The Pennsylvania state Senate on Wednesday passed two election integrity bills banning ballot drop boxes and private funds to administer elections.
The legislative chamber passed Senate Bill 1200 along party lines, which requires absentee ballots to be returned either by mail or delivered to the county board of elections office.
Republicans who oppose drop boxes said that they were not expressly authorized by a 2019 law expanding mail-in voting. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled they were legal.
GOP state Sen. Cris Dush, who wrote the bill, said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overstepped its bounds.
“We’ve got a problem with a lack of confidence on the part of the people got a problem with something that can definitely be utilized to do ballot stuffing. This is a legitimate issue,” he said, according to WHTM, a local ABC affiliate.
Senate Bill 982 was also passed on Wednesday, with eight Democrats joining Republicans to ban so-called “Zuckerbucks,” or private money to fund elections.
“Senate Bill 982 simply states what all of us understood to be fact – government should pay for elections. Voters, taxpayers and citizens alike deserve the most fair and equitable election system. It should be uniform from one county to the next regardless of size, demographics, or wealth,” Republican state Sen. Lisa Baker said, reported PoliticsPA.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life gave nearly $350 million in grants to municipalities for running the 2020 election.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) opposes both Senate bills, but his office did not indicate whether he would veto them, according to Pittsburgh’s NPR News Station. He previously vetoed a bill that allowed only the secretary of the commonwealth to receive the funds and distribute them equally across counties.
Wolf tweeted on Thursday, “Election enhancements Pennsylvanians need:
Kansas state senators passed a bill early Thursday that would authorize the prescriptions of off-label drugs for Covid-19 treatment, such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The bill also exempts children from being vaccinated if “such immunizations would violate sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Senate Sub. for HB 2280, as amended, concerns prescribing and dispensing of drugs for off-label use and religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, the bill stated.
The bill was passed with 21 voted yes, and 16 voted no.
The Senate worked on a host of bills into the early morning hours in a marathon session. The off-label drug bill, HB 2280, passed 21-16 shortly before 1:30 a.m.
“Thousands of Kansans and hundreds of thousands of Americans have died because of this propaganda that shut down early treatment,” said Sen. Mark Steffen, R-Hutchinson. “I fully believe that this passage of this bill through the Senate will gain national attention and help be a very important part of getting the care to the people who need it.”
The bill would allow doctors to prescribe ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and any other FDA-approved drug that isn’t a controlled substance for an off-label use to prevent or treat COVID-19.
It further requires pharmacists to fill the prescriptions, removing their professional discretion to refuse to fill a prescription, unless they find a reason other than the connection to COVID-19.
“With this provision, a doctor can write a prescription for abortion medication under the guise of COVID, and the pharmacist must fill it,” said Cindy Holscher, D-Overland Park, who opposed the bill.
Another piece protects doctors from board of healing arts investigations connected to the pandemic, prohibiting any “recommendation, prescription, use or opinion” on COVID-19 treatments from being considered unprofessional conduct.
The bill also expands existing religious exemptions for childhood wellness vaccines at schools and day cares. It effectively creates a new exemption where any parent can claim a moral or ethical exemption to any youth vaccinations.
Senator Rand Paul has announced that he intends to introduce an amendment in the Senate to prevent anyone from ever again becoming a health ‘dictator in chief’.
In an op-ed for Fox News, Paul noted that the action “would eliminate Dr. Fauci’s position as NIAID director,” as well as “divide his power into 3 separate institutes.”
Paul explained that “Each of these three institutes will be led by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term.”
The Senator added that “This will create accountability and oversight into a taxpayer-funded position that has largely abused its power and has been responsible for many failures and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans,” Paul urged, adding that his amendment could “ensure that ineffective, unscientific lockdowns and mandates are never foisted on the American people ever again.”
“No one person should have the sole authority to dictate science, especially when that one person wasn’t ever following the science,” Paul asserted, emphasising that “For two years our lives were held captive by petty tyrants and power-hungry bureaucrats.”
Paul pointed to the recent Johns Hopkins study that found global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
“A rational person might ask, how in the world did it take us so long to get to the truth?” Paul noted, asking “Why did we spend two years not following the science?”
“Well again, that’s what happens when “the science” is dictated by one man, an unelected bureaucrat with far too much power,” he concluded, referring to Fauci.
