be -- you are not a dr. pry don't need your edge, to talk right here. >> mr. chairman, abjection. objection. >> i reclaim my time. i reclaim my time. >> the gentlelady will -- >> mr. chairman, terms of the rules of the court are we allowed to deny that a doctor is a doctor just because we don't want them to be a doctor? >> yes, because in my time that man does not deserve to have a license as a matter-of-fact it should be revoked and he belongs in jail. >> suspend. >> the gentlelady to recognize the doctor as a doctor. >> thank you. >> tragic is this what we have become? this is what we have devolved into? notochord. >> you know what? we can do that hearing about the poor mental were subject of a syphilis because i support you in that. that's horrific. and this government -- >> i would urge --

>> doesn't have decorum to the american people. >> out of order. >> decorum. >> recognized point of order. >> go ahead with your point of order. >> i was going to say what, complete unacceptable to deny dr. fauci who is here respected member of the medical community, his title and that's at up a personal attacks per i've instructed speeded he's not respected. >> i have instructed her to address him as a doctor. >> i'm not addressing them as a doctor. let's talk about speeded mr. chabot -- >> i reclaim my time. i'm reclaiming my time. >> words -- >> point of order to suspend. a member can only move to have -- the issue were debating, member so deeply about, while vigorous discredit its part of

legislative process. as a set the beginning members are in my we must adhere to established standards of decorum and debate. this is what might it is a of house rules and rules of this me to engage in personalities regarding other members or to question the motives of a college. remarks of the type are not permitted by the rules that are not in keeping with the best traditions of our committee. the chair will enforce these rules of decorum at all times and urges our members to be mindful of their remarks. does the gentleman from california have anything further. >> we should take -- >> i offered that it were to be taken down, , mr. chairman. >> point of order. >> try to i like to make a point of order. >> mr. griffin is recognized. the gentlelady, gentlelady will suspend. mr. griffin, you have a point of order. >> mr. chairman, while it may not be polite, i believe the

rule only applies to members of this body, the senate, and the president of the united states. i do not believe it applies the role in taking down words, does not apply to a witness. again not condoning the words. i'm just relating are asking whether not advice to individuals who are just, just happen to be here in front of us. >> i agree. the chair overrules the point of order. the gentleman from maryland to ask members please before all of the members the respect they're entitled to, refrain from using rhetoric that could be construed as an attack on the motives or character of another member, or the witness. you may proceed. >> thank you. this was a time in history where you got to throw out the first pitch at the washington nationals baseball game while americans were forced to stay home and watch such events that

they love from at home alone on their television. and what a a hypocrisy this picture shows. here you are without your mask, with 90 seats everywhere. remember the cardboard cutout fans? that was one of the most insulting things to americans having to watch the games from home where you got to go and enjoy the game and sit right next to people, not following the six feet of distancing, not wearing your mask and everyone else was forced to stay home and stop enjoying life. and your science here, your science displayed perfectly in this picture with children, children in school were put in plastic bubbles because of your science. your repulsive, evil science. and let's go back to your very own email. you said earlier you don't use email. oh, you do. record. this is your own email where you said the typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really

effective in keeping out a virus. i do not recommend that you wear a mask. this is your email. this is your own words. but yet children, children all over america were forced to wear masks. healthy children forced to wear masks, muzzled in their schools. then they were forced to learn from home because of your so-called science and your medical suggestions while you and all your cronies get paid from big pharma. you know what this committee should be doing? we should be recommending you to be prosecuted. we should be writing a a criml referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. you belong in prison, dr. fauci. >> mr. chairman, another point of order. >> unrecognized speed is just one make sure the record is clear. dr. fauci testified that he did that use his personal e-mail for

official business. he did not say he did not use e-mail. and i think today this particular has been called a lie and disregard and disrespect, and we need to stick to facts. >> thank you. gentlelady's time had expired before the point of order. i now recognize mr. garcia from california for five minutes of caution. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. fauci, i am so sorry you've had to sit through that. that was completely irresponsible. quite frankly, we are hearing this might be the most insinuate i've actually can occur i fully been in you and have but i am so sorry that you are subjected to the level of attacks and insanity. your quote-unquote so-called science that the gentlewoman is referring to has saved millions of lives in this country and around the world. and i want to thank you for that. i also think it's important to note that it's my opinion that you are an american you and your team has done more to save lives

