Republicans: continued

[Tero]

Congresswoman missing some toes, among other parts.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/marjorie ... eene-feet/

[Tero]

Fauci vs Rand Paul
https://twitter.com/NarcTranslator/stat ... 9686112262

[Sean Hayden]

lol Fauci wants everyone to know "officially" that Paul doesn't know what he's talking about --officially rofl

[Cunt]

Funny how they clipped whatever Rand said...probably best to only listen to the one side...

[Sean Hayden]

I'm not paying attention, someone just sent me a link and I thought it was funny --he's obviously mad, but to say you want it "officially" noted(?) that this guy over here is an idiot....

[Joe]

I wonder if the hearing transcript will be put into the National Archive. That would be officially noted.

[Hermit]

I wonder if the hearing transcript will be put into the National Archive. That would be officially noted.

One could also scroll down to the third tweet below the one Tero linked to. It provides the full 6 minute and 16 second exchange between Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci. C-SPAN published the video on Youtube.

Explicit was the accusation that Fauci was lying on the 11th of May, when he said (at 1:57) "the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute". Paul referred to a 2017 paper, which he claimed to be proof that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has conducted gain of function research, to which the NIH contributed funding via EcoHealth, and that therefore Fauci lied.

Fauci rejected the notion outright that the work done by the WIV constituted gain of function research. The Washington Post looked at this issue on the 18th of May, and concluded:

There is some smoke here, but we do not yet perceive the fire claimed by Paul. To some extent, all money is fungible. But the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples. The NIH grant includes language that some say suggests gain-of-function research; NIH says that is a misinterpretation. Paul’s statements about Baric’s research also appear overblown. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but decided on Two, because there still are enough questions about the work at the Wuhan lab to warrant further scrutiny, even if the NIH connection to possible gain-of-function research appears so far to be elusive.

WaPo's fact check is thorough and gives both sides a fair hearing, quoting each at length, but one needs a better attention span than that of a fruit fly to work through the nuances and intricacies, which makes it easy to convince those who lack it that Paul's accusation is justified.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yeahbut fact checkers are horrible people. HTH

[Cunt]

Awesome! Now do ivermectin, and Dr. Weinstein / Joe Rogan emergency podcast!

[JimC]

Worms don't like Ivermectin.

Covid doesn't give a shit...

[Cunt]

You could have just said 'no thanks, I don't care what they said'.

[Tero]

Boebert/Trump lecture about dangerous vaccine.Only, she took it.

[Joe]

I wonder if the hearing transcript will be put into the National Archive. That would be officially noted.

One could also scroll down to the third tweet below the one Tero linked to. It provides the full 6 minute and 16 second exchange between Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci. C-SPAN published the video on Youtube.

Explicit was the accusation that Fauci was lying on the 11th of May, when he said (at 1:57) "the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute". Paul referred to a 2017 paper, which he claimed to be proof that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has conducted gain of function research, to which the NIH contributed funding via EcoHealth, and that therefore Fauci lied.

Fauci rejected the notion outright that the work done by the WIV constituted gain of function research. The Washington Post looked at this issue on the 18th of May, and concluded:

There is some smoke here, but we do not yet perceive the fire claimed by Paul. To some extent, all money is fungible. But the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples. The NIH grant includes language that some say suggests gain-of-function research; NIH says that is a misinterpretation. Paul’s statements about Baric’s research also appear overblown. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but decided on Two, because there still are enough questions about the work at the Wuhan lab to warrant further scrutiny, even if the NIH connection to possible gain-of-function research appears so far to be elusive.

WaPo's fact check is thorough and gives both sides a fair hearing, quoting each at length, but one needs a better attention span than that of a fruit fly to work through the nuances and intricacies, which makes it easy to convince those who lack it that Paul's accusation is justified.

It will be interesting to see how much of an historical record a C-Span video will be in 40 or 50 years, or even 150 years, but the National Archive will probably be there and available to historians, if the United States still exists. As a single incident, the Paul/Fauci exchange is not very significant, but the pattern of GOP behavior in undermining efforts to fight the pandemic might make an embarrassing chapter in a future book on the subject.

That's what Fauci's "officially noted" make me think of.

[Sean Hayden]

It was most excellent.

[JimC]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-21/ ... /100310088

The chair of former president Donald Trump's 2017 inaugural committee has been arrested on charges he secretly conspired to influence US policy to benefit the United Arab Emirates, while seeking a position as an American diplomat.