“Dr. Fauci caused people to engage in activities they wouldn’t have normally by telling them it was safe when masked when it wasn’t. I tried to sound the alarm, but I was censored by YouTube and my videos were taken down,” Paul noted.
He continued, “Dr. Fauci and his friends worked diligently to silence opposing views. The media amplified his efforts. We were branded conspiracy theorists and anti-science for simply asking questions and presenting alternatives to what had been delivered to the American people as ‘fact.’”
As we noted at the time, YouTube suspended Paul for questioning the efficacy of face masks despite the fact that the Senator’s comments were virtually identical to those made by Joe Biden’s former COVID adviser Dr. Michael Osterholm just one week prior.
Months later, when the CDC revised its guidelines on masks, admitting that cloth masks do virtually nothing to stop the spread of COVID, Paul asked “Does this mean snot-nosed censors at YouTube will come to my office and kiss my … and admit I was right?”
“The biggest lesson we have learned over the last two years is that no one person should have this much-unchecked power. And my amendment, which will get a vote this week, will finally force accountability and fire Dr. Fauci,” Paul asserted Sunday.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday that it may be time to rebrand the failed “Build Back Better” legislation by, among other things, renaming it, adding that President Joe Biden appears to be “open” to the idea.
“Sure,” she responded when asked if a name change was a possibility during her daily press conference.
The $1.8 trillion legislation, which the administration pushed for months last year, died after the president himself failed to convince two members of his own party to sign off on it. And while Manchin has signaled that he is open to discussing aspects of the measure, he recently declared the bill “dead” as a package.
While Manchin opposed the legislation from the outset, he nevertheless remained open to discussing it until December, when reports said he angrily denounced the legislation and the administration after Biden and Democratic leaders began attacking him when he would not hop on board.
White House staff had given Manchin a heads-up on Thursday that the president was soon to put out a statement accepting a delay in the Build Back Better Act and that it was going to mention the West Virginia senator by name. Manchin objected, asking that either his name be left out or that he not be alone because his family had already been the target of abuse and he didn’t want to be singled out.
But the statement went out anyway, and contained only Manchin’s name. The senator then snapped at White House aides and told them that he was done negotiating. The West Wing interpreted that as meaning that current talks were done but could pick up again next year.
But Manchin meant that he was totally walking away — which he said publicly a few days later on Fox News Sunday, in a move that blindsided and outraged the White House.
The senator appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and dropped the bombshell that he would not support the Build Back Better plan.
“I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation, I just can’t. I tried everything humanly possible, I can’t get there” he said to host Bret Baier who was on after former host Chris Wallace stepped away from the show last week.
“You’re done – this is a no,” the host said.
“This is a no, on this legislation,” the senator said. “I have tried everything I know to do.”
“This is a no on this legislation. I have tried everything I know to do. And the President has worked diligently. He’s been wonderful to work with. He knows I’ve had concerns and the problems I’ve had and, you know, the thing that we should all be directing our attention towards the variant, a Covid that we have coming back at us in so many different aspects in different ways, it’s affecting our lives again,” he said.
Asked about the legislation again last week by a reporter, Manchin snapped: “What Build Back Better bill? It’s dead.”
In a column posted to the American Enterprise Institute website, senior fellow Marc A. Thiessen put the onus for the bill’s failure directly on Biden’s refusal to consider any Republican negotiating points, preferring to try and go it alone with just a thin Democrat majority in the Senate:
In June, after Republicans and Democrats reached agreement on an infrastructure framework, Biden threatened to veto the deal if Congress did not first pass his massive Democrat-only Build Back Better social spending bill. Then, he issued an extraordinary eight-paragraph statement walking back his veto threat, promising not to link the two bills. Then he broke his word and urged members of his own party to take the infrastructure bill hostage as leverage to pass Build Back Better.
Biden blames Republicans for his failure to pass Build Back Better. But what killed that bill was his failure to compromise with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and other like-minded Democratic lawmakers. Manchin explained the reason he decided to oppose the bill is that “it hasn’t shrunk.” Biden won’t compromise with his own party’s moderates, much less Republicans.