and all 435 members of this body on both sides of the aisle. you guys have worked not just during this pandemic but over time to sit millions of lives in this country and across the world. we lost 1.1 million american lives. 1.1 million american lives, 7 million lives around the world. we were having 9/11 like events death events daily in this country losing 4000, 5000 every single day. i was mayor during the time of the pandemic. i remember how painful it was too close businesses, to shut down schools. but how quickly we forget the pain and how scared we were as a country. we were washing her groceries as every coming in. we were keeping seniors at a distance. the tragedy that was happening in our nursing homes. thousands of people were dying a day, and you and your team of the best and the brightest scientists in this country and the world were doing everything that you could and working night

and day to save more and more of those lives. a lot of my colleagues know that my mom was a healthcare worker during the pandemic. my mom died of covid. my stepfather died of covid. i lost both of my parents during the pandemic site take this very personally, spatial and other members of this body who are tasked of responsible to help the american people attack medical professionals like you and across the world. vaccines, the vaccine that you under team helped foster has saved millions of american lives. these attacks are ridiculous. even before this committee started, i want to point a few things up or even before this committee started this sentiment that just went on this rant introduce the fire fauci act. at the boat on a podcast saying that covid was a bioweapon. that is how insane some of these comments are. and i want to quote this. this is a quote from the same member. i don't believe in evolution. these viruses were not making people sick until they created them. they weaponized these viruses to

be able to attach to ourselves and make us sick. it's a bioweapon. they created them, sir come issue. they are attacking you and our medical community who are creating covid as cause ce death of millions. and we know that these extreme comments are targeting public health officials across the country. i also additionally this other comment. same member who just attacked you. the fauci funded wuhan lab created the virus. this is so crazy and irresponsible. in this post the same member of this committee is accused of orchestrating a global conspiracy to create covid on purpose just to make people get vaccines, that you have done this, sir. this a member routinely promotes complete misinformation about vaccines and actually has encouraged the routine prevention of vaccinations and even a limited diseases like the measles. dr. fauci, you brought together our nation and the world best and brightest scientists to take on covid and create a vaccine

that works. i would ask you a question. i want to be crystal-clear for the public. you brought together the world and america's best site is. do you believe that the vaccine you all helped create and ensure is safe and effective for the public? >> yes, and track record has proven. >> and you also agree it's saved hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of lives in america and across the world? >> that is absolutely correct and is a very clear that it saved millions of lives here and throughout the world. the europeans have done the same studies that we have, and the data are incontrovertible that they save lives. >> do you think the american public should listen to on america's brightest and best doctors and scientists, or instead listen to podcaster, conspiracy there is an unhinged facebook means?

>> listening to people you just described is going to do nothing but harm people because they will deprive themselves of life-saving interventions, which has happened. you know, some have done studies, and analysis of this that shows people refused to get vaccinated for any a variety of reasons, probably responsible for an additional two to 300,000 deaths in the sky. >> thank you, sir and your entire team for saving lives in this country and it sorry i you keep going on with these continued attacks. i yield back. [inaudible] >> thank you. you are not allowed. i given much. >> try to could you have removed? >> yes, please. >> i asked capital place to escort -- capitol police to escort her. >> thank you. she can be removed. >> you can be removed. you are not allowed to speak. take your starbucks with you

spirit your times have expired. now recognize dr. jackson from texas for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. fauci, i have to say i estimate americans and deeply displayed in your actions during your critical time in our nation's history while you were in key leadership roles at the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious disease, and as a medical advisor to president biden. but quite simply you failed miserably in my opinion. base on all we learned during the pandemic and all that we have since learned to this committee zork i believe your failures danford both an effort of self-preservation can manifest a the basis of lies d coverups and by a total failure of leadership. it was obvious to everyone that you and your organization nih had a lot to lose if the american people were to discover that covid-19's was most likely leaked from 11 wuhan, china, and that you the ecohealth alliance and peter

