The Fauci Hearing Nobody's Talking About: Pardons, Contempt & Cover-Ups

Charles: I'm pissed off that Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and Moderna got a free pass when it comes from being sued for from the effects of the the quote unquote shots. Now I'm pissed that the guy that was forcing us to do it is getting a pass.

Jack Moore: right.

Charles: This is clearly a distraction. Clearly a distraction. It's a waste of time going after Fauci when the real problem is the laws that need to be changed when it comes to this. Because these people and these corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, keep getting let off and we as the people keep getting a screw.

Jack Moore: Jack and Charles here, more to consider. We try on this show to give objective takes that I don't think a lot of people do. I want you to like and subscribe, follow. Please put comments in and tell me where we're wrong. Tell me and Charles, tell us where we're wrong. We're going to talk Fauci today. It's it's certainly in the news. It's saturated. A lot of people have had takes on this. But we're going to get into what did he really do? Did he do something wrong? I think a lot of us would agree he does. But what I'm seeing is two particular polar takes on this. I'm not seeing as it relates to this last Senate committee hearing, I'm not seeing, I think, what should be considered some objectivity into the legal aspects of this. Charles, how are you?

Charles: I'm doing alright, doing alright. It's gonna be a good subject.

Jack Moore: All right. I think so too. So I think it's a lot of theater and bullshit, actually. I think what the Senate did by even putting this together, I can't say it's meaningless. They they're getting a chance to air out some things. They're getting a chance to do some grievances, I think that a lot of people in the country feel. But when I looked at comments of a lot of the early takes on this, when I look in the comments, most everybody's like, Yeah, yeah, yeah, theater and nothing's gonna happen to them anyway. So you're my John Q citizen. Charles, from the start, tell me, I'm sure you watched a lot of this. Well, all we have to know is what 111 times Fauci said, according to the advice of my attorneys, I'm going to plead the fifth, you know, boil down. That that's what he said. And an opening statement where he did get the opportunity to take a shot at Rand Paul and basically use language where he said, This guy's obsessed with me. This guy has an obsession to screw with me, basically. He got that in in his opening statement. He was sworn in before that. And I don't think there's anything actionable than saying that some US senator has taken him on the way he is. But then every question from that point forward was Fifth Amendment. So what is your o off, you know, out the shoot, what is your gut feelings about this whole spectacle go?

Charles: I I think he's just pleading a fifth the entire time because he knows if he says something, anything, is gonna be used against him. I mean, for lack of better words, he knows it. And he's just gonna say I I'm not saying anything, nothing. As a matter of fact, they were asking him questions that really didn't have anything to do with with the whole covet situation, but it was more so of Just trying to establish a truth. A simple truth. You know, is one

Jack Moore: Okay. Yeah.

Charles: plus one, you know, does one plus one equal two? And he said, I'll plead the fifth.

Jack Moore: Yeah, so I was in law school when the OJ Simpson trial went down. So I want to go back in history a little bit because again, I'm an impressionable law student at the time. And one of the things I remember is the defense team, Johnny Cocker and Efflee Bailey, namely, when it comes to this cross examination of Mark Furman, the detective, there's they're sitting on the knowledge that there's this playwright, screenwrite, whatever. lady in North Carolina that has been talking to two Furman for like roughly a decade. And he's been dropping F-bomb N bombs. He has been saying the N word over and over. But what I was never really clear on, this is some nuance, I don't know. She said, I want to know about the gutty world of the LA detective, the LAPD, and what's it like on the street. So you remember when Joe Rogan got called out for saying, Hey, I took some ivorymectin. And then they wanted to cancel him. Remember, they found a clip or two, I think it was several clips, where Rogan said, Yeah, Jimmy used the N-word. I think it's the wrong thing. And they're like, Joe, Joe, you use the N-word. And then they wanted to cancel him for use of the N-word. I'm like,

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: okay, is that what it's come to? If someone even says the word in saying it's wrong to say the word, you could be canceled. And I know there's a lot of people that believe that. So anyway. Furman may have been saying, when I was on the street, I dropped some end bombs as I struck a guy with a baton in the head. I don't know. I don't know exactly what he said, but he said a lot of bad stuff, either referencing what he saw on the street or maybe even what he partook that he was partaking in on the street. Either way, he said it. So you remember at the close of one stand of cross-examination, Effleigh Bailey was like, Hey, have you ever used the N-word and this kind of thing? And you know, he's like, No, I never, I never said the N-word. Have you ever referred to anyone as the N word? No, I don't really remember. I don't remember any of that, you know, and I didn't say any of that. So then he gets

Charles: Alright.

Jack Moore: called back, and he's called back as a defense witness, probably as a hostile witness, you know, he can be led. So f for those of you that want to understand that as far as a legal thing, I call Charles as a witness. I can't lead him. I can't ask him suggestive questions. Charles, isn't it true that? And I fill in the blank and he has to say yes or no. I can only ask the kind of narrative-producing questions. Charles, at 1300 hours, it's been reported that what happened next, that's a bad example. But if I said, Charles, what happened next? You're open to say whatever. But if I say, weren't you there at 1300 hours? Then one could say, I'm leading the witness. So if you call an adverse witness, a witness on the other side, you can say whatever you want to him and you try to get admissions. So if you remember. I I don't remember. I haven't looked it up. I should have gone back and looked it But Efflee Bailey asked him, like, Do know what day of the week it is? on advice of my counsel, I will now plead the fifth. And every question was plead fifth, plead the fifth, fifth. And then

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: then Efflee Bailey tries to go down the haven't you used the word? Well, now they're sitting on, they know they have him on tape saying the word. So I use that to say, okay. So what comes into play is in the Fifth Amendment, it has language about the Thou shall not have to self-incriminate oneself. Okay. So given the English, you know, the Star Chamber courts where people were basically guilty until proven innocent, the founders are into we don't want people, it's also in large part why they got into ex post facto law, any kind of laws passed to go after an individual or create a penalty when you did something it wasn't illegal. All these were safeguards written in the Constitution andor the Bill of Rights to overcome how under old English law people could be guilty until proven innocent. So they put in, you can never be forced to compel, they they cannot compel you to answer in a way that might be self-incriminating. But then here's the catch: you got 200 odd years or more, over 200 years. Yeah, the country's 250, but yeah, you got the ratification of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights in 1791. So since that time, there have been a lot of Supreme Court cases on well, what does the Fifth Amendment really mean? Then you get into when does someone invoke, when does someone say to the cops, I don't want to talk anymore? Now, what the Supreme Court has ruled on is there are some kind of preliminary type of questions, ID questions, things of that nature, that are not incriminating in their nature. You can answer them. Even if you've invoked, you know, even if you've invoked and the cops like, okay, I understand you don't want to speak on this matter that you may be criminally charged with, but you know, is your wallet over there or something? And and to answer

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: that question, you're not giving up your rights. So then what starts to happen is there's a question of waiver. So what's happening for me is there's another whole lane that we have to explore. And I've heard people discuss this. What we what I remember in the Biden pardons was basically 2014 to January 20th, 25, that which one Dr. Anthony Fauci may or may not have done is pardon. Fair? And

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: there's people on the legal side that are like, wait a minute, wait a minute. It used to be if like you're a strong lefty president and one of your beat nick or crazy hippie types in the 60s bombs something. And they clearly did it. Maybe they never got convicted, but it was clearly, you know, they they bombed something in protest of the Vietnam War, whatever they did in 1969. You could pardon them for that. But what you're saying is they can no longer be criminally prosecuted. Or you know, they've gotten a sentence. Well, that's really commuting a sentence, or you let somebody go. But to pardon somebody is generally they have been convicted, and you're pardoning them.