A bipartisan group of more than two dozen lawmakers in the House is demanding that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) allow a vote on a bill that would bar members of Congress from trading on the stock market, which critics say is inappropriate due to Congress’ inside knowledge on financial and political affairs.
The demand was made in a Jan. 24 letter spearheaded by Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine). A total of 27 lawmakers signed Golden’s petition, including 25 Democrats and two Republicans.
In the letter’s opening line, the coalition demands that Pelosi “swiftly bring legislation to prohibit members of Congress from owning or trading stocks.” Two bills that would do just that, the “Ban Conflicted Trading Act” and the “TRUST In Congress Act,” have been sitting in congressional limbo.
The responsibility to bring them out of this limbo lies largely with Speaker Pelosi, but she has thus far made no effort to bring either bill to the floor for a vote.
Golden argued that such a ban would be a “common sense measure” that is “supported by Americans across the political spectrum.”
A recent poll vindicates this latter claim.
The poll, conducted by the conservative group Convention for States Action in conjunction with Trafalgar, found that more than three-fourths of Americans believe that lawmakers have an “unfair advantage” over others in the stock market.
Speaking on the poll results, Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action, said, “Congress has a history of passing laws that make it appear as if they are behaving ethically, while continuing to do things that are not honest nor ethical. This issue has received a lot of attention, and this data verifies the American people want this practice to end once and for all.”
This issue has a storied history in Congress.
In 2012, Congress passed the STOCK Act, a bill that required members of Congress to publicly disclose their financial transactions. However, a recent investigation by Insider found that a laundry list of lawmakers in both the House and Senate had violated the provisions of that law.
In view of this, the lawmakers write, “It’s clear the current rules are not working.”
In another recent example of potential insider trading, several members of Congress allegedly sold off stock ahead of the crash precipitated by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. These members had received nonpublic briefings on the developing virus, leading many to believe that their sudden stock sales were carried out on the basis of this knowledge.
“The law prohibits only those stock trades that members of Congress make or direct because of their nonpublic knowledge,” Golden explains in his letter.
“But it can be nearly impossible to determine what counts as ‘nonpublic knowledge’ or how personally involved members are in their stock trades.”
“Instead,” the lawmakers demand, “Congress should close these loopholes by simply banning members from owning or trading individual stocks while in office.”
“We came to Congress to serve our country, not turn a quick buck,” the lawmakers continue.
“While there are many difficult questions facing Congress, this is an easy one,” the letter concludes. “Members of Congress should not be allowed to own or trade individual stocks. Let’s get this done.”
The letter is a rare show of bipartisanship, including a very unlikely alliance of America First conservatives and left-wing progressives.
The Democrat roster includes prominent progressives like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Pramilla Jayapal (D-Wash.), who have both been outspoken in favor of sweeping institutional reforms and pricey social spending bills.
The two Republican signatories are Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a Trump-adjacent Floridian who has fought against government measures that give an unfair advantage to major corporations or the ultra-wealthy, and Rep, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a longtime moderate who joined Democrats in passing the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill in late 2021.
Speaking on the letter, Gaetz quipped that “Rashida Tlaib and I don’t often agree. But when we do,” he added, “America should totally go that direction.”
However, not all lawmakers feel the same way about a stock market ban.
Most prominently, Speaker Pelosi made it recently clear that she thinks lawmakers should have access to the market.
During a mid-December press conference, just after Insider released its report on violations of the 2012 STOCK Act among members of Congress from both parties, Pelosi was asked whether a stock ban for members of Congress would be appropriate.
“No,” Pelosi responded quickly. “We have a responsibility to report [our trades] … [and] if people aren’t reporting, they should be.”
Further pressed to explain her “no,” Pelosi argued, “Because we’re a free market economy. [Members of Congress] should be able to participate in that.”
Pelosi has had her own scandals in regards to trading by her husband Paul Pelosi.
In 2008, Paul Pelosi bought $2 million of stock in Visa at the same time that Congress was considering a bill that would have seriously undercut the debit and credit card giant’s profits. Though the bill had gained momentum, it inexplicably stalled and died in the House.
Because Pelosi was speaker at the time many, including NBC’s 60 Minutes in a 2011 episode, speculated that there was a connection between Pelosi’s trade and the bill’s sudden collapse.