daszak funded this research and this lab is actively and recklessly conducting the function research. as such you did everything in your power to deflect and coverup this possibility. he even recruited others to help you in this effort. unfortunately this concert country and the world valuable time, time that may lead to answers regarding and origin, they have blunted the spread and would almost certainly saved lives. while i think most of us have known all along what i just described what had been a poll to discover through sworn testimony to this committee is the level at which you and those that work for you went to cover up the hobbies. juicy examples and a note is been touched on but they're important for everyone to hear. dr. lawrence tabak former acting director of nih testified that under the generic definition that in a h did, in fact, find gain to function research. this was based on a definition that was initially used by nih and a definition that was abandoned and removed from the website in october 2021 and replaced by a new much more detailed definition within much

higher bar that you have since conveniently use to define data function testing and to do what doctor tabak has since confirmed. he also said ecohealth alliance failed to properly and probably report that the research violated the terms of the grant. something that would completely unaddressed under your watch. dr. morens your senior advisor who your try today to distance yourself from but whose large volume of emails clearly demonstrate that you're a very close and personal relationship with, and he reported to you directly has openly bragged about how he subverted for your request. i remind you that the law requires you and your former organization to comply with freedom of information act request. it is not optional. if you or your employer or your organization to oversaw were systemically avoiding transparency and illegally hiding or destroying documents that rightfully belong to the american people, and you should be criminally charge and they

should as well. in addition doctor gregory -- your chief of staff also engaged in illegal practices which he crafted messages using symbols instead of letters to avoid for your exposure. in an e-mail april 2020 from dr. morens to peter daszak he said quote, there are things i can't say. wonder what he couldn't say. he also went on to say quote, except tony is aware and i've learned that our ongoing efforts within nih to steer through this with minimal damage to you, peter, and colleagues and to nih in nyack end quote. a few days later he said quote, i have reason to believe that the art on the efforts going on to protect you in court. in federal of 2021, dr. morens wrote to boston university scientists gerald hers saying quote i learn from her for your lady here to make e-mails disappear after but before the search starts. i think we're all safe, end quote. dr. daszak want to know what

were you being protected from and what you need to be safe from. i'm going to go because i have little time. he went on to sequel, plus i deleted most of the earlier emails after sending to gmail. once again illegal in an actual crime. dr. morens noted in the e-mail saying quote, i learn the tricks, i learn the tricks last year from an old friend, who heads are for the office and also writes for you, end quote. it is absolutely amazing to me that dr. morens and marched all of jobs and taxes are still paying their salary. dr. morens wrote to dr. daszak quote, ps africa to say there's no worry about foia. i can send stuff to talk on fighting or headed into work or at his house. he is too smart to let colleagues scented stuff that could cause trouble. end quote. apparently, you elected to yourself with equally smart individual. dr. morens wrote to another collaborative, peter. in june 2021, at baylor college

of medicine that he had to lead all his emails e-mails wo covert origin with quote the shit at the fan can make a pretty cynical, i feel pretty sure tony were, too. the best way to avoid foia has visited all the emails when the subject is presented. in october 2021 dr. morens wrote to peter daszak goat peter from tony numerous, semi-and from what francis has been vocal about over the past five years with trying to protect you and they're protecting their own representation as well. -- reputation to jump ahead. the american people can rest assured we are going to continue to pursue answers as we push for full account of the from your new colleagues despite continued efforts to try to cover this up. dr. fauci, history will not account for you and you enough as it who put his personal interest of interest of the american people. the very people you're supposed to be protected. the actions or with several others we've had before this committee have completed the road america stress in our public health system and 82 y represent for half a century without a québec. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and i never recognize from hawaii for fibers of