Charles: I was about to ask.

Jack Moore: Yeah. Go ahead. Well, go ahead and ask question.

Charles: I was just about to ask that a pardon you have to have been convicted first.

Jack Moore: I don't yeah, that well this is what's well there's th there's that lane and then there's the other layer of was Biden actually doing any of them? So we have this whole Yeah, okay, go ahead.

Charles: No, I I I understand that part but but really I think a lot of people are asking the question about don't you have to be convicted first before you're pardoned

Jack Moore: I don't know the answer to that. And I don't know that it's settled. And then and and you know, and I I can kinda as we get talking, I don't know. I I didn't research that enough to really say. I do think it's unique. My view was what what I kind of understood about a pardon, you know, sort of a limitedly limitedly educated lawyer, is that a pardon was for a specific crime. This kind of general pardon, yeah.

Charles: Well and that was gonna be my next question. Doesn't it have to be f for something specific? Because if he just gave him a blanket pardon, you know, between twenty fourteen and January of twenty twenty five, and dude was out there he was a chomo and he was out there murdering and and graping women and so on and so forth, you just let him go? You just gave him a blanket pardon for all of that? That it that didn't even sound right to people, include myself.

Jack Moore: Well, no, I don't disagree with that, but again, when we get on the timeline here, when we're on the timeline, all Biden addressed, and the same with his son, to my to my my memory, it was also the same kind of blanket time to time, anything he did. Let me get through this part too, and then we'll just kick this all out. All right. My thing is, yes, we're kind of hearing it in the news, or we heard it in the news two years ago. Or not rough a year and a half ago, that on his way out, Biden did all this pardoning. Now there's two questions. One is, were they like legally binding pardons? Trump has spoken a lot about maybe wanting to attack pardons because of the autopin and whether Biden was even was he cognizant of what he was doing? Did he just have some guy in a room pulling out names? I think historically there have been a lot of presidential pardons where People have tugged the sleeve of a president going, Hey, hey, look out for my friend. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. You know, you're on the list. I'll take care of it. But I guess for it to be a legally binding pardon, there has to be some proof. Well, if it's challenged, I don't know, I don't know what the obligation is of the president's office, the former president, to prove that he was actually involved. But let's accept that he was. If he did, in fact, generate a legally binding pardon, then the next step would be. Okay, but is it too generic and not specific enough? Okay, so that's there. But

Charles: Yeah, I agree. Yeah.

Jack Moore: then this gets back to where we are and why I told the Mark Furman story. When you're in a court, this kind of Senate committee, and you go under oath, now you're under oath. I think, and if his attorneys were what I think they are, good attorneys, they told him, don't fall for the trick. They may come out, and that's why I thought, Hawley, who I think does this a lot. I'm not I'm not like generally opposed to Josh Hawley, but I think he's a grandstander of the first order. And I don't like

Charles: Yes, for sure.

Jack Moore: it. I don't like it because he's legally trained. He should know better than to know when he does the so what color's the carpet? Well, I think he started off with what day of the week is it? you can't answer that? you're not big boy enough to answer that. Well then what color's the carpet? What color tie are you wearing? They're all bullshit questions. I don't think his response to those. Would have triggered that he had waived his Fifth Amendment right. So

Charles: I agree.

Jack Moore: this, right, but this is where you have to be careful though. Because if I'm your attorney, Charles, I'm gonna say, Charles, I don't care what they say, I don't care what kind of stupid ass question they ask, you keep sticking to the fifth. Even if they ask me what day of the week, I don't give a shit. What day of the week is not relevant to this proceeding? Who cares? But what you don't wanna do. Is have a situation where you get in there and they say one day, it's Wednesday. That's it. That's it. You're answering questions now. You've waived your Fifth Amendment. You now have to proceed. Fifth Amendment waiver should

Charles: Mm.

Jack Moore: apply to you answer a question in the field of questions that

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: that right, that means something. But

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: if I'm advising you as the attorney, I'm like, don't fall for that. Don't get into some gray area about whether that question mattered. You just keep saying Fifth Amendment. They ask you your age, height, weight, color of the carpet. You say fifth and don't stop. I don't care what kind of questions they ask, whether you think they're inane, whatever, just answer. I think that's great legal advice. So back to what I saw, we all saw 30 years ago with Furman on the stand. I'm sure his attorney is like, they're gonna lead out with a couple of real simple questions. What day of the week? What rank are you in the LA, you know, whatever, LA police department? You just keep saying Fifth Amendment and don't look back. Because you can't afford to answer one question, you may trigger that you have waived your right. So I think that's at play. But now here's the next layer. This is the other layer that comes into play. And why I got into whether the pardon's even going to be recognizable or have teeth. Maybe it does, but the next big thing that we get into is what if there's a challenge to that pardon and it's successful? Like, so what if? Some agency. What if he goes in there and runs his mouth now under the cover of what he believes was a legitimate pardon of any past sins 24 or 2014 to 2025? Now he gets in there and acknowledges every question they ask and he answers them truthfully, only to find out that the pardon wasn't real. And now they have actionable stuff to take. One other thing. I'm sorry, I'm running on on this, but one other thing. That's a lane two. He doesn't, I don't think he sits there nor his lawyers with absolute certainty that this pardon's gonna have teeth. But then

