The 1896 Case Fauci's Lawyers Don't Want You to Know About

Jack Moore: what happens, and this is what the facts are really in Brown versus Walker, when someone chooses not To testify or invokes the Fifth Amendment, it doesn't mean they can't be held in contempt. If a court ruling says now that wasn't a reasonable, you know, use of the Fifth Amendment, then you could be held in contempt if you refuse to answer. Welcome to another edition of More to Consider. Charles Hundley and I just did a show on the whole Fauci thing. Please like and subscribe. Please comment on this. Please subscribe to this if you want to get more content. I think what we're doing here is a pretty good analysis of things in the news and maybe we're saying some things that others don't. So we did the show. I said I wasn't really a big fan of Fauci, but I did support his right under the Fifth Amendment to not have to testify to certain matters. And you know, in pleading the fifth, I I could certainly see the rationale behind it. But I did think about it later after we just recorded this, that Senator Josh Hawley did make reference to a case. And I should have done more background at the time I was talking about it. I sort of thought I knew the facts on it. And I was pretty much, you know, in my mind, I'm like, yeah, I think I got a grasp of where he was going with this. But I found some interesting things. I'm looking at some case briefs. So in law school, you know, you kind of get the case brief is a condensed version of the facts. What's the issue in the case? What's the holding of the case? What was the rationale of the reason? Who are the parties and all this type of thing? So during if you remember, during if you've watched, and I think most people have, when Hawley has his opportunity with Fauci. You know, he does do some of the like what day of the week is it, what colors of the carpet? People have laughed about that. And I made the argument and I stand by it that Fauci has to be concerned about waiver of Fifth Amendment privilege. If he's going to assert Fifth Amendment, you have to be careful that you don't answer any questions. Now, many would say, and I think it's true, the waiver of the Fifth Amendment right only relates to matters at issue. So asking what day of the week it is doesn't seem to expose you to a waiver of the Fifth Amendment. Well, why take the chance? So I'm sure that his attorneys were telling him, I don't care what they ask, however innocent the question may be, don't bite, don't take it, don't overthink it, just keep saying Fifth Amendment, which again I think is good advice, clearly in this situation. But when Hawley asked some of these questions, day of the week, color of the carpet, what color tie are you wearing? He filed with, you know that you don't have a Fifth Amendment privilege here to exercise, because this has been ruled on in Brown versus Walker 1896. So, you know, sort of an amendment or addendum to what we just did on the show. I wanted to address what does it say? And did he have a point? Did he have a valid point? Now, what happens, and this is what the facts are really in Brown versus Walker, when someone chooses not To testify or invokes the Fifth Amendment, it doesn't mean they can't be held in contempt. If a court ruling says now that wasn't a reasonable, you know, use of the Fifth Amendment, then you could be held in contempt if you refuse to answer. So in Brown versus Walker, 1896, the United States Supreme Court ruled about the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when a witness is called before a grand jury. And that's what happened in this particular case. The court held that if compelled testimony Could not possibly expose the witness to criminal jeopardy. Now, this person was not a defendant. He was called as a witness in a matter. And then he asserted the Fifth Amendment because if I talk, I might expose myself to criminal prosecution. That's his argument. if if you could not possibly expose the witness to criminal jeopardy, the Fifth Amendment right is satisfied. So the overview. Brown versus Walker is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the Fifth Amendment. The case was decided on 23 March 1896. Background. The case arose when Brown, the appellant, all right, and so you you have an apple, an appellant. These are parties on something that's being gone before an appellate court. He was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, investigating alleged violations of the Interstate Commerce Clause by The Allegheny Valley Railway Company. Brown refused to answer certain questions of the grand jury, claiming his Fifth Amendment rights were being violated. And I understand from reading through the case, the grand jury does its thing. When he won't testify or he will not offer answers and invokes the fifth, they're like, all right, we're going to send it up to the court. Then the court has to rule on whether that was reasonable. They rule against him. It makes it up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court ruling. The court ruled that if the compelled testimony could not expose the witness to criminal jeopardy, the Fifth Amendment right was satisfied. Justice Henry B. Brown stated that the statute, there was a statute in place here, did not r read to protect the witness from every possible detriment, as long as it exempted him from prosecution for any crime related to his