More recently, Paul Pelosi made a bullish bet in favor of Google parent company Alphabet, just as a bill designed to undercut tech monopolies was gaining significant momentum in the House. While others pulled out over fears about the antimonopoly bill, Pelosi’s unlikely bet paid off, netting the Pelosis a cool $5 million.
In fact, Pelosi’s portfolio has seen such spectacular returns that would-be investors on the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok began to follow Pelosi’s releases and emulate his trades.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) has also defended stock trading by sitting members of Congress.
The host asked Crenshaw whether he thought that sitting members of Congress should be allowed to go into the stock market.
“I think it would be fine if you banned individual stock trading,” Crenshaw said, before clarifying, “Notice I said ‘individual stocks.’”
The Texas Republican explained that while he would accept bans on buying and selling individual stocks, he thinks that congressmen should still be allowed to invest in ETFs and similar stock collections.
“I’m kinda neutral on it,” Crenshaw continued. But if such a ban were put in place, Crenshaw claimed, “no one would run for Congress because you have no way to better yourself.”
Ultimately, the decision to bring a stock trading ban to the floor lies with Speaker Pelosi.
Still, the bipartisan support for Golden’s Monday letter indicates that members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to moving the agenda forward.
If brought to the floor, either of the two bills proposed to address the situation would represent the most substantial stock market reforms for a decade.
However, the coalition behind the reforms remains small, and more support in both the House and Senate, plus Pelosi’s acquiescence to bring either bill to the floor, will be needed for the reform to have a shot at making it to President Joe Biden’s desk.
The Wisconsin Assembly has voted in the affirmative to pass a privileged resolution to withdraw the state’s 10 electors who were slated to have cast their votes for Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
The announcement of the privileged resolution, as well as the present members who voted unanimously to pass it, can be viewed below.
The privileged resolution to withdraw the Biden electors will now proceed to the Wisconsin Rules Committee in the Wisconsin Assembly and to the Wisconsin Senate. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Timothy Ramthun.
On Friday, State Rep. Ramthun published a guide to his “Resolution to Reclaim” explaining why he believed the state’s elections should be drastically reformed and why the Biden electors should be reclaimed.
“This resolution lists a series of evidentiary events that all associate to the fraudulent nature surrounding the 2020 General Election in Wisconsin, and offers solutions to the issues it addresses,” it says.
These events lead to justification of the action to reclaim Wisconsin’s 10 electoral ballots.
We then compile a list of legal and expert interpretations that validate this action is both justifiable and constitutional.
It is within the legislatures power to do so, and it falls upon the legislature to resolve the matter.
Ramthun also cited as grievances the “Zuckerberg” drop boxes, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s rulings, the rush to certify votes, “statistically impossible” results, errors in the Wisconsin voter database, canvas irregularities, deleting log file data, and lab audit results.
“Whereas, the audit report of the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau identified 44,272 voters who did not provide proper voter identification in the 2020 general election, revealed the mass increase of indefinitely confined voters from 4,505 in 2019 to 169,901 in 2020, and also revealed 28.7% of all municipal clerks across all 72 counties used illegal drop boxes, and made 30 recommendations for the Elections Commission to rectify their actions,” the report states.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) on Friday asked U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland for a Justice Department investigation into 10 Republican electors who had allegedly submitted paperwork last year saying former President Donald Trump had won in battleground Wisconsin.
President Joe Biden carried Wisconsin by just under 21,000 votes. The Republicans defended the move by saying they were submitting the votes in case Trump’s loss was overturned in the courts.
Pocan argued the Justice Department should act “to deter other officials who may seek to engage in election fraud.” The representative urged Garland to act quickly “for Wisconsin, for the Department, and for the nation.”
The Democratic Party is clearly more concerned about criminalizing those who accuse them of election fraud than actually investigating the widely perceived issue. The extreme reaction that the Democratic Party have to such allegations is only fueling suspicion that something was indeed very wrong with the 2020 election.
The Wisconsin bill thus forces the issue back into the national conversation, whether the Democrats like it or not.
Similar bills in other states have been ill-received, but the primary sponsor of the New Hampshire bill said that she expects a slightly amended version to get enough votes from the Republican-majority committee to send it for approval to the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, which already showed support for other COVID-related bills, including a state-wide ban against both government and private mandates.