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: the last thing is, and this is the most important part is if he answers any question, even truthfully to his knowledge, he may mess up the facts slightly. And now it's 2026. The pardon is through the time Biden left office. If he opens the door with something he says in testimony, So this is what kind of bothered me. And I know it's the right wing. And this is why I think everybody, and this is the thing, when you're watching more to consider, this is what I want you to consider and listening. I've heard the lefties, the Democrats say he is a God. He's the God of science. I love the man. I worship the man at the highest level. He does no wrong. Why are they picking on him? Then I hear the right wingers out there like, look, look at that little girl up there whining and crying and pleading the Fifth Amendment. No, he has to plead the Fifth Amendment. I'm no found of no fan of Fauci. Now, what the Republicans were able to get through in this circus intent show, they got in a lot of allegations on him that he did not acknowledge by pleading the fifth, but everybody heard him and everybody knows they're true. The stuff that came out about his personal diary, I mean, the guy doesn't look real good when he's caring about what all these celebrities think of him, and he's lying to the American con to the to the American people and pretty much acknowledging it in his own notes. So that's one thing, too. But what people have to understand, the other real reason he needs the Fifth Amendment, one, there may be questions about the pardon. And two, he might say something that becomes actionable separate from the pardon time. And then the last thing that I think has come up a lot, and I this is what Rand Paul argued, and I think it's legitimate. He's trying to argue that with the cover of the pardon, he can't plead the fifth because now he has this coverage. Now he's in contempt of Congress. So I know that's really where the Republicans are trying to go. They're trying to go after him for contempt, saying, You have immunity. You're covered by the veil of this, of this pardon. You got to come in and answer questions. Your response to all of that, go.

Charles: I think the Mark Furman situation's a little different mainly because of the type of court that it was in and there was a possibility of him going to jail if he was f

Jack Moore: Yeah, he could he could have been he he could have been committing perjury. Yeah, if he goes back and acknowledges, damn right I used that word in the past. Oopsie, I just testified that I didn't. So yeah, he's open for a perjury charge. But he's is they're doing it to discredit him on the O. J. Simpson trial. They could give a rat's ass about a perjury charge. But he did face that.

Charles: No. I understand.

Jack Moore: And that's how he had a fifth amendment out.

Charles: Right. I don't think Fauci I don't think there's a chance in hell of Fauci going to jail. So I don't think he cares. This is a case of public the court of public opinion versus the actual court of law and he's more concerned about their possibly him possibly going to jail, which he's not. He doesn't care about the the court of public opinion. Why would he? So I don't I don't

Jack Moore: All right.

Charles: think he actually lost anything by pleading a fifth other than really making an ass out of himself by not answering a simple qu why?

Jack Moore: I don't think he did, though. I don't, Charles, that's the point. I don't see how he made an ass of himself any more than he already has. They pulled his pants down. Hey, let's read, let's read from your diary when you said, hey, I'm going to be with Jake Tapper soon and have dinner. I'm with the CNN types all the time. Did you know that I called Barbara Streisand? Did you hear that whole thing? He had a conversation with Barbara Streisand about vaccinations or some bullshit back and forth. And then he's right. I actually talked to Barbara Streisand and she called me back. And she thought I was wonderful. He was completely wrapped up in his celebrity. One of the lines for well, one of the lines

Charles: No, I believe it.

Jack Moore: was, I may be the most famous man in America. Hell, I might be one of the biggest figures in the in the world right now. Okay.

Charles: No I I I understand. But again, I don't think he has any fear of going to jail. So he's he's show but he's showing up to

Jack Moore: I don't think he does e I I d yeah, I don't think he does either.

Charles: to Congress because they're forcing him to show up to Congress and

Jack Moore: He got subpoenaed.

Charles: and he's not gonna answer any questions. He's gonna go away.

Jack Moore: Right. So I think we

Charles: Just like all the others do.

Jack Moore: Okay. All right. So I came out guns ablazing 'cause I I just kinda went on big the point. I think what I'm just saying, I think the whole thing is so ridiculous because

Charles: It is.

Jack Moore: I haven't heard anyone say, and I guess I'm saying I'm kind of unique to this. I feel like I'm not a fan of Fauci. I think everything that the Republicans were alleging or sniffing around or however you want to say it, insinuating about him is true. I think the facts are there.

Charles: Yeah, I agree with him. Yeah.

Jack Moore: I also think he li he most likely, I'll just let me go ahead and qualify that. I think he most likely was less than truthful many, many, many, many, many times in Congress during COVID, during the follow-up, in many exchanges with Rand Paul. But I also think he's got a pardon. So There is I'm finding this online. Definition of a generic pardon. A generic pardon is a formal decision by the government to forgive an individual. It says for a crime. This action relieves a person of some or all legal consequences. but they but they're saying generic, but they're also saying that it's forgiveness for a crime. So yeah.

Charles: Dude, I think I think the the Republicans they're grandstanding again. I would give them way more credit if they were actually out there challenging this pardon that

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: was issued by Biden versus pulling Fauci in front of the people.

Jack Moore: So now you got to get into a question of timing. Would it have made more sense, I think, based on what you're saying? Should they have gone, but then again, who knows what the timeline would be? Should they have gone attacking the pardon before they ever brought him up? Yeah, I don't do yeah. But

Charles: Yeah. They should have. Yeah.

Jack Moore: but I think there's also a downside. What if they attacked the pardon and they got some court, however high up the food chain it had to go to say, no, no, no, it's a perfectly legitimate the way Biden did we can't find any problem with the auto pin. We can't find any problem with the language thereof. We can't, we don't have any problem with the general or specific. It's a pardon. Can't get him on anything. Well, now they've got a definitive judgment on that. So

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: now he really should shut up. I still think he's in the same boat because now I just found that I have a generic. Now it may set, it may have set the groundwork for them to pull the contempt charge. Because they're going to say, hey, we just got a ruling saying. You cannot stand for anything that you did 2014 to 2025. Now you must talk. So I think in that sense it might have worked for him. But I think the fact that it was sort of vague out there maybe kind of left them in now's the time. But the man, the more we talk that out, I'm not so sure, it wouldn't have been better to get a definitive answer on where the pardon stood before you bring the subpoena on him. Because once you bring the subpoena on him. if you've gotten this definitive ruling on whether the pardon sticks, then I I do think you have a better grounds to try to get him for contempt if he if he pleads the fifth. Because it would be, why are you pleading the fifth? You you have a general pardon. Why are you saying this? And he goes, Well, on the advice of my counsel, boom, boom, boom. If he keeps that up, then I think they could come back and say, we were able to find him not to be liable for any crimes based upon the time frame. We've asked him to clarify some things. He's chosen not to do so and by doing so he's in contempt of Congress. I still think he's

Charles: Don't

Jack Moore: got a fifth amendment right to keep his mouth shut though. I think he always does. Yeah.

Charles: no, I I agree with you. I agree with you, but the Republicans kind of shot their wad in my personal opinion. I think they should have waited and challenged the pardon first. Because right now it all what they did has no teeth. It wasn't really anything of any substance. They were just literally grandstanding again. I agree with you w in what you said, all of it. It makes perfect sense to to tell your client to do that. I I get it. The Republicans again.