compelled testimony. And they said there may be some outside damage done, but to the straight facts of what you're being asked about. You can't compel or you cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment if it's not reasonable to believe that this could lead to a criminal prosecution. But this is why I think is important. There were dissenting opinions. And the dissenters argued, and I think this is valid, and I think this still applies to what Fauci's situation is, dissenters argued that the act was unconstitutional, as it could expose the witness to infamy And potential perjury charges, even if no other prosecution occurred. This case set a precedent regarding the limits of the Fifth Amendment and the conditions under which a witness can be compelled to testify without incrimination. so the further implications of it established that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in criminal cases, reinforcing the principle of self-incrimination. This case influenced Future rulings by clarifying the extent of said prof protection under the Fifth Amendment, ensuring that witnesses cannot be forced to provide evidence that could incriminate them. All right, but let's look at the dissent. I think that's the important thing. The dissent, boiled down, were basically saying they thought this act or this ruling was unconstitutional, as it could expose the witness to the infamy. And let's face it, let's go back to Fauci. Let's say We go back to last week and Fauci's testifying. And let's say that if he's now under oath with the potential for perjury, they start to ask him really incriminating questions. And we did get into the whole thing of, and I think I I kind of misquoted at the end of the last show, the Joe Biden pardon, and I do think it was a straightforward pardon of a gen a generic nature. It was a general, not specific. It didn't say this is the crime. For which he's been convicted or have had a grand jury come forward, whatever. He didn't specifically say a crime. He said all things that could have been considered criminal during the period January 1 of 2014 through January the the day of the signing, whoever signed it, was January 19th, 2025. So during that period, anything he did was covered. Now one might say, Yeah, he's giving them a pardon for a time that Biden wasn't even in office. Yeah, he could go back retroactively go back as far as he wanted to with whatever this date is. So he selected this date and then he narrowly said, whether he meant to or not, in the language, it related to what he did in several positions as it relates to the federal government. So another thing we didn't really address the other day, Charles and I, and then I thought, you know, okay, this really needs to be addressed too, because I hear rumblings now. that he might face potentially state prosecutions. But again, let's go back to he doesn't invoke the fifth. And then they say something on the say on the order of, were you fully aware, truthfully, were you fully aware of the origins of the coronavirus, COVID-19, where it came out of? Not a wet market, but it was actually out of a lab in Wuhan. Did you know that? And he said, hell yeah, I knew it. I knew it. Were you actively involved in a cover up? Did you actually tell the American people? Not under oath, but did you make statements? Now he did make statements before Congress under oath. That comes later. But let's just say when you were doing something on the news networks, were you not telling the whole truth? He admits to that. Again, I don't think that's actionable because he's not under oath at the time. You know, it could be actionable possibly because he kind of he drove policy. But now you go back to. Hey, you were here on such and such date in 2023, 2024, whatever these time frames were, that he testified before the Senate, the House, he did both. He did both houses of Congress. But you made a statement that you didn't know this, or you said we were no longer doing gain of function research. Isn't that true? But you knew it to be a lie. And I remember Rand Paul in one exchange, they went round and round about how. There had been like an official changing of the language of what that even meant. So there seemed to be massaging, manipulation, and everything of language to cover for things. So again, let's say that he's asked these questions. He and his attorneys agree with what Hawley was saying from this Brown versus Walker, that he didn't have a Fifth Amendment out. And he's thinking, you know what though, I'm completely covered. So I'm going to come clean because I don't want to pick up a perjury charge. I've been subpoenaed. I've been compelled before this congressional hearing, the Senate hearing. I'm in front of the Senate committee. I now am compelled. I agree with, let's say his attorneys agree with Hawley's take on this Brown versus Walker 1896. And he feels like he can be held in contempt or answer the questions. And he answers the questions truthfully because he doesn't want to pick up outside of the pardon time. He doesn't want to pick up, You just lied to Congress or you lied to the Senate, and therefore there's a perjury charge coming. So let's say he does that. Then I'm afraid, and this is why I still think, and I agree with the dissenters, the dissenting opinion in this Brown versus Walker. I think if he does acknowledge these things and he testifies truthfully, this is