question. >> thank you, mr. chair and hope i will have an additional 30 seconds like the previous generally. dr. fauci, speakers i have allowed that today. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. dr. fauci, you deserve better than this. the other side suddenly cares about puppies, ironic given recent publications. i would like to use my time to dispel some myths about you that it's circular and right-wing circles. we can all adult that yes, personal active string or early days of the covid was necessary to save lives to stop the spread and it was not without its challenges. it was difficult, particularly for our nation students like my sons in public schools and are business owners. but to completely blame these policies on you, dr. fauci, is absolutely ridiculous. i would like to make the record clone something. the decision that in personal learning count i and other actors without the decision you are some out solely responsible for including in your role as

niaid director come is that correct? [inaudible] >> these decisions were made at the state and local level into marriages across the country like my home state of hawaii which was particularly aggressive and part of the response to the top administrations early failure to contain the initial outbreak of the virus. is that not correct? >> i'm sorry, i did not dash if i'm not really hearing you very well. could you put speeded we'll put a little bit closer but it clear that the decisions were made at the state and local levels into marriages across the country. >> that is correct. >> okay, thank you. i would like to shift topics and turn to the allegations he sought to oppress you points about the pandemic response. over the past 15 months majority members of the subcommittee had levied the allegation that federal health officials censored proposals like the great declaration which are inconsistent with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community. much attention has been paid to an e-mail dr. francis collins into regarding the great

declaration where he called for a quick and devastating published takedown of its premise. to be clear, this was not dr. collins suggesting that you suppress or censor the great barrington declaration. radical new suggesting the point you just explain the memorialize substantively refutes the scientific premises of the great barrington declaration. is that correct? >> yes burke and it was good reason for dr. collins to substantive concern. the great barrington declaration proposed that the mitigation measures for the vast majority of the site of preserving them only for certain population including the elderly and people with underlying health conditions. this was months before a vaccination was available and public health systems are already being overwhelmed. thousands of americans were dying daily. dr. fauci, what percentage of the population to estimate need to be infected with covid before we would achieve so-called herd immunity? >> herd immunity was very elusive with covid.

and the great barrington declaration was flawed both conceptually and in practice. conceptually that you could shield vulnerable people, as if the only vulnerable people of those in nursing homes. we have tens and tens of millions of vulnerable people that you couldn't possibly shield. people with underlying conditions, the elderly, those would be the individuals. so it would be conceptually impossible to do that. herd immunity as we know means if you have a virus that doesn't change and the virus and inh when you get infected or vaccinated you have highly durable perhaps lifelong immunity. that's not the case with covid. we know immunity wanes and with multiple variants. so in practical purposes the great barrington declaration was invalid, both conceptually and

factually. >> thank you, dr. fauci picu at it a few by other question in terms of the fact that many of us to live in multi generational communities, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions more lights would have been impacted by the so-called approach. given the fact the fibrous rapid evolution we have seen since 2020, herd immunity approaches would be ineffective against covid. if you would one more question. considering the mortality rate of the time how may more deaths my we have seen, just briefly? >> i mean, if we had done that just let it rip, thereby re-like it would've been another million people would've died i would imagine. >> take a dr. fauci. wasn't the federal government pressing the great barrington ticklish, rather about millions american lives being saved. the culminating pandemic was in some academic exercise. it was real. it was in real-time is about saving lives in real-time. there is like herd immunity may seem plausible on paper but we have to remember that it is based upon the assumption that enough people would have to be infected. and that would likely have met

that our family members, friends, our neighbors, our constituents especially those in both marginalized in multi generational rural communities would have died. thank you, dr. fauci. i want to thank you not to blame you. thank you for your science. thank you for a science that has saved millions of american lives, kept us safe, including my children, many of her feminist writer on the dais. thank you for clarified his point of the record and all of your efforts to keep us safe during the pandemic and so many other health crisis we face over the decades that you assert. mahalo, mr. chair and i yield expert that recognize the doctor for fibers of question. >> thank you, dr. wenstrup, chairman. it's been insinuated that politicians can only politicians come only bloggers on the conspiracy there's art disagreeing with you. i want to point out that i'm probably the only member of code that actually treated patients bring independent from the very beginning to the very end of the