Jack Moore: Well, and I but I also think though, you you gotta have somebody to rule and Congress can't rule for itself. So if they were to say, Okay, we called you, you pled fifth, now we're gonna bring you in contempt, I I guess they have to defer that out to some level of judgment of a court, because I don't know how they can rule it on themselves. I mean, they they're they're a Congress. They can't vote on it. I don't I mean, I think they can vote they can vote out that they have held him in contempt and then whatever penalty I think it's gotta be appealable. I gotta think about the, you know, the the chain here of of how things are gonna work. But he's eighty, what, five? He looks good. I mean, he's still hanging in there, but yeah, the likelihood that any of this is ever gonna lead to him having a crime. Now you brought up the fact, why would he care? I don't think he cares so much about public opinion, even though he seems to be the guy that like to run the circles of celebrity and have everybody kiss his ass and put monuments in the front yard, you know, St. Fauci and all that. I think he was into that. I don't think he cares that at least a half of the country, a certain segment of the country doesn't like him. He doesn't care about that. But I could see him as somebody I don't want to have in my legacy this, you know, caring to my grave that I got nailed with some kind of conviction andor contempt, you know, of Congress. I d I don't think he wants that.

Charles: I don't I don't think he cares because one of th I was just having this conversation yesterday with a friend of mine. You have to remember this guy did the same thing when it came to AIDS back in the eighties. So this

Jack Moore: Mm, yeah. That's been brought up, yeah.

Charles: this is the second time. If he didn't care then, w why would people think that he cares now? I don't think he does. He he's not gonna gain any any more enemies and he's not gonna gain any more supporters. Pretty much everybody in this situation or on this issue has made up their mind anyway. I I don't quite understand what it what the purpose of the them dragging in front of Congress was was for, especially before they hadn't they hadn't ruled or should I say decided on this whole pardon situation first. Once you get that taken care of, then you better drag in front of Congress. If if if it comes to we come to find out that those pardons were quote unquote illegal or improperly issued Then drag him in front of Congress. Do it then. But now you haven't answered a big question yet. You're putting the cart before the horse. It's hey, look what I did. I questioned par questioned Fauci. And then what?

Jack Moore: Throw a side thing at you too. Bernie Moreno, I believe, was the attorney. I think I mean senator, I think he's Ohio. The one that said, fuck. The one that who the fuck do you think you are? So in

Charles: Okay. Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: that setting, I'm kind of like, whoa, you know, but a lot of Americans loved it. It's polling well. He made a major point, too, that I think, you know, he said he sold his businesses during COVID and decided, I got to go clean up this mess in Washington. And he's been in the Senate for like one term. He's he went in. Right after that, let me check again. I I think he's Ohio. yeah. Senator Bernie Moreno went off on Fauci on Wednesday, eviscerating him for taking no responsibility for covid for COVID lockdowns. He talks about a family in Ohio that went to a football game and they set in the set section of the bleachers by themselves. So this is fall of twenty twenty. Well, hell, nobody probably would have been playing. Maybe it was twenty twenty one. It was fall because they were playing football. I'd have to look at the timeline on that, but I'm guessing maybe they were playing football in Ohio in 2020. Maybe I don't know. Nobody else was. The NFL was playing with no fans. In colleges, I think were were I can't remember what colleges did that year. A lot of sports got shut

Charles: I don't either.

Jack Moore: down. But either anyway, he said that these people are arrested because they refused to wear a mask. And maybe it was fall of 2021. And then in all of this, who the fuck do you think you were for doing that? So first of all, let me get your gut reaction on that. We don't use that language generally on more to consider, but we are here, right? because we're just reporting out what's all over the news and I heard it. Do you have a problem with the US senator in this context dropping F bombs in the US Senate committee hearing? You think it was distasteful?

Charles: It doesn't help the case. I'll say that. It doesn't help the case. It's it's

Jack Moore: Yeah, I don't think it does either. But I think he's getting but I think he's polling well on it, you know?

Charles: Yeah, he he might be polling well. For polling purposes. But

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm. So here's the other point. Here's the other point he made. This is what I want you to get your reaction to. He said, and I hope that these cameras are capturing the response of all of these Democrat colleagues of mine. He said Republican, then he corrected himself and said Democrat, who are fawning over you. And they were. They were like, this is maybe one of the greatest figures in American history. And I can't believe that these people are attacking. They're just like going crazy, licking his boots, and now they love him and everything. So it's a midterm move. It's August. Well, today's August. We're recording on August 1st. We're getting on August now. And you know how quickly the creep is to all of a sudden it's November. I think a lot of this might have been a play. They're going to get a lot of campaign ads out of this. And his point was you Democrats are going to have to live with the sound spots that we put up or these, you know, these viral moments where you're on here defending this guy. And you're defending his fifth amendment privilege and the rest, which that's careful. I don't know that I'm putting those words in his mouth because you gotta be careful about saying someone shouldn't exercise their fifth amendment right. But they are look they are going to look bad in campaigning. I think. Marino's got a good point here. If you're up there, just hey, remain silent. Now, what did I may ask you this? Well, I won't ask you to put you on the spot, but what I noticed

Charles: Sorry.

Jack Moore: all the Democrats did that didn't take up for Fauci, if that wasn't Ninety percent of what they did. They also blame Trump for cuts in everything that's a federal program, and therefore we're more at risk than ever for another pandemic because all of these sacred people that work in the industry are being

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: cut back, laid off. And then there's part of you that boils and goes, No, even in the Obama administration, if I remember the timeline correctly, there was an edict that went out stop playing these games with infectious diseases. Don't play these games. And Fauci's like, I know, I'll send it over to China. You know, then it's like he's playing

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: in this pool. So when you get into all the conspiracy theories, that is one. He's dicking around in stuff he should not be. All shit. It went wrong, or it was orchestrated, or it was whatever. But I do think a lot of his response was the fact that he's an egomaniac at some level, I guess. But some of it may have been, if it ever comes back, and the American people know that I may have very well been responsible in some sense, or I was. involved in the apparatus that led to this disaster, it ain't gonna look good for me. Fair?

Charles: Fair. Yes, I I

Jack Moore: And that's that's that's kind of scary. Now here's what I'm seeing online. President Biden issued a preemptive pardon. It's called a preemptive pardon. Okay. this is this is just something on the internet. Dr. Anthony Fauci on January 20, 2025, covering potential federal offenses from January one, twenty fourteen to January twentieth, twenty twenty five. The and the pardon was intended according to Biden. To protect public servants from politically motivated prosecutions. Okay.

Charles: Yeah, but does that is that what the pardon said though?

Jack Moore: I don't know, but you know, I I would

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: like that if I were on the s I would like that if I'm on the other side. You gotta be careful as an attorney or anybody writing a something that might have a legal ramification. What does politically motivated prosecution mean?