what's kind of in the works too, is that some states may be lining themselves up to say he was complicit. Andor criminally responsible in some manner, the bad outcomes within their states because they followed his advice. And the whole time he was being less than truthful to the American people, they were basing their shutdowns and their other agency maneuvers based upon things he was saying. He was supposed to be the science. He's supposed to be handling the COVID and the response thereto. And he hasn't been truthful. And now he's in Congress or in the US Senate. Which is Congress, of course, a part of one house of Congress, he's in there admitting I was less than truthful. I lied. I lied about a lot of this. You may even go as far as did he lie because he was financially enriched by this? That's certainly an avenue, too, or a lane. So what's clear about the pardon, or what needs to be understood about the pardon, it doesn't apply to the states. It only applies to the federal government where federal jurisdiction could bring charges against him. It does not apply to the states. So I think once again, there is a reasonable argument for invoking the Fifth Amendment, because if he gets in there and runs his mouth too much, acknowledges too much, he may be opening himself up to really giving up ev evidence or information to the states. And again, the states are not barred now. The states right now, if they can find a lane, if they can find a jurisdictional lane to say we were adversely affected in a criminal way, as criminal victims, basically as a state. by the things he did, then it's open. It's it's open. And the f and so again, I don't see any upside. I I think that that's an argument. Now in Brown versus Walker, that was brought up. It was brought up by Brown that, hey, how do I know that if I say the wrong things here, if I say something when being compelled to speak, I'm not creating a state charge. And like, no, no, no. We're sufficiently, we think the statute that had been written to give immunity to people in a like situation to him, we think that's strong enough. It's a cover off. Sure, it's only directed towards the federal government, but we're pretty sure it's gonna protect you from the state as well. Okay. But again, the dissenters in that were like, nah, if you get up and start speaking, you can get hell for perjury. you might create new avenues for somebody outside the federal government to bring charges. Therefore, and the Fifth Amendment applies to the states too. So you have a Fifth Amendment right. If I'm in the Commonwealth of Virginia court and I'm a witness, a defendant, whatever, if I ch if well, that's going to be an interesting case of plead fifth when you're in there on on a defense charge, your fifth is to keep your mouth shut and don't take the stand. If you take the stand, then you're open to any question, really. So But you could be a witness, and generally that's where it happens. You could be a witness and you could be called in. And I was actually just telling a friend, too. I had a case when I was a prosecutor. I don't want to give up too many facts on it, but I had a case where there was a need for an explanation of a beating of someone. And the guy that did it did it on behalf of someone that was close to him. He beat someone up. And the person who was beaten had testified in court. He had no idea who beat him up. Okay. So again, don't I know I'm being too vague, but it was basically there was a defendant and assaulting one person. And that defendant was then later beaten up by a relative of the person that person had victimized with the crime in cross-examination of this defendant for beating someone up. Said, I don't know who came in the to subsequently beat me up. I have no idea who it was. So Virginia had passed a law, and the law had been passed because you do often have, as a prosecutor, very vital witnesses who see criminal things. They're involved in criminal life every day. And they're scared to death of saying too much about some action they took as a witness. They're a witness to something. They may have even been a victim. So they could be a victim of a crime. And if they go in to testify, they're going to have to talk about their own crime potentially. So because that happened a lot, a member of the state legislature passed a law saying that if no one could have known about the crime that you committed, except in offering the testimony, if no one else could know, then you can come in and testify about matters that could hang somebody else, but you could be clear and have immunity from the potential charge against you. By cover of this statute. So put another way, I literally had this as a prosecutor. Literally had this as a prosecutor. I got a guy that gets in the backseat of a car with two guys in the front seat, and he goes there to buy drugs for $700. I remember the figures, early 2000s. He hops in the backseat. Okay, you guys got the drugs. Yeah, here's the $700. Kid turns and points a gun right in his face. We'll keep the $700 and the drugs. Have a nice day. Okay, so what happened there? The guy in testifying would have to admit he was there to do a drug buy. Then he had a gun stuck in his face, an armed robbery. He was robbed of the $700 and he didn't get what he bargained for, the drugs. Well, you're not exactly coming into court with clean hands. If you're trying to prosecute the two guys that