pandemic during night shifts in the er. thousands of patients during that time and in 2020, i was censored. my medical license was threatened because i disagreed with bureaucrats taken off the internet as a person who is treating patients with leading edge technologies, developing theories, but doing my very best but being censored by the united states government. the first time stepping into taking the place of medical professionals as the experts in healthcare. any dissent surrounding covid 19 treatments, massachusetts mandates and in the public policies running the pandemic was immediately labeled as anti-science. i watched as public health officials and politicians told by patients with treatment options are best for them regardless of their comorbidities or the medical history. despite my education and my training and my experience, my opinions were relegated to conspiracy, misinformation by so-called health care experts.

who would never treat a patient throughout the entire pandemic. this has been a black eye on medicine and it is highlighted by government should never, never insert itself in between patients and their healthcare providers. the american people deserve to make medical decisions through conversations with their physicians rather than politically motivated mandates. dr. fauci to ever treat a patient for covid during the pandemic? >> i was part of a team that was at the nh that took that we didn't take it many of them speaks in a hands-on, got it, thank you. why would i be criticized by a bureaucrat for doing my very best in healthcare, this is a rhetorical question. but why? why with the government whose have treated a patient or covid quick you can read all the things want but you're not there. eunice impatient to get watching people died, intubated patient that there with that disease in your face. watching it happen. watching the development and

active learning from it. i've been told by bureaucrats with right and wrong pick what's funny is everything i was censored on, i was proven to be right. pretty crazy, isn't it? you said in an interview to give as part of an audiobook written by michael specter that you believe in institutional should make it hard for people to live their lives so they feel pressured to get vaccinated. can we run the audio clip on that, please? >> i have to say i don't see a big solution other than some sort of mandatory vaccination. i know federal officials don't like to use that term. >> once people feel empowered and protected, legally you will have schools, universities, and colleges say you want to come to this college, but he? you going to get faxon. lady, you going to get vaccinated. big corporations like amazon in facebook and, and all those other things i do want to work

for us, you get vaccinated. and it's been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit and to get vaccinated. >> thank you. are all objection to covid vaccinations ideological bullshit, dr. fauci. >> no, the not at us that what i was referring to. >> well, in reference to making it hard for people to get education, traveling, working, i would say if a much was in contact. and to take great offense to this. ms. allison williams testified about losing her job because she saw an exemption for vaccine mandate which came from recommendation from bureaucrats like yourself. she and her husband were actively working with a fertility expert, a physician on how to get pregnant and agreed with the premise that she was young, , healthy, want to get pregnant and shouldn't get the vaccination for medical purposes.

but she was fired because you made it hard come just like you sit in your statement, because you did want to make sure that the ideological bullshit got in a way of her working, living her life, of making a medical decision with her healthcare professional. i think america should take great offense to this. that's exactly what you meant when you said making it hard for people to live with that getting a vaccination. you affected people's ability to work, travel, the educated to actually flourished in america. to self determine as well as given, god-given rights. shame on you. dr. fauci, you become doctor fear. americans do not hate science. i don't hate science. the american people hate having their freedoms taken from them. you inspired and creative fear to mask that is, school closures, vaccine mandates that have destroyed the american peoples trust in our public health institutions. this fear you created will

continue to ripple affects over generations to come to give already seen its effects in education, in the economy and everything else. quite frankly you said if you disagree with me, you disagree with science. dr. fauci, i disagree with you because i disagree with you. and with that i yield. >> i now recognize mr. moskowitz from florida for fibers of question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. fauci, good to be with you here today. i was not here but i saw a member of this committee question whether or not you represent science and try to make that in some offensively. i did want you to most americans don't think she represents congress speedy one of the things i've learned -- >> so, i hear now double fauci. so i don't want you to be offended, offended by that. i actually, similar to