Charles: Well, I mean, okay, all the law fare th we just use all the law fare that was used against Trump.

Jack Moore: No, but but but brother, what I'm saying is think about this. This is how lawyers should think. If I want, I'm gonna write a pardon. I'm President Moore and I'm gonna write a pardon of my my great friend here, brother Charles. I'm gonna put pardon and I might put the dates. I'm not gonna put to protect you from politically motivated prosecutions, because if I do, that gives a lane for the other side to fight that it's not politically motivated.

Charles: Mm. Yeah, I I understand where you're going with that. Yeah.

Jack Moore: I mean, 'cause I could I could say, okay, okay, fine. You're pardoned for politically motivated. We're gonna bring these charges like there's a pardon. Yeah, but the pardon says politically motivated. We're doing this because we've got the goods to show. Has nothing to do with politics. Now, what that would probably require, Fetterman may you know. What if you can find one Democrat? And I think Fetterman would be on board. Did you hear Fetterman during this thing? It won't very glowing. Fetterman's a wild card. I never expected him to be what he's become. Right? So, but what if Fetterman goes along and they're like, hey, for the good of the country, let's nail Fauci. Could you then still argue if you can get two Democrats aboard, three, four, five, you get some people near the middle. If you could get them on board to follow through on bringing the charges, and then the response in the defense would be sorry. It's covered. You know, we just we we we we want an outright dismissal summary, summarily dismiss this. He has a pardon. What if they come back and say, no, no, no, he only was gonna get pardon for if that's truly in the language, this is a synopsis from the internet. But if it's truly in the language that it's for it is to block any politically motivated prosecutions, what if you say, Well, it's not politically motivated? It's it's a different go ahead.

Charles: Well, I I you have to ask this question. So hypothetically, say for instance it is found that the pardon was unlawful and they go after Fauci and they put him in jail. Okay, let's just say something like that happens. And then what? And then what? I

Jack Moore: Say it again.

Charles: mean, if if it is found that the the the pardons that Biden issued were illegal and Fauci is then convicted and put into jail, what else are they going to do? 'Cause I can think of a whole bunch of other things really that shouldn't have been done. Like I'll give you an example. And again, I was just having this conversation with someone yesterday and I was explaining to them the EU A. The emergency, I'm sorry, the EAU, or whatever it is. The emergency author emergency use authorization. That in itself, in my personal opinion, is a huge problem. It's a huge problem. They need to do something. They could have done something about this long ago, but they didn't do anything. They're focusing on Fauci. Fauci is just is just a cog. You need to solve the problem. And

Jack Moore: I don't disagree that you're probably right. Fauci's become the whipping boy for a lot of this, and I think

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: rightfully so. But you're saying they're missing they're missing the ball sometimes. They're they're missing everything. They got opportunities, not Fauci, that don't really require Fauci. All right, let me go ahead and clarify

Charles: Right. Exactly.

Jack Moore: this. I went off on reading a synopsis. Always not good, but I've got something. I actually have found now a printed copy. It is like a a PDF of the actual clemency, which again, I can't vouch for it's authentic that it's authentic, but let me read what it says. It looks authentic, but who knows? Executive grant of clemency. Joseph R. Biden Jr., president the United States, to all whom these presents shall come. It's all legal language, comma, greeting. Be it known, be it known, trust this day, Joseph L. Biden, or sorry, Jasof, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States. Pursuant to my power, under Article II, Section Two, Clause I of the United States Constitution, have granted unto Dr. Anthony F. Fauci a full and unconditional pardon. This is the language, doesn't say anything about political prosecutions. For any offenses against the United States, which he may have committed or taken part in during the period January one through the date of this pardon arising from Or in any manner related to his service as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House coronavirus task force, or the White House COVID-19 response team, or as a chief medical advisor to the president. In testimony whereof, I have hereto granted my name. And cause the seal of the Department of Justice to be affixed. Date of the city of Washington, DC, this 19th day of January, blah, blah, blah. Okay. According to that language, he says nothing about any political attacks. He does, though, narrowly say in the roles that he's working for the government. So maybe there's still a lane available where he worked outside of his governmental roles. And maybe that's what I would look to here. Again, I'm looking to what it says. It says a general and unconditional pardon of everything. That he may have done, but in the following roles. So if he did something that could be argued outside of his roles, in those roles as advisor to the president, director of infectious diseases, whatever, if it gets outside of that, and there's an argument that could be made that he acted in a nefarious manner and it also affected, you know, how COVID was handled, but he did it outside of his the scope of his employment, maybe there's something there. But there's nothing here that says any politically that was just a synopsis of somebody saying that that's the kind of the reasoning why, and it could very well be the reasoning why.

Charles: Do let me give you me being John Q or Joe Q public, whichever w name you want

Jack Moore: Yes, sir.

Charles: to use. I'm pissed off that Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and Moderna got a free pass when it comes from being sued for from the effects of the the quote unquote shots. Now I'm pissed that the guy that was forcing us to do it is getting a pass. How can you how not you, I'm speaking when I say you, I'm speaking in generalities here.

Jack Moore: Right, right, right.

Charles: This is clearly a distraction. Clearly a distraction. It's a waste of time going after Fauci when the real problem is the laws that need to be changed when it comes to this. Because these people and these corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, keep getting let off and we as the people keep getting a screw. I could give it I don't care. Honestly, I don't care about Fauci. He's just one person. It's the whole

Jack Moore: All right.

Charles: industry, it's the whole the whole group of them. need to be put in jail. But they won't. They won't do it.

Jack Moore: Okay. All right again. My mind works my mind works on a spectrum always. You know how you know how I am. You know, out there on one end, ten, perfect. Out here on the other end, zero could not be worse. Okay, let's accept that. Do you think on that one to ten scale there wasn't anything positive that came out of the spectacle of putting Fauci in front of the American people, national news, 111 denials of answering because of the Fifth Amendment. You th are you think

Charles: Nope. It's a waste of time.

Jack Moore: okay, so let's say they don't do it. Let's say they don't do it. And we have gone through the last past week and it never happened. Would you be any closer to fixing the things you just talked about?

Charles: No, well the it's not about okay, it's pointing it's pointing or putting the blame on the people who actually could fix it. But they're wasting it but they're wasting their time.

Jack Moore: I don't disagree with any of that. I don't disagree, but I'm saying but then then then all right, then tell me, let's go back to Monday this past week. And instead of dicking around with Fauci and doing all this show, sideshow, which I agree, a lot of it's sideshow. You and I are in the Republican Senate. We're senators, US senators. We're we're we're both the Republicans from Virginia. You and I are the guys. What are you telling me? Like like Jack, let's get together a committee and do what? We're gonna call in Pfizer, Moderna, what I you're gonna call them in, dick around with them.