pointed the gun, or the one that took your money and the other pointed the gun at you, you'd have to testify in the facts of the case. Yeah, I was there to buy drugs. I was there to buy $700 worth of drugs. Now, as that turned out, what we often did in this particular office I was in is we split defendants all the time. The two defendants got split guy with the gun, guy that took the money. And we've got this victim. So I'm ready to prosecute it. I don't know any better. I'm I'm ready to take the case in and do whatever I can with it. I know I've got a victim who was there to do a drug buy, but he got a gun stuck in his face. So I have this detective come up to me matter-of factly and said, you're going to go up and null process. So nulloprose key is punt. You have, it's supposed to be based upon a witness problem. Something comes up. You can't go forward with the case at the time. And you're asking the court to dismiss it without prejudice. So you could bring it back. For a felony like that, it's generally no limitations on it. If it's a misdemeanor, then it's one year in the Commonwealth, 12 months in the Commonwealth of Virginia. So anyway, I'm like, I'm going to null process it. And the guy goes, Yeah, it's already been taken care of. I'm like, okay, street justice, brother, we're fine. So the detective's like, we got it taken care of street justice-wise. So the other prosecutor in my office that had the other defendant, the one that took the money or the one that held the gun, he came up with 350 bucks. And he goes, now the plea agreement outside, well, it's an agreement. You go null price, and we're gonna get that other kid to come up with the other 350. Together, they're gonna come up with 700 bucks. They're gonna make the kid in the backseat that came to get the drugs with the money, they're gonna make him whole. Everybody's gonna walk away. But I use that as an illustration. That happens a lot. You got people who were victimizing a crime. In in I'm I'm not Joe Street guy. I don't, you know, but I saw some things as a prosecutor. We would have a lot of cases where an inside informant among people selling drugs would let them know, would let a group of guys know. There's going to be a drug deal going down X. They come in with the guns and take the drugs and the money from the other two parties. So think about that. You got two victims of the crime. One that brought the drugs, others brought the money to do this drug deal in the back street, you know, in the back alley of some street USA. And then a third party comes in with guns and takes both. Well, they're both victims of a crime. But what were they doing? They were there to do a drug deal. They were there to do a drug transaction. And a third party comes in and steals from them both, money and drugs. These things happen all the time. So that's kind of what the legislature in Virginia was after is let's write a law and it sort of protects the people who are criminals themselves, or they see things. And that's often what you're doing. You're trying to subpoena somebody to come in and testify. You're trying to compel them into testimony that can help, you know, put away somebody that was involved in a crime, yet. Dude, if I come in and start talking, I'm gonna have to talk about the criminal things I was doing at the time I witnessed what I saw. Now, another thing that was a reality of the city, this one particular city I prosecuted in, we had a case one time, guy in the house with kids in the house. And he's got a bad drug deal going on with the guy that's now entered back into the street. They start shooting at each other. One's shooting out of the house, and there's all kinds of laws about shooting from a dwelling, shooting into a dwelling. The other guy's in the street shooting back. There's kids in the house. There's other people in the house. Not one person would testify. Now, the two guys that are shooting at each other, they were known who they were. So they both get charged. They get charged with shooting into a dwelling, shooting out of a dwelling, you know, unlawful use of a firearm, you name it, all this stuff. Lots of felonies, lots of gun-related felonies. They carry mandatory time. So they're shooting back and forth. Talk to people in the house. I didn't see a thing. People in the street, I didn't see a thing. Now they're all scared of retribution from the people that are doing the shooting. So Both of them put back to the shooters, they both have a fifth Fifth Amendment privilege to not say a word. They can just not take the stand, or they can choose not to testify. So in a preliminary hearing, p pick the guy from inside the house. What evidence you have? You're not going to get the guy to testify who was being shot at, who was also shooting back at the house. He's not going to testify. No one in the street is everybody's scared to testify, fear of retribution. This is what happens. So often people in the street will say, Why don't you get more prosecution? Can't anybody testify? They're all scared to death. So the shootings take place and they pretty much do the shootings without any ramifications because there's no testimony. Now I've gone off onto all of that, but I kind of wanted to do a touching on the Fifth Amendment and sort of how this kind of applies so many different ways. It comes up in criminal court all the time. You do have a number of people that have a lot to lose by