To appease some concerns about the bill, Cushman also submitted amendments to her initial proposal, including notices with any dispensary for human use that it is considered an “off-label” use for COVID treatment. She also proposed to create a state tracking system of any adverse reactions experienced by those who take the human-grade version of the pill.
In Pennsylvania, Representative Dawn Keefer also introduced a bill that allows doctors to write prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine sulfate as a treatment for COVID-19, but the bill is yet to leave the committee.
FDA, medical professionals against bill
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration officials said that there is no data showing the effectiveness of the drug against COVID-19, with multiple medical experts testifying against the bill on Tuesday.
Dr. Nick Perencevich, a retired general surgeon, stated that he would like to believe the standard of care in New Hampshire is that a patient could get a prescription for ivermectin, off-label, as long as the patient in question ideally, is put into some kind of clinical trial, whether for a company or an academic institution.
Dr. David Levine from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center said that prescribing ivermectin is “dangerous and totally out of line with the standard of medical care around the world.”
In his testimony against the bill, Levine further wrote that he would never want ivermectin prescribed to himself or his family, and “would take legal action against anyone who recommended this to my loved ones.” (Related: Why is ivermectin STILL not being prescribed for covid?)
Dr. William Palmer, governor of the New Hampshire Chapter of the American College of Physicians, also submitted his own written testimony on the bill, saying that he was concerned that if it passed, it would have the potential to overwhelm the state’s health care system with cases of “ivermectin-induced side effects.”
However, there are experts that do agree with the use of ivermectin. Dr. Paul Marik, a neurocritical care doctor, testified that ivermectin is one of the safest drugs on the planet, adding that a human-grade version of the drug is approved for treatment in 79 other countries. He also pointed out that since its discovery in 1987, over 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin has been dispensed as an anti-parasitic drug.
“So somehow Japanese people, Indian people, Brazilian people can tolerate it safely but it’s toxic in Americans. You have to be kidding,” he said.
Marik further cited several studies that definitively proved ivermectin has both viricidal and anti-inflammatory properties. He also pointed out that it has already been used to treat deadly diseases such as mosquito-borne Zika virus and other similar viruses similar to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA viruses that cause COVID-19.
The bill is still currently in committee but is expected to go to a House vote in the next couple of weeks.
Canada has announced major news in the drugindustry. Psilocybin and MDMA have both been approved for medicinal use. This will allow patients suffering from life-threatening mental illnesses to be treated. Psilocybin is the active psychedelic compound in Mushrooms. MDMA is of course the psychoactive drug usually referred to as Ecstasy or Molly.
In Canada, patients suffering from mental illnesses will have access to both drugs through the Special Access Program. This program was designed to give patients access to non-marketable drugs when conventional therapy treatments fail.
Canada is leading the way right now. Other countries may consider following in their footsteps if more positive results are achieved. Oregon became the first U.S. State to legalize magic mushrooms. Service centers plan to open there in 2023.
In November, the federal government passed a massive $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and, like all bills drafted by the federal government, politicians snuck in countless items that had nothing to do with “infrastructure.” One of the insidious additions to the bill makes it a felony if crypto traders don’t collect personal information on the hundreds or thousands of transactions they conduct every day.
But this is just the beginning. This bill affects far more folks than just crypto traders. Deep within the bill, hidden under thousands of pages of government speak, is a little measure lawmakers are touting as the solution to drunk driving.
While no one thinks it is okay to endanger the lives of others on the road while driving drunk, under this measure, according to former US representative Bob Barr, government is mandating the installation of a “kill switch” on your vehicle.
As part of the passage of the infrastructure bill, it is now mandatory for auto manufacturers to install “safety” devices that “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”
By 2026 the kill switch will be mandated on every new car sold in the United States.
While everyone would like to stop DUIs, if we examine the language of the mandate, it becomes rather worrisome. In computer jargon, “passively” means that this system will always be monitoring the driver. It will have to monitor your normal driving habits to determine whether or not you are impaired.
As there are no set standards for idiosyncrasies behind the wheel, the idea of what and what doesn’t constitute “impaired” driving is entirely subjective. If impairment is detected, according to the legislation, vehicle operation will be “prevented or limited.”
The legislation also mentions monitoring the blood alcohol content of the driver, yet there is no detail on how this would be done. But perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this madness is that it will be an “open” system, containing at least one backdoor to allow authorized third parties to remotely access the system’s data at any time.