Charles: No not no no, I'm not calling me no no. No.

Jack Moore: And all they're gonna okay, all right. Then what are we gonna do to read everything you're saying? I agree with. And I think the architect of a lot of madness involved here, or at least a major player, is is Fauci. So I don't know who you call I don't know how you get close to that. I don't know if you have the votes in Congress or Senate or House or Senate to get any closer to undoing the bullshit that happened six years ago. So okay. I understand, I understand you're

Charles: but f bringing in Fauci is not gonna do it. It's not gonna stop it from happening again.

Jack Moore: saying you're saying no good with Fauci. But I'm saying in lieu of what?

Charles: No, no. No, what I'm saying is it's not fixing a problem going after Fauci. You need to just fix the problem. But they they would rather

Jack Moore: Fix the problem how?

Charles: that's why I was I was just talking about the emergency authorization use authorization. Fix that. Also, don't give th this immunity to pharmaceutical corporation when it comes to Yeah, yes, yeah.

Jack Moore: Can you undo that? Are you saying going for you are you saying going I don't know that okay, so you're saying that these pharmaceuticals manuf drug manufacturers at the time thinking they're operating and they decide to go along with warp speed because they think they're operating under immunity. You're saying lift the immunity? You're saying lift it lift it now? And you think re and you think

Charles: They are. Yes, exac yes, that's ex that's what they should have done.

Jack Moore: all right, and you think retroactively you could go after them for injury?

Charles: No, no, not talking about retroactively because what they're doing is nothing. Cause it could happen again tomorrow. Congress, yes, they're doing nothing, and

Jack Moore: We when you say they're doing nothing, you're saying the Congress, House, Senate, whatever they're right. Congress is doing nothing.

Charles: they're going they're grandstanding by going after Fauci. That's not solving the problem.

Jack Moore: But but all right, if they get okay. If they get this emergency youth authorization type of thing turned, all right, fine. It turned. And all the people that are suffering vaccine injury and all the other things, they're just as much injured. But I get it. But I mean, yeah.

Charles: hold on, hold on, hold on, but hold on, but you're you're mixing two things up, man. I'm talking

Jack Moore: What am I mixing?

Charles: I'm talking about fixing the problem so it doesn't happen again.

Jack Moore: Fix what problem?

Charles: The problem of the emergency use authorization. It needs to go. But they're not even doing that. They're not even doing that. But they're not.

Jack Moore: Okay, so you so you bang it. I say so you bang it. It's done. It doesn't go all right, but let's say they do. The people that have been injured by the vaccine are just as much injured and those companies still have immunity.

Charles: Hold on, hold on. You but you're talking about something different, man. I'm sorry. You're you're talking about something different. I'm I'm focusing on

Jack Moore: What am I talking about different?

Charles: I'm trying to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again. You're talking about something that's

Jack Moore: Fix what problem?

Charles: I just said the emergency use authorization. It needs to go so it doesn't happen

Jack Moore: Right. Wh which you

Charles: again.

Jack Moore: okay. And I said you get rid of it going forward, fine, and it doesn't change

Charles: Okay, and that

Jack Moore: the

Charles: no no no. Don't go back and I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about going forward.

Jack Moore: All right. All right.

Charles: This is how you f solve the problem going forward. We can talk about going backwards later. I'm talking about going forward. But Congress won't even fix the problem going forward when they could. And they won't,

Jack Moore: Okay. All right.

Charles: and they're wasting the time with Fauci and Grand Stan and all this. This is why their their their approval rating is at ten percent. Because nobody hasn't

Jack Moore: All right, feels like this though. It okay. If

Charles: Nobody has any faith in them doing anything other than GOP grandstanding on the Potomac. That's why. Hmm?

Jack Moore: It Okay. It feels like this though. Let's say it feels like you, me, and two of our buddies get together and we run a bunch of bank robberies, just nail a bunch of bank robberies. And we do it under some kind of immunity act, right? We just rob banks left and right. And then when it's over and everybody's out their money because all their deposits and all of their life savings were stolen by us, Congress comes in and changes the law and we hey, Okay, we we still have immunity from tr okay, got it, got it. The people we still have their money. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah, okay. So you're just saying nobody going forward can do what we just did legally. Yeah. Okay, fine. Feel good about it. Feel good about it. What the hell are you saying?

Charles: No no, but dude, I'm I no no. That's not that's not what I'm saying, man. That's not what I'm saying.

Jack Moore: How what's different from what I just said? You're gonna stop this

Charles: 'Cause I'm o

Jack Moore: from happening going forward, but it's not gonna unring the bell for everybody that got screwed the first time around.

Charles: Do I'm trying to I'm trying I'm just pointing out, man, that if you really want to get the people the people to understand or at least give you something I should I say a a vat aboard for something, at least try to fix the problem before it happens again. They won't even do that. And they could.

Jack Moore: Okay. I I'm not just I'm not I'm not I'm not arguing with you that it seems disappointing that they won't do something to, you know, make basically make going forward this thing not happen again. But I think right now the pharmaceutical industry, the drug companies or whatever that profited from this in the f in the manner that we think they did, they don't really care. I could find you're gonna pass one now? Now that we're billions and billions of dollars rich for Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead, knock yourself out, pass a new law, fuck it. So okay, okay, so we can't get the emergency. Okay, well, we'll wait around to see the next pandemic, see if that doesn't change. See if Congress doesn't run in and overnight overturn the thing you just want them to do, they'll do it again. What I hope that came from all of this is that America woke up to what happened, that they can't trust the government, they can't trust the medical institutions, pharmaceuticals, they can't trust, you know, the alphabet agencies, the alphabet news network, can't trust any of it. That's what I think is the beauty that's come from all of it.

Charles: Who

Jack Moore: But I'm I'm I'm not saying what you're saying, but it seems like running around and putting a lot of ceremonial band-aids over what already went wrong, but it's not gonna change what the people suffered. Hm?

Charles: That's what they just did. That's what they just did by br bringing in fallacy. It's not gonna ch it's not gonna change anything.

Jack Moore: No, I no, I don't d I don't I don't disagree that there's not a lot of concrete impact and and being something symbolic may seem less than you know satisfying.

Charles: It's grandstanding.

Jack Moore: It is grandstanding. That that part I I give you, but I do think the Republicans who want to be, you know, maintain some some control of the House and Senate, however narrow, I think that they feel like what they're gonna get is a lot of nice Thirty second spots of them tearing Fauci apart and

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: superimposed, they're gonna show these people that were on the Democrats talking about what a great figure he is. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Charles: I'm I have a question for you. On a percentage wise, this is just your your your opinion here. On a percentage, how many people's minds do you think were changed?