testifying. If they testify and they're found out. Or some of their some of their activities found out, they could put themselves at jeopardy. But as a tool of prosecution, at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 25 years ago, I'm saying they passed this law to try to create some level of protection of the person willing to come in and give information. But back to what we were discussing about the whole Fauci thing. I wanted to cover that again. I say that Hawley was grandstanding a lot. I think he is. I think the Republicans in general to kind of touch on that again. I don't think that was an unfair assertion or reading of that case. I don't think it's all there is to that case. and I just, again, as not a fan of Fauci and probably believing, as a person who probably believes all of the allegations against him are true, I just watched it play out in real time. I never trusted him. When he came, you know, of course, a lot of stuff came out later about his AIDS history 40 plus years ago. And it kind of aligns with the guy that appears to get himself in the middle of a lot of high profile things as it relates to public health, makes a little money here and there on it, and definitely liked the limelight. That being said, he said he he certainly bears the image of God like all of us, and he has every right to remain silent. He is 85. I looked it up, I think he is 85 years of age. This question of would he ever really actually serve time or not, who knows? But what we're down to now, and this is what's going to get played out. Is very much like in the Brown versus Walker, where the guy could have been held in contempt of court for not offering the information they were asking, so too could Fauci be held in contempt of Congress. What what the way they're going to put together the case, the argument would be, you have this pardon, which again we talked about in the last show. It it could have been challenged, has it been challenged, the auto pin argument, Trump has been. very vocal in saying, I don't think anything that Biden was everything that Biden was signing, quote unquote, under this auto pin is questionable whether it even has legal authority or has legal weight. if if whatever that particular question, whether that could be answered, I think we're playing under the rules. It looks like a valid pardon. You know, they can get into the question of the underlying and also kind of as an ex post facto, I guess there's no better term for it. I don't think they're in a situation for him to play and give up testimony as compelled by the subpoena to come to the to to this congressional or senate hearing. I don't think you can turn around later and go, you know, whoopsie, you we've actually done some further research. We've gotten your pardon overturned. Now we're going to use the lack of a pardon and you've run your mouth. I don't think that could be done. I don't think that's fair to him. So I still stick by with I think anytime someone And this is where I would agree with the dissent in Brown versus Walker. I think anytime there is some potential by opening your mouth, even if the federal government or any other government agency or court tells you, no, no, no, you're covered. There's an immunity statute, or there's your pardon, whatever you got, we're giving you absolute cover. And nobody's going to prosecute you for this. You still run the risk of saying something that leads to a new event. And for, you know, however many times I've said this. His pardon runs from 2014 to 2025, January 19. It doesn't have anything to do with fill in the blank July in 2026. So if something he says, even inadvertently, is a little bit less than truthful, I think he's open to prosecution for that. Final thing I'll say on all of this. There's a very good, great video you can watch with Professor Dwayne. that I had at Regent Law School years ago, he did, and I a lot of people have watched it. It's like millions. I don't know how many I'm off the top of my head. I can't remember how many views it's been, but it's been a lot. It's it's been watched all over the world by people because he talks about why you should never speak to the police. Never, ever speak to the police. And I agree with that. And I've given people that advice. Cops will come around sometimes and they'll go, I just want to talk, I just want to ask you couple of questions. You're not, you're not even a suspect. You know, we're looking Yeah, because next thing you know, you say the wrong thing. You make yourself. They know you're a suspect. If they have what it takes to charge you, they'll come around in time. Don't give it to them. you know, somebody just saw a very high profile DUI recently, and the guy is agreeing to answer questions. Like one of the things I've seen a lot of attorneys talk about online. If the cops says, You had a few tonight, yeah, yeah, I only had two beers. Shut up. Don't sit, don't make any admission of any drinking. It it's true. You know, you could say, Hey, I disrespectfully refuse to answer that question. You don't have to incriminate yourself. You don't that's what the cops are trained to do. Get you to admit to some drinking, get you to sobriety tests, which has kind of been shown in studies that sober people can't do them. So you're you're you're going down a road of creating a case against yourself to establish probable cause for driving under the influence. So back to Professor Dwayne, he did this whole video on All the pitfalls of talking to the police, how you always inadvertently say something not quite right. And one of the major cases that certainly historically has been brought up is Martha Stewart. So Martha Stewart, put the you know, television personality for a number of years. I don't know, she becomes a target at some level for some federal agencies relative to stock and trade, you know, trading stocks and or something financial. And some federal agents come in and, like, hey, they suspect her of insider trading. And when I taught that years ago in college, some kid says, What's that? And I said, That's like when Bud Fox tells Gordon Gecko about Blue Star Airlines. Maybe some of you saw the video that or the podcast that Laura and I did, my producer, we did a whole podcast on, you know, the the movie Wall Street, 1987, Oliver Stone, Michael Douglas, and Charlie Sheen. So in that scene, when Charlie Sheen is tanking and realizes As Bud Fox. He's not getting anywhere with Gordon Gecko played by Michael Douglas. He throws out Blue Star Airlines because he knows there's a favorable opinion coming from a court that not even the plaintiffs know about yet. They trade in that. They go buy a bunch of stock and Blue Star goes through the roof the next day. Once the report comes out, so that's insider trading. You are a stockbroker, licensed, you're trained in a certain way, and now you know something the guy on the street can't. So it's considered cheating. So anyway, they think that about Moth the Steward. So they come in, they ask her some questions, and they don't really build a case. They're not seeing it. Like, yeah, you know, these agents are like, you know, we're not really seeing insider trading, but she said something. We looked at the, she was slightly off on the map. She missed something. She got something not quite right. So then as a federal statute, something along the line of you can be convicted for being quote unquote less than truthful with a federal agent. They convict her of that. Now, Why do I bring that up? She'd never spoken to him. There's no charge. If she'd have just said, hey, you want to bring me on insider trading, knock yourself out. Do what you will. But she sits down, like a lot of people do. Well, I'll just talk to the cops. Well, what could have hurt? I'll, you I know I'm innocent. I didn't do anything wrong. Say something wrong. Say something not quite right. And you may open the door to either further investigation or charges for being less than truthful, which does not happen unless you open your mouth. I use that example back to Fauci. There is no upside to Fauci testifying. The downside could be the contempt. But then again, I'm still asking myself, so what's the penalty going to be? I I don't really know the answer to that. Help people have been held in contempt before by Congress, and I've always kind of heard in the news, or sort of the, you know, the the feeling on the street is, so what? Yeah, you got a contempt, you know, by Congress. And that and 25 cents gets you a cup of coffee or whatever. I mean, who cares? I don't know that anybody's ever been, well, actually, I take that back. They did put Bannon away, right? Yeah, Bannon got the con that's right, Bannon got convicted on that. So he actually served time. So I think there have been some people that have actually but but again, I think that has to be farmed out into the courts and then you know you get some chance to defend it there. The Congress, to my knowledge, you know, they can vote out. Yep, we vote in an up or down vote. This person was in contempt. Now, what do you want to do about it? And my understanding is that they would then Issue it out to some prosecutory agency of the federal government. They'll prosecute it if they choose to. So I think that's what's available. Now, the question's going to be when it comes to contempt. I don't know that the votes are there either. Could come out of the committee, the committee rule by Republicans, they come out with enough votes to say send it to the floor. And then it's going to be the filib filibuster rule, to my understanding. I don't know that there's 60 votes that held him in contempt. So I think all along, strategically for Fauci, everything's been played right. Keep your mouth shut, plead the fifth, except that you might look silly on TV, but I'm not sure some of the Republicans attacking him didn't look just as silly. Again, what I found disappointing about the whole thing, and this is what I expressed with Charles when we did the show, is I think a lot of Democrats look really, really bad by trying to hang in there and can continue to defend him. I just think he's indefensible. And it was better to go dump on Trump about cutting budgets or things like that, which some of them did. But when they went to that thing of then praising Fauci for his wonderful work for five decades, I think that's that falls upon death ears. So I wanted to get all that, you know, in synopsis or or in closing on all of this. I wanted to kind of go back and look at that case. And I wanted to bring up the fact that there appears to even be potentially in the works some attacks that may come up of Fauci as it relates to the states. Again, there has to be a jurisdiction. You can't just bring charges against people that don't fall within your jurisdiction unless you can make the