representative mccormack who is serving in the field as a doctor during covid, i was running the logistics operation and the florida response as a director of emergency management for the the state of floridr governor desantis so i was deploying masks and gowns and gloves. we are setting up field hospitals. we're setting up testing sites e where setting up vaccine sites throughout the pandemic. the one thing to became clear to me as a country we were not prepared. in fact, we actually had many preparations for a pandemic, but both the states collectively and the federal government through that out and kind it was just making it up as we go. one of the things i would ask and understand you are not in the response field, but do you feel since you have left that we are better prepared today than we were seven years ago when

covid hit? >> in some respects, in some respects we are, but in others i'm still disappointed. and i think one of the things that was really a problem with the response with the degree of divisiveness that we had in the country about a lack of a coherent response where we were having people come for reasons that nothing to do with public health or sites refusing to adhere to public health intervention measures. what i think that we will dash of what we will do better hopefully is that the cdc i believe is now recognized some of the failings of the lack of communication and interaction between the federal response and the local public health officials. one of the weaknesses that we had in the united states that other countries didn't have was a disconnect between the health care system and the public

health system. where as the cdc can't demand information from local public health individuals. they have to volunteer to give it to them. and it isn't given to them in real time. so we were at a disadvantage speed is no question that i iw that. i saw how the lack of investment in technology, right? we had states trying to share information with the federal government using windows 2000 or facts machines. exactly. and so we spent $7 trillion in two packages into the administration's and one of my concerns is i feel that a specially and supply chain if you like we are not that much better off than we were before covid. am i wrong? >> yeah, i don't think you're wrong, but i hope that the cdc has made a very clear that they are trying to change that and correct that deficit of a separation between the local and

the federal cdc so that we can get information in real-time. it was very frustrating for us, often we have to go to the uk or south africa or israel to get real-time information because they had a connection between what was going on in the ground and the public health system. so they knew right away what was haptics. we didn't. >> dr. fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times, a lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. of course the only one that's happened is your former boss. but the question i have is when you saw a lot about disinformation, whether it was use disinfectant to use like a cleaning or light in the body or the china is working superhard, president xi has got a contained, all of the stuff is being put out, were you

concerned -- what was your feeling at the time working in the administration saying that come from the podium? >> well, i was very frustrated by that. it was very clear, i was put in a very difficult position that i didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the united states. i took no great pleasure in that but i felt it was my responsibility. he also thought you did great job he gave your accommodation right before he left. i felt it was my responsibility to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the american public to tell them the truth. and if i could just take this opportunity, when i was saying and you attack me, you attack science. i did mean that i am science. what i meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and are people saying all, it does, i'll give it to people and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you are attacking what i'm saying that the science shows it doesn't

work and the site shows that bleach doesn't work, and when you attack that you really are attacking sites. because science has shown that it doesn't work. that's what it meant when you are attacking you, you are attacking such. >> thank you, doctor. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> now recognize mr. jordan from ohio. >> doctor doctor y was impe virus not have starred in a lab? >> we don't know where it started and that's the reason why i keep an open my prick so i don't know what you mean by why was it so important. it wasn't important. >> you still don't know where it started? the guys you give money to figured out in three days. >> no, no, no. >> mr. x is a genuine 31st, 2020, virus not considered with evolutionary theories. right next day dr. jerry said i don't how this happened in nature can easily do in a letter. three days later shazam face which is a it has to be nature. they figured out in three days and you still don't know. >> with no pic in fact, if you

look at what they were saying, congressman jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. it still could have evolved out of the lab. >> let me read something here speed is not incompatible. >> in our study on the censorship of the byte message worked with big tech i want to read you what that message from mark zuckerberg speedy can we that have put pressure on us to center the lab lick a theory? is an indication on july 16, 2021 nick clegg sheryl sandberg mark zuckerberg they are feeling the pressure to downplay any a lab leak theory and go with the natural origin theory. >> is a question there? >> here's another email to mark zuckerberg. the subject line covid misinformation wuhan lab leak theory. in response to continued public pressure and intense conversation with the new administration we started removing kovic lindsay clein lab leak there. mr. zuckerberg response to this end like a good reminder when we compromise our standards due to

