Latest / THE DAILY BRIEF / Sen. Rand Paul DODGES question on Trump Covid criticism, pivots to Fauci 'ARROGANCE'

Transcript

Sen. Rand Paul DODGES question on Trump Covid criticism, pivots to Fauci 'ARROGANCE' · THE DAILY BRIEF

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Senator certainly, though there were many Walter journal boards were
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: included who thought that was an opportunity that hearing to
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: get more answers in it instead devolved into what it was.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: But one of your criticisms of doctor Fauci is that,
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: in your estimation he said one thing publicly where he
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: sort of downplayed the virus, and one thing privately where
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: he acknowledged, you know, its seriousness. Well, President Trump did
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: the exact same thing that he told the American people
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: there January February March twenty twenty, that this was something
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: that would blow over while we know because he had
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: transcripts and audio recordings with calls with Bob Woodward, the journalist,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: where he said to mister Woodward, this is far more serious.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: So does President Trump deserve that same level of scrutiny
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: as you want doctor Fauchi to face.
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: You know, I think the main culpability of doctor Fauci
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: is that he advocated for a decade before this the
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: funding of these labs. He funded a lab in the
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Netherlands that mutated the Avian flu and made it more dangerous.
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: The whole scientific community, led by a scientist at MIT,
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: set up this Cambridge Working Group and we're very very
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: critic said it shouldn't have been funded and it shouldn't
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: have been published. There are people who are non partisan.
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: There's a Stanford professor by the name of David Relman
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: who advises government, is very knowledgeable in these affairs and
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: said that the research in the Netherlands on the Avian
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: involution should have never occurred. So he has made mistake
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: after a mistake, and the idea or the decision to
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: fund this dangerous research in China I think maybe one
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: of the worst, if not the worst medical public health
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: decision in a lifetime.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: We'll say there along that line. Then, in your argument,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: should everyone involved with this sort of research, of s
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: gain of function research? Should they all all these people
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: face potential criminal investigation.
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: I think they should all apologize, and I think they
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: all are culpable in many ways, maybe not legally. For example,
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: the research project from twenty eighteen called Defuse. Deef Use
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: was to take a coronavirus and insert a fear in
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: cleavage site that is very similar to what COVID looks like.
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: That was to be funded by our government.
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: Never was.
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: But when COVID came out and they saw the structure
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: of COVID. They should have said, oh my goodness, this
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: is just like the research project that we looked at
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: and rejected because it was too dangerous two years ago.
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: No one said a word. There's got to be one
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: hundred and fifty people that were in different meetings that
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: knew about this. Ralph Barrett knew about it. He was
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: a lead investigator. He says he never told Fauci. Fauci
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: says he never received this. They all had to know.
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: But Fauci also knew that he had been funding the lab.
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: One of the first emails he gets from his assistant
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: in January twenty twenty is an email that says gain
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: to Function research in Wuhan. They were labeling it that way.
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: EcoHealth that was getting the money from nih and sending
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: it to Wuhan. They put in one of their letters
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: when their funding started up again, thank you for restarting
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: our gain of function research. They were all calling at that.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: So the level of dishonesty here is astonishing, but it was.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: There's a mistake. It was because Fauci had a conflict
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: of interest. His conflict of interest is he knew he
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: funded this, and he knew if it came from the lab,
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: that there would be a culpability attached. So he argued
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: for the natural origin, not because he objectively thought so,
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: but it was better for him the cent.
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: I guess the bigger question a lot of people have
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: as they listen to this debate, in this conversation, is
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: are you suggesting something nefarious from doctor Anthony Fauci. There
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: were things that made a lot of us mad and
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: in hindsight make us even more mad. That schools were
• 3:30
  Speaker 3: closed too long, that six feet apart may have been
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: some kind of arbitrary number. That little kids didn't need
• 3:35
  Speaker 3: to wear two masks to go to the playground. But
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: all of that is after the fact, in the fog
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: of war. Are you suggesting that doctor Fauci made mistakes,
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: which I'm sure he would concede he did, or that
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: there's something nefarious behind his actions.
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: I would say it's wrong headed.
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure I would use the words nefarious. I
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: would say that he is of the belief that the
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: common man can't handle the truth and that people like
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: him who are the science, the elite, and the experts,
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: should make decisions. So many of his decisions about mask
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: he originally said you didn't need to wear them, which
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: is probably the bulk of the truth from most of
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: the studies. Cochran Analysis looked at seventy eight different studies
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: in a meta study and that's what their conclusion was.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: But when he told us that, he also then explained
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: why he said mask don't work. So there was a shortage,
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: and I was just telling people that because it was
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: a practical way of saving them for the doctors. So
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: he was telling us nobles platonic lives because he's one
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: of the philosopher kings. So it really is about an attitude.
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: But it isn't arrogance, and it isn't arrogance that shouldn't
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: go unchallenged.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: Surely, though there are many who filled doctor Fraucci to
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: vote in decades of his life's public service and public
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: health
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: S