This is a privacy disaster in the making, and the fact that the provision made it through the Congress reveals — yet again — how little its members care about the privacy of their constituents.
The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues; issues that should have been obvious to Members of Congress before they voted on the measure.
For example, what if a driver is not drunk, but sleepy, and the car forces itself to the side of the road before the driver can find a safe place to pull over and rest? Considering that there are no realistic mechanisms to immediately challenge or stop the car from being disabled, drivers will be forced into dangerous situations without their consent or control.
On top of these privacy issues, it opens the door to unscrupulous police actions and warrantless searches. Will a driver’s algorithm be accessible by police just as a license plate can be read into their scanners? What about insurance companies? Will they have access to this data?
While many folks — in the “if you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about” crowd — are touting this as a means of protecting law-abiding citizens, exactly what constitutes “law abiding” is a shifting goalpost in the land of the free.
The slippery slope brought on by this mandate has far too many “what if” scenarios to even get into. But rest assured, “safety” will certainly take a back seat to the police state.
In typical American political fashion, this kill switch was not debated on the House or Senate floor — or anywhere for that matter. Instead, it was born in backroom deals and slipped in to the infrastructure bill whether you like it or not.
A Republican senator from Kansas is taking aim at the secrecy surrounding the financial records of White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, which despite Fauci’s claims to the contrary remain largely hidden from public view.
GOP Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas will introduce the Financial Accountability for Uniquely Compensated Individuals Act, or FAUCI Act, due to his concerns about the lack of transparency regarding Fauci’s records, according to The Hill.
The FAUCI Act would require the Office of Government Ethics website to list the pay and perks for administration officials such as Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The agency also would be required to provide a list of those paid by the government whose financial records are not public.
The proposed legislation is an outgrowth of Marshall’s clash with Fauci during a Senate hearing Tuesday in which Marshall criticized both Fauci’s $434,000 salary and the billions of dollars in federal research grants his agency awards with little fanfare or scrutiny, according to Politico.
“As the highest-paid employee in the entire federal government, would you be willing to submit to Congress and the public a financial disclosure that includes your past and current investments?” Marshall asked, noting that federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky discloses her investments, as do members of Congress.
“All you have to do is ask for it,” Fauci said. “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”
“There’s an air of appearance that maybe some shenanigans are going on,” Marshall said, adding that he believes such “is not the case.”
Fauci said the information Marshall seeks “is totally accessible to you if you want it.”
“We look forward to reviewing it,” Marshall said as Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, cut off the exchange between Marshall and Fauci.
Then came the hot-mic comment that raised Marshall’s ire.
“What a moron,” Fauci said softly, according to multiple outlets. “Jesus Christ.”
Marshall later issued a statement.
“Calling me a moron during a Senate hearing may have alleviated the stress of the least trusted bureaucrat in America, but it didn’t take away from the facts,” Marshall said.
Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Ian Sams then criticized Marshall for criticizing Fauci, according to Politico.
“At a time when America is seeing rising COVID cases,” Sams said, “it’s disappointing and frankly unacceptable that Republican Senators chose to spend a hearing with the country’s leading public health experts spreading conspiracy theories and lies about Dr. Fauci, rather than how we protect people from COVID-19.”
Forbes contributor Andrew Andrzejewski investigated Fauci’s claims and said that as with many things related to the doctor, what Fauci said is neither total fiction nor the full truth.
Andrzejewski said existing public records available online do not show Fauci’s pay for any time since the 2020 federal fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, 2020.
“It’s not public what stocks and bonds Dr. Fauci bought and sold in 2020 or 2021, as he influenced Covid policies,” Andrzejewski wrote.
“It’s not public what Fauci received – or didn’t receive – in royalties. (There are up to 1,000 current and former NIH scientists receiving royalties.) Each payment could be a potential conflict of interest.
“Yes, all this information resides with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but isn’t ‘public knowledge,’ despite Dr. Fauci’s claims otherwise.”
Andrzejewski noted that vast amounts of information on Fauci – about 1,200 pages — remain in the hands of the National Institutes of Health despite a Freedom of Information proceeding by the nonprofit group Judicial Watch to kick loose the facts.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson