 3 years of discussions led by OSTP [the Office of Science and Technology Policy], the National Academies of Sciences, and multiple scientific working groups that came out with a very precise definition. And the precise definition was any experiment that is reasonably anticipated to result in the enhancement of a - and by enhancement it is meant an increase in the transmissibility and or pathogenesis of a PPP. And what a PPP is, is a potential pandemic pathogen. So, if you enhance it, it's referred to as an "ePPP." …So, when I was asked the question, did the grant that was a subaward to Wuhan fund experiments that enhanced PPP, that was what I was referring to when I said we do not fund gain of function - gain of function according to the strict definition, which I refer to as the operative definition of gain of function. So, when someone asks me, as a scientist, are you doing gain of function, is that gain of function, I always apply it to the operative definition of gain of function.
Artificial Distinction
Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield considers this entire episode an exercise in semantic hair-splitting:
Under the P3CO Framework, the target category is a set of pathogens found in nature that are already dangerous to human beings, and enhancing them through gain-of-function experimentation, federally funded or not, would simply make them more dangerous. Under the Framework's definition, there would not be a funding restriction, for example, on gain of function research on viruses found in nature that are not yet dangerous to humans. So, under the P3CO Framework, you could conceivably conduct a gain of function experiment on viruses not yet dangerous to humans, but deliberately designed to make those viruses dangerous to humans by enhancing their transmissibility and pathogenicity, and that research still would not be considered "gain of function" for the regulatory purpose of restricting federal funding.
As Redfield further explains, "From the standpoint of public health and safety, this distinction is artificial. If you take a virus in the wild, enhance its transmissibility and pathogenicity to humans, through gain-of-function experimentation, you are endangering humanity. Period. In short, by leaning on this regulatory distinction between the generic definition and the Framework, you are insisting on a technical distinction that does not make a real difference in terms of public safety."
Congressional investigators had, and have, every reason to be suspicious. Note that as of Oct. 19, 2021, the NIH defined "gain of function" research as "a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers a new or enhanced activity to that agent." That clear and concise definition disappeared from the NIH website "on or about" Oct. 20, 2021, following an inquiry on EcoHealth funding and coronavirus research in Wuhan from Rep. James Comer (R-KY), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
With the incoming Trump administration, congressional investigators should have unrestricted access to unredacted documents, reports, memos, and emails, as well as more unfiltered testimony than even the impressive House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has been able to extract from the uncooperative Biden administration. That flood of evidence will shed more light on the unresolved COVID-19 controversies.
A Disservice
In the meantime, President Biden should not offer any type of blanket pardon to Dr. Anthony Fauci for what he may or may not have done. A preemptive pardon, without indictment or conviction, presumes that Fauci may have done something wrong. His testimony has been consistent, even though it may have been "misleading," as the House subcommittee report contends. By granting some sort of blanket pardon, Biden would only be further clouding his reputation.
The inept Biden administration's repeated failures to do the right thing and respond fully and respectfully to legitimate congressional requests has created another problem that a preemptive pardon cannot resolve. If Fauci's responses to Sen. Paul were truthful, Attorney General Merrick Garland could have quickly complied with Sen. Paul's initial request, reexamined Fauci's testimony, determined that a perjury charge was unwarranted, and dismissed the entire controversy. Having refused that simple expedient, Garland did a disservice to Dr. Fauci and the public. By reexamining the case, with full access to any documentary evidence, perhaps the new attorney general can put this matter to rest.
More work for Pam Bondi.
Tags
Who is online
407 visitors
Even though some conservatives do not place value on the life-time 'bounty' of work of Dr. Fauci, there are many who do and we do not wish to see a(nother) good man dragged through the fiery 'hell' of conservative posturing for the 'next' campaign. . . and looking for more fodder for wholly manufactured narratives to use against innocent people.
I stolidly believe Dr. Fauci's record of achievements (as I know them) and would appreciate this President pardoning him before the 'conservative circus' (and Bondi) can launch itself. That said, it is rumored that Bpndi is a true professional—though she is more or less par for the course (MAGA-wise).
Then why do you think he would need a pardon?
To protect him from malicious abuse by Trump.
Perceived malicious abuse. Like a lot of "predictions", won't happen.
A predictable and partisan comment. Do better.
Rand Paul has shown several times that Faucci has lied to Congress many times.
Lying to Congress is a crime
He should answer for those crimes.
See 1.1.2 . And this is not a game of false pretenses of 'tit for tat' when real people and their life-times of achievements (some small and others of orders of magnitude) can be effed-up because some people are powerful, yet small of mind and spirit.
Here is a thought: Why the hell should any president be allowed immunity (and a new chance to 'repeat' in politics) in regards to the death of millions of our citizens during a pandemic simply because he would not listen to the studied opinions of his learned officials, but instead accepted controversial pandemic positions and policies?
It should be investigated—it will not be.
MAGAs are already fighting over an in-house swerve from Trump right now. Just read the daily news!
Coronavirus Origins
It is still uncertain how SARS-CoV-2 originated, but many scientists suspect the virus “spilled over” into humans from an animal. There is no evidence the virus was created in a lab, let alone as part of any U.S.-funded research.
A June 2021 Facebook post claimed that “Fauci knew the virus was likely engineered,” because of an email he received from Kristian Andersen, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research. In that Jan. 31, 2020, email to Fauci, Andersen said that there were “unusual features” of “a really small part of the genome” of the coronavirus that “(potentially) look engineered.” He mentioned others, too, found “the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
But Andersen said in his email that more analysis was necessary and “opinions could still change,” which is what later happened.
On March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine published an article by Andersen and other scientists that said they determined that the coronavirus likely originated through “natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer,” or “natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.” The authors added that they “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” because they “observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features … in related coronaviruses in nature.”
See, “Viral Posts, Pundits Distort Fauci Emails,” June 4, 2021
Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro falsely claimed that Fauci “killed a lot of people” by funding some bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute is in Wuhan, China, where the first COVID-19 cases were identified.
NIAID did provide a multimillion-dollar grant to fund some of the lab’s research, but the NIH has explained that those experiments could not have led to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 because the viruses that were being studied were very different.
“Analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic,” then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins said in an Oct. 20, 2021, statement, referring to an analysis posted to the NIAID’s website. “Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false.”
See, “Navarro Falsely Links Fauci to Pandemic Origin,” May 19, 2022
Republican Sen. Rand Paul accused Fauci of lying when Fauci said in a May 2021 Senate hearing that “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” But there’s no evidence that Fauci lied to Congress, as Paul asserted in a July 20, 2021, hearing, about funding gain-of-function research — which the U.S. government generally defined in 2014 as aiming to “increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.”
Fauci has said that the research that was funded “was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function,” and the NIH has said the same. The issue is that scientists have differing opinions on what counts as gain-of-function research.
Paul has posited that Fauci, among others, “could be culpable for the entire pandemic,” if the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from a Wuhan lab that was conducting gain-of-function research. But there is no proof of a lab leak, and there is evidence that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant could not have caused the pandemic.
See, “The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement,” May 21, 2021, and “Fauci and Paul, Round 2,” July 22, 2021
In December 2014, the NIH posted a photo of Fauci and former President Barack Obama touring the NIH Vaccine Research Center at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. The photo showed Obama speaking about Ebola research with Dr. Nancy Sullivan, of NIAID, and Fauci was shown standing next to Sylvia Burwell, who was the health and human services secretary at the time.
But the years-old photo was circulated in 2020 along with the false claim that the image showed “Dr. Fauci, Melinda Gates and Barack Obama at the Wuhan Lab in 2015,” suggesting a connection to the COVID-19 pandemic.
See, “Old Photo Shows Obama, Fauci at U.S. Facility — Not ‘Wuhan Lab,'”July 17, 2020
Fauci Has No Connection to Pandemic Virus
(excerpt from the article)
[Peter] Navarro’s statements are reminiscent of those from other Republicans, including Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have at times also falsely insinuated that NIH-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
As we have explained before, NIAID did fund some experiments at WIV as part of a multiyear $3.7 million grant that began in 2014 to the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. The research was aimed at understanding the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats, and a small portion of the money — $600,000 — went to an EcoHealth collaborator at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
But those experiments, which mixed and matched certain elements of bat coronaviruses, couldn’t have produced SARS-CoV-2 because the viruses used were very different.
“Analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic,” NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins said in an Oct. 20, 2021, statement, referring to an analysis posted to the NIAID’s website. “Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false.”
As we’ve written, the NIH analysis shows that the WIV viruses share only about 80% of their genomes with SARS-CoV-2, which is a tremendous difference. Even much more similar viruses — those 96% identical — still differ from SARS-CoV-2 by more than 1,000 nucleotides, and could not have plausibly been the ancestral virus, David Robertson, the head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow, told us for a previous story.
There is simply no basis to claim that Fauci, via this NIAID grant, has anything to do with the origin of the coronavirus.
Moreover, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from WIV or any lab, and many experts say the virus almost certainly was not bioengineered. Indeed, despite continued speculation, largely because of the proximity of certain research institutions to the city of Wuhan, where the first COVID-19 cases were identified, there is no credible evidence of a lab leak.
In contrast, while there is still no proof, multiple lines of evidence, including geolocation and genetic analyses, suggest the pandemic began with a natural spillover at the Huanan market, which sold a variety of live animals for human consumption.
Much of the debate about the WIV experiments has focused on whether they were so-called gain-of-function experiments and whether NIH should have funded them. Paul has an ongoing feud with Fauci over this issue, and each man has accused the other of lying.
Fauci has said the experiments do not count as gain-of-function, which the agency defines in a specific way and refers to research involving “enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential,” or ePPPs. Paul has insisted they do.
In February, the NIH said it had ordered a review of its ePPP policies, which have been controversial.
Regardless of whether certain potentially risky research should be funded or not, it’s inaccurate for Navarro to claim Fauci had a role in starting the pandemic.
Editor’s note: SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation .
Okay, so why do you think he should be pardoned and what should he be pardoned for?...
Okay, so why do you think he should be pardoned?...
I don't think he should be pardoned, because no sane individual would think that charging him with a crime makes the least bit of sense.
Trump is looking for a fall guy to try and lessen the wight of Trump's total mismanagement of the pandemic in the US.
I agree.
Why?...
He devoted his life to service and the medical community and the country
Then he should be able to answer questions, don't you think?
And if he killed millions because of his research he gets to go free because at some point he wasn’t an egotistical jackass?
That’s like saying the BTK killer should go free because he helped people stay safe while working for ADT.
Even if they can’t convict him, I hope they ruin him financially so he ends up penniless.
Go with facts rather than jump on the bullshit train.
These fact-challenged attacks on Fauci are a fine example of how mindless partisan parroting is counterproductive.
[deleted][✘]
Yes. And he did. However, the Questioners will not be satiated. So they can just 'go to hell' and take their insatiability along to keep them comfortable there.
Yes, pardon anybody who reasonably will be unnecessarily and gratuitously raked over the coals just to SATIATE the whims of greedy, unremarkable, EMPTY-HEADED politicians and their loosely related associates.
No bullshit tit for tat. No support for injuries and whipping of innocent people whom have dedicated their lives to doing good. Mr. President (Biden) do pardon 'all'!
No it is not like saying that at all. That fever-dream above begin with a hypothetical "If"—and it is a big one!
[deleted][✘]
So much for the pretense of caring about law and order, some conservatives! That's just vindictiveness. And for all that Dr. Fauci has done on background for this country in one lifetime. Shame on the Shameless!
What Do Republicans Want To 'Prosecute Fauci' for, Exactly?
In a comment sent by email, Paul reiterated his interest in pursuing "a robust and bipartisan investigation into the origins of COVID" in his new role as ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee next year. "Daily we are discovering new information that we will reveal as the investigation continues," he wrote.
Whether a perjury, fraud, or similar charge would stick is far from certain. As Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey
has detailed , whether the research in question is actually gain-of-function work is legitimately disputable, though the more recent NIH statement Cruz seemed to reference may indeed tip the balance of evidence toward "yes."
Still, that statement describes the NIH grant recipient, EcoHealth, failing to make a required report, which means it's possible the funding did go to gain-of-function research and that Fauci sincerely believed it didn't.
That scenario points to a tricky aspect of this sort of allegation: It requires proving knowledge more than action, and it's not always feasible to prove what someone knew and when. But Fauci's long public employment means he has reams of correspondence in federal records, so testing a charge of this sort may be easier than it would be in most circumstances. If he's committed fraud or perjury as a high-ranking federal official, by all means, let's prosecute ( but not imprison ).
The trouble is this sort of specific, dis/provable, and fairly narrow allegation of willful deception is not where the great bulk of the "prosecute Fauci'' conversation is going. (None of those four House members, for example, clearly have it in view. "I affirm your pronouns, Elon," said Greene's reply .) What Cruz and Paul are trying is the better of two versions of this cause—but it also seems to be, by far, the less popular.
More common is something in the realm of Musk's follow-up tweet , which cast Fauci as the corrupt Wormtongue to President Joe Biden's decaying King Théoden in a scene from The Lord of the Rings . "Just one more lockdown, my king," Fauci whispers.
But giving bad advice is not a crime—and baseless calls for prosecution are no improvement over failure to prosecute powerful figures at all. They might be good for collecting likes and donations, but that doesn't make them good for bolstering the rule of law.
Ain't that the beauty of presidential pardons, they can be used presumptuously (to cut down on irascible, toxic, chronic and ultimately cancerous BULLSHIT). It's like 'surgical' to reach in and grab bullshit by its short-hairs and while it is kicking and screaming throw it full-strength into a wall somewhere.
So you can't answer the question...
Surgical?.... lol
That shtick is wasted on some on us.
Apparently, there is an echo in here for some conservatives, or maybe the room has has become cavernous. (Chuckles.)
I distinctly remember the left shrieking "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW" over and over. Faucci is no different.
Would those be the same learned officials that the Biden Administration censored?
For once I agree with you. The Biden Adminstration censoring the people should be investigated.
Fauci funded gain of function at the Wuhan institute than lied about it to Congress, he should get a perjury charge and locked up.
Readers should see 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 for a 'wider' perspective.
Time to get some balance in narratives, people!
If they are going to do it I think they need to start quickly. I do believe that lying to Congress has a five year Statute of Limitations so they are running out of time.
But there is no statute of limitations on accessory to murder, and his actions help facilitate millions of deaths.
While the cover-up over Covid happened, I think this would be a rather hard sell in court. Not sure any prosecutor would take such a charge on as the possibility of conviction seems (to me) as very low.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I only play doctor when I can.
He can die in jail awaiting trial at 84 years old, and then proceed to bankrupt him with legal fees seems like a fair result for all the death and suffering he caused, locking away the elderly to die alone without their loved ones able to visit them just to name one.
If Faucci did nothing wrong then there is no need for a pardon.
The fact that a pardon is even being talked about, people can't help but wonder what they are covering up.
Fauci's coke in the Whitehouse?
We already know who that belongs to.
To accept it would be an admission he committed a crime.
I'm returning to healthier more reasonable commenting.