Jack Moore: As a result of watching that whole hearing, zero.

Charles: Yes. Yeah. Exactly. So it's a waste of time. That's exactly right. Yeah, it was it was zero because

Jack Moore: It could be a waste of time. It could it

Charles: the people on the left already have what they're gonna say. The people on the right already have what they're gonna say. It didn't matter that Fauci was there, it wasn't gonna change their opinion. Can we please focus on something that's actually productive? That's why their approval rating is at ten percent. 'Cause they're not they're not doing anything. And hold on hold on hold on one other thing one other thing. The Republicans

Jack Moore: But eve okay, okay. You say that all right, all right, you say that no Charles, do you not g all right. Go ahead.

Charles: Are really grasping at straws now because they know they're gonna get their heads handed to them in November. And they're trying for anything they can do to look positive.

Jack Moore: No, I I don't disagree with that either.

Charles: But I'm sorry, you're looking positive what you're trying to do to look positive makes you look even weaker because it is of no substance whatsoever. You didn't change anybody's mind.

Jack Moore: I will I all right, but neither one of us are Republican or Democrat. And and

Charles: No. Mm mm.

Jack Moore: that's why when we do these shows, and again, like, subscribe, follow, tell us where we're wrong, because I think what we're doing, this has been really been the whole objective of the show from the start is is to be objective. The objective is to be objective. And I think we are

Charles: Yes. Yep.

Jack Moore: being that more because again, all I saw was cheerleaders on both sides of this all week. Like that damn

Charles: Yeah. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Fauci should have had to head to speak. No, no, he's a great figure and I I do not

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: like Fauci. I do not think he's a great figure. I think he was instrumental in doing a lot of harm to the American people that are that

Charles: Yes. Yep.

Jack Moore: can't be undone. But that being said, I totally back and support him taking the fifth on every one of those questions. I think that's just good lawyer analysis as he had to. And go ahead. Yes. They are.

Charles: As as a lawyer and Congress is pretty much filled with lawyers, don't you think they knew that that was gonna happen? So why even tr why waste of time?

Jack Moore: absolutely. Absolutely. And one of the and one of the big well, all right, you can call it wasting time. You still got on tape. You went through a ceremony and you've got some red meat for the base. You do. You've got some group of people. If they don't do anything, there's going to be a group of people like, Why aren't you going after that bastard Fauci? Well, okay, now we went after Fauci. So some guys around a grill tonight. it's a Saturday night. They're gonna be around the grills, you know, flipping some burgers and having some beers are gonna go. Man, Congressman or Senator so and so really stuck it up Fauci's ass with that question. Hey that that bastard wouldn't even answer it. Okay, so it looks good. Okay. Yeah.

Charles: It I would I would be one of those people that would be out in the crowd, you know, in the Senate hearing conference room or whatever saying And how is this gonna change it for or stop it from happening again?

Jack Moore: Well, I do think that there's things. Follow me on this. And I no, I

Charles: Nothing. Okay.

Jack Moore: do think there's things ceremonially there's ceremonies that you follow. And and it just crossed my mind, it's a bad analogy, but go with me on this. there there is a certain amount of of of something I think sometimes that you watch the race for the Olympics and America wins, your favorite sprinter wins, let's say. He won the

Charles: Mm-hmm. Okay.

Jack Moore: race. I'm gonna say he. It's a male race, let's call it that. There's nobody else but males running. Imagine that. But they go through the, you know, they win. And you you you I think if you you may know the guy, it's somebody that grew up in Virginia, right? And you're like, hey, there's our guy, and he's the fastest guy in the world. Look at that. He just won the hundred meters and whatever. You don't go, but it it doesn't take. It doesn't take. Until I see him on that stand and he raises up on there, you know, and gets his gold medal and he's on the highest point on that stand. It doesn't mean anything. Like you know, nah, he just kind of won the hundred meters. He won it, but then there's a ceremony at the end. And he gets to stand there and get his gold medal and it becomes official,

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: so to speak. That feels good too. But probably in the moment that you're observing it or you're watching it as a spectator, fan, whatever, the moment that means the most is crossing the tape before anybody else. He won the race. You could cut the TV off and go to another channel and still know, you know they're gonna do? They're gonna hang a gold medal. And I need to wait around

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: or not. I kind of feel like that's where they are. I feel like this was the medal hanging over. That that's all this was. Was that part of the ceremony that doesn't really matter? The race was won. They've already discredited

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: Fauci. Fauci, I think, is officially discredited, but only to the degree or only to the people that care to look at the truth. There are still people that go, I love the guy. Fauci's the best ever. He's wonderful. And it's not going to change their minds. Go talk to me.

Charles: Okay. Okay, here we go. Here we go. I I like your analogy.

Jack Moore: Yes.

Charles: Fauci already already won the race.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: And the Republicans are like and he cheated. He cheated by

Jack Moore: He cheated and won the race, okay?

Charles: Yes, and the Republicans are like, We're gonna bring him in here to d to take his medal away. Okay, okay. Yeah. Okay, we're gonna take

Jack Moore: I like it. I like it. I know that's where you were going. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.

Charles: his medal away. Yeah, but are you

Jack Moore: But he still won the race.

Charles: he well and and what are you doing to ban the substance that he used? you're not doing

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: anything. so what is the point? What is the point then? He he already won. And he already

Jack Moore: Okay, okay. All right. Yeah.

Charles: got the medal. And you're gonna say, we're gonna bring him in here and we're gonna chastise him for cheating. Are you going to do something so it doesn't occur again?

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: you're not. Okay, so why are we even here?

Jack Moore: Yeah. One other story I didn't tell earlier, and I I I want to kind of have the listeners hear it, and then we're going to close. is that There's a certain amount, I wouldn't call it frustration and a godly, I I I know so many lawyers alike, so many I don't, so many judges I were in front of that I thought, they don't follow the law, they do what they want. But there's a thing that was often done in court, and this is why I said one more protection for the Fauci thing. in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I don't know if this is still the law, it was practicing 20 years ago as a prosecutor, but one thing that was very common, or let me get to you the law. Charles, you're the defendant, and I look at your criminal history. I can ask you for the purpose of bringing discredit to your testimony to attack the credibility of your testimony. I can say, sir, have you ever been convicted of a felony andor a crime of moral turpitude? That would be lying, stealing, or cheating. So you got a petty larceny and you got one felony. Let's say that, okay? So

