How Anthony Fauci Should Be Questioned in Congress

 At the post, A Very Hot Jim Jordan Questions the Sociopath Anthony Fauci, where I cheered on Rep. Jim Jordan for his aggressive questioning of Anthony Fauci, Tom Woods left the comment:

He should have challenged Fauci on his bogus predictions, his record of being wrong on schools, wrong on Florida, all of it. I disagree with Bob: I couldn't even get through this.

I wouldn't have minded if Jordan asked those questions, I have not only cheered on Jordan but Senator Rand Paul in his aggressive questioning of Fauci about mask-wearing but Fauci is as slick as it gets when being questioned.

The question Tom suggests would have scored some points but Fauci would bob and weave on those also, just the way he did with the Jordan and Rand questions.

When Rand confronted him about masks and why it was recommended by the CDC that people who have received the vaccines still should wear masks, he took Rand deep into the weeds with some nonsense about a South African variant. This is Fauci's style.

With Jordan, he refused to answer Jordan's questions directly. When it was put to Fauci on CNN about a legitimate Tucker Carlson question about the effectiveness of vaccines, Fauci stated he did not want to "discuss conspiracy theories." 

He would do the same with his predictions and contradictory comments on mask-wearing, deflect and distort.

Again these questions are fine but they are only going to result in a marginal benefit. 

They are really stating "Ok, Dr. Fauci please give us a lesson on how to distort this question."

With all of the above points, it is just better to state the situation in a different medium rather than giving Fauci a chance to distort the questions during congressional testimony. The facts stand for themselves, it is just that Fauci is a master sociopathic distortionist. 

If I was in Congress, I would rather take him down a completely different road where it would be much more difficult for him to distort and might actually expose something.

I might for example ask him: 

Do you earn any income outside of your salary?

The more he tries to deflect specific questions like these, the more I will suspect I have hit a hot point and follow up with more planned questions of fact that are hard to deflect.

I would also make it as difficult as possible for him to understand where I am going with questions.

For example, if I did want to just get him to confirm he talks to Bill Gates, I might ask this leading question, "When was the last time you talked to Bill Gates?" He might try to deflect this question by saying he doesn't remember. He is too busy to keep track of such things. Whatever. But these don't stop me from reaching my goal of him confirming that he talks to Gates.

Then there is a series of factual questions about his relationship with Gates that I would ask. Slow methodical questions that back him into a corner where he risks a charge of perjury if he lies.

I have a big series of questions around whether he instigated the hit piece on Scott Atlas that appeared in The Washington Post. I suspect he was behind hit.

Slow methodical questioning here could shed some really interesting facts. 

You have to take Fauci down roads where he is not used to answering questions and ask facts, not ask for explanations. Fauci has plenty of explanations for everything under the sun (and probably on the sun). 

I repeat,  if you really want to expose this guy, you don't ask for explanations, you ask for facts where it is hard to deflect---especially if you can initially hide what the purpose of the questions are.

 -RW