case there is a jurisdiction. There's got to be some type of connection and a nexus between what Fauci did and how it affected the state, however that is. You just can't willy-nilly just bring charges against somebody that doesn't have a connection to your state unless you can prove it. But again, I think if he had spoken in front of of the Senate committee, said the wrong things, it could have led to further prosecutions in the state. And even though in that Brown versus Walker they seem to say, we don't care about all that state exposure. I think it's real. And I I still and I don't know. Maybe if this thing goes further, and the contempt is held, and this might end up being back in the Supreme Court. You might get another, you might get something to overrule Brown versus Walker, 1896. I don't know how this is gonna play out. Again, not as a big supporter of Fauci. I still think he had. Every right to do what he did. And I still think it was the reasonable move. I think there's too much in play that's not known for him to do anything but plead the fifth. So he pled the fifth. now on this whole thing, again, what we're trying to, what Charles and I are trying to do, and I'm doing solo here today, is I think we're offering a little bit different take on a lot of this kind of stuff. Too much of what, to me, too much of what I hear is. Fauci saint, Fauci demon, whatever as it relates to this. I'm not saying either one. I am saying I think the guy has done a lot of terrible things. And I didn't trust him from 15 minutes into the COVID thing. It did it didn't a lot of things didn't make sense to me. But me being that guy, it was in a time that if you spoke against the regime or the apparatuses that was being displayed, it wasn't good for you. So I did appreciate the people that did speak out and called the bullshit and all the rest, but there was a danger in doing so. So I think he was a part of that. But that being said, we have a system of justice, and I think it has to be followed, whether you like people, you don't like people. And I just feel like so much of every discussion is right, left, whatever you want, Democrat, Republican, establishment against everyone else. I don't know. But I do think there was a lot of grandstanding done by the Republicans. I understand it. It's a midterm election season. Maybe that's a lot of what they were trying to create. But I think that we're offering something. Charles, myself, when we do these shows, we're offering something you're not seeing a lot everywhere else. And and I don't know how popular it is, but trying to offer some objectivity. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I talk about my views, skew libertarian. I'm not a libertarian in this party sense. I'm a free individual. And I I can and again, I don't pick from one party or the other. My standard is the function of government is to protect individual rights, life, and property from force and fraud from others. That's it. That's all it's supposed to do. When it comes to education and other certain things like that, hey, get with like-minded individuals, stroke checks, support what you want to. I am all about you have liberty to associate with whoever you want to. And the government has a very narrow role in the protection of your individual rights. That's it. So that's how I see the world. I don't see that in Washington on either side. I do see a person every once in a while that sniffs around that. Clearly, Ron Paul was a hero to many because he was that guy. Thomas Mastey, to some degree, talked that same talk. And Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul. He kind of skews very libertarian. I like him. I mean, I like a lot of what he says. But so many of them are party types, and it's party above all. And that's why the whole thing turns me off. So again, if you're not looking for Republican or Democrat, if you're not looking for what's being established as right or left, and you're just looking for a discussion, because maybe that's you, and that's what Charles and I were talking about in the last show. I think so much of what he and I discuss, there are a lot of people that think like we do. They just want to be left alone or they want to feel like. They're not in the crosshairs of one particular group for whatever immutable characteristic they have, or they're just they're sick of it. So I think there's a lot of it, but I don't think they get voice to it too often because the only choices seem to be Democrat, Republican. So this is what I keep stressing with Charles. I always vote at whenever if I vote, I'm always voting against the evil, not for what I think is good, because I don't think there is any good in voting. I I really don't. I just think that you vote to protect yourself as well as you can from how bad the other side can be or whoever that side is. So that being said, more to consider, please like and subscribe. Please comment. Give us comments. I mean, some of the comments we get are like, I don't know any what the hell you just watch, but then sometimes some some comments. I I'd like in the comments to just kind of hear what people are thinking about the particular subject. so let's do that. Like and subscribe. More to consider. This has been another edition. It's Fauci2. It's a little bit more on Dr. Fauci and how this whole thing went down with the Senate hearings. Take thank you very much and God bless.