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: you go, yes, sir, I do. Stop. That's it. I can't go any further. I can get the number of felonies, and I can get your admission that you have some crime of moral turpitude, but I can't get into the facts. You are a witness testifying for the defendant, for the prosecution, whatever. Anybody on the opposition can say, Sir, have you ever been convicted of a felony and/or crime of moral turpitude? I can ask the number and the nature, but I can't get deeper into the facts. But what you can't do with the criminal defendant. Is get into the nature of it. I had a guy who had a had a robbery, armed robbery, an abduction, and a rape. He'd basically for 40 years spent his adult life in prison. And he got charged with assaulting batting d domestic of a girlfriend. So he's a three-time guy. He could get the life sentence for being a three-time convicted guy. So a lot of defense attorneys would do this. They think they're throwing cold water on what the prosecution's gonna do. So, this is what I'm saying about the safety of having your defense attorney handle. And I'm I'm I'm trying to be the star of the show, believe me, but I thought of this right off the top of my head when it hit me.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: The guy lets this guy go. So he's doing direct. You're a good guy, right? You didn't mean any harm, did you? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You he goes, now, before the prosecution gets started on this, you have been convicted of a felony, have you not? He goes, Yes, sir, I have. He goes, Okay, your witness. Well, no, I'm sorry. Take that back. He said, You have been convicted of a felony. I objection, Your Honor. And the judge goes, What? He goes, he's impeaching the credibility of his own witness. And the judge was like, Well, wait a minute, Mr. Moore, you're just going to ask him the same question. I said, He can't impeach. And this is true, you're not allowed to impeach the credibility of your own witness. So he just asked his own witness, Has he been convicted of a felony? And I said, objection. And the judge is like stunned. He goes, What do you mean you're objecting? Like, you're going to ask it. And I go, but it's coming from the defense counsel. He's impeaching his own witness. And you're objecting to that? I said, yes, he can't do that. So then he goes, Okay, Mr. Moore, your turn for questions. And I said, and what were the nature of those felonies? And the guy goes, objection, Your Honor. He can't ask him what the nature was. Hey, he opened the door. He just

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: asked him a question. And I said, It was a rape, wasn't it? It was a it was a armed robbery, wasn't it? It was an abduction, wasn't it? Gave him the times, the years, where. all of that

Charles: Wow.

Jack Moore: got in. And the judge ruled, he goes, defense. So what I'm saying is everybody did

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: that locally in this jurisdiction to try to take the edge off the fact your guy had a felony conviction. They You had a felony conviction, didn't you? No one had ever objected. I said, objection, Your Honor. He goes, What are you objecting to? And I said, He's impeaching his own witness. Well, what do you care? You're gonna I said, All right, watch. This is why I care. So this attorney who meant to do his client well. By throwing out that he had a felony conviction, allowed me to ask about the felony conviction. Because he didn't think through the fact that I was going to object. I got the objection on the record. I'm saying, hey, I'm objecting. He's impeaching his own witness. And then the judge is like, I've never heard anybody do that. And I'm like, watch this. Now I'm going to ask him about it. And the guy goes, objection, Your Honor. He can't ask him the nature of the felony. I'm like, I can if you bring it up. And it all got in.

Charles: Mm.

Jack Moore: And it definitely influenced the judge in finding the guy guilty. Of course it did. Was it a backward thing to do? Or was I

Charles: No.

Jack Moore: was it a roundabout kind of underhanded? Maybe. But I'm like, if you're gonna be dumb enough to ask your guy, so back to I I bring up that point. People can be critical of Fauci's lawyers and Fauci and the rest, but that's why a good attorney doesn't ask a question of his client that he shouldn't ask and open doors and do all other kind of things. Go ahead.

Charles: Excuse me. So I was thinking about this as Attorneys, there's the

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: there's always obviously opposite sides. They're representing or prosecuting a an individual or a situation. Okay.

Jack Moore: Sure. Yeah.

Charles: Has has it just a simple yes or no, has it ever been a situation where you as a prosecutor, somebody got off on a technicality and you're like, you know, it would be really nice if the General Assembly would have actually closed that loophole. Because this is allowing people who are clearly guilty to get away with doing something wrong. Did it e did it ever cross your mind that they should okay.

Jack Moore: There was one in partic there was one in particular I could explain, but go ahead.

Charles: Okay, so we as Joe Hugh publics are like, why can't the lawyers go to these bodies that we elect to go to and close these loopholes? But they don't.

Jack Moore: 'Cause sometimes they don't see 'Cause sometimes they don't see him and sometimes they don't care to see him. That's the answer.

Charles: no, I underst I I understand. But I'm sure there's situations that they they sh they would like to close, but their side is telling them not to. So it almost seems like what they the the two sides do, Republicans and Democrats, all they do is defend their side.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: That's it. But they're not trying to solve the problem.

Jack Moore: I do think effective legislation is hampered most of the time by the fact it becomes a party protection far more than what's in the best interest of everybody. But that's because the parties can't work together.

Charles: So so that's understood, but that's how we a a lot of us saw this issue with Fauci. That they're protecting their sides and

Jack Moore: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and that and then real quick though, right right, and that and real quick, that's what I saying. I can't believe and this was brought up, I can't believe not one Democrat get up there and didn't roast him either, or didn't go like, Hey, we gotta stop defending

Charles: Why would they?

Jack Moore: this son of a bit. I mean, but they they won't. They can't. Right.

Charles: They they can't, but neither one of them will get together and solve the problem.

Jack Moore: No doubt. And and COVID became

Charles: That

Jack Moore: a Republican Democrat issue. It did. And that's that's sad too. No, it should not have.

Charles: Yeah, it did. But and it shouldn't have been. It and they should try to solve to to eliminate this from happening again. They haven't done a thing. Neither one of them have. So

Jack Moore: No.

Charles: we then we have the Republicans on one side pointing a finger at Fauci and the Democrats on the other side over there blocking the point the finger pointing. That's all we got. That's all we

Jack Moore: Absolutely. Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right.

Charles: got.

Jack Moore: Totally agree. All

Charles: And we're sick of it. We're sick of it.

Jack Moore: right. I hope that people have liked what we do here. I think it's unique in some sense. So we're talking at some level,

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: American history, now it's history, politics, and sort of the what you just brought up there, Charles, this whole Senate thing and how the government works and how the parties basically maintain certain positions at odds with the other and nothing ever really positively gets done. We can agree on that. If you like this, or I don't care if you like it or not, give us a like. I don't care. I don't care if you like it. Give us a like. For God's sake, give us a like. Please subscribe. Subscribe and get on the list. You know, generate the algorithm so you can find more of this. Give us topics. Say whatever you want to, but please like, subscribe, and follow. Charles, what do you have to add?

Charles: I I just if they're gonna go after people, not just Fauci, if they're gonna after people, go after them and put them in jail. Because that's w we we the people want to see justice, not just grandstanding, put the dude in jail. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Okay, more to consider. Like, subscribe, follow. See you again very soon. Thank you, Charles.

Charles: Hi, Brock.