pressure from administration in either direction we often later regret it. why was it so important the virus not have starred in a lab? >> wasn't so important that the virus not -- we don't know. >> it was about to some in the biden administration come so much so that the top people at meta-, top people at facebook are asking why we get all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory and we have an e-mail from june of the same year, june 4, 2021 saying the same thing. it's so important to somebody. >> what does that have got to do with a. >> with i'm asking you because you're the expert on coronavirus. >> am i on those in the. >> was why was the administration still pushing not have the lab leak theory is something is liable? >> i can't add to that. i kept an open with throughout the entire speech you kept up my, dr. fauci open my. >> that's correct. >> what happened in those three days? why did dr. anderson and doesn't excuse me, mr. anderson and dr.

gary, why did the change of mind 100 degrees because of what christian andersen says three days later after he said virus looks into data, packets is with evolutionary theory. three desire he said the main crackpot three gwen graham the moment relater to this virus think listing some of engineered and that is demonstrably false. how to figure all that out in three days, dr. fauci? >> well, what they did is they testified before this committee what they did. they went back and looked at the sequences and realize that their initial concern was unfounded about that and it did not look at all like it was manufactured. but as they said in their paper, even though they feel it was more likely speedy three days. >> you can do that in three days. you can scan sequences and a day. you don't need three-day. >> okay. who is robert redfield? >> the former director of the cdc. >> dr. redfield, right? and he was also on the coronavirus task force, i could.

>> was he was a member of the task or. >> is what he said to this committee picky set redfield said fauci and collins left a because redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the chinese lab. if that i could. >> as well, he said that but that's not true. that is incorrect, congressman. >> dr. redfield is lying to the committee? >> when he said i kept them out, that is an incorrect statement. the roster speedy dr. redfield in a covert call on february 1 when you had mr. anderson and dr. gary on the call. >> was he was not. and the conference call was put together by jeremy ferrara. so no one kept him out. he said he was kicked out because speedy the use tax posted to be the answer the question broke i was just what he was on the call. teammate had a cbc part of the coronavirus task force which is for judas by physical would have. >> the call was arranged by jeremy from rpg's ask him. >> okay. did use tax, full theresa may to

the lab in china? >> i'm sorry. >> did u.s. tax of floats were greatly sent to the lab in china. >> is yes, of course, it was a sub award to the want speedy who approved that award? >> x use? >> who approved that award? >> national is it of allergy and infectious disease for your agency prove that? >> yes, it did come after speed is that having to do with the damping of the lab leak through? >> no. >> nothing to do with it? >> nothing. >> do you, do you agree the was a push to downplay the lab leak three? >> not on my part. >> really? >> really. >> wow. >> malik. >> i think most of the country will find that amazing. i stood at 11 seconds. >> look at the fact that i've kept an open mind threat the entire process. >> are right. yield back. >> i never like it the majority staff who are in -- for no longer of 30 minutes of questions. >> dr. fauci, discourtesy can. i would ask a couple questions

about some of the members questions and then get into some follow-ups. the issue of the cia trip was brought up. that was brought to us by a whistleblower. i was not an allegation made by the committee, an allegation made by the whistleblower. you testified at a transcript interview back in early january picky recall me ask you about that allegation. >> was about going the cia? yes. >> and the recall doing an event and you denying here today, do you recall the subcommittee publishing that you denied it? >> i, i don't recall. >> we did. >> okay. >> we put out in a press release that you denied the whistleblowers allegation. and then today during the course of the last couple of hours have any members on the majority side of the dice asked you about a trip to the cia? >> ya. >> they have. >> what they have to answer come on the drinks well. >> i have a point of order, mr.

chairman. >> .4. >> what is at the point of order? >> i have an inquiry about whether or not i'm hearing things, whether not you just yielded 30 minutes of committee time to staff. >> that is correct, both sides. >> and the question that the gentleman just raised was a question that i raised to excel. he was not listen when i was questioning dr. fauci. >> thank you for your point of order. you may continue. >> what i i asked was we askeu about this transcript interview. you testified you did not go to the cia. we publish you refuted that allegation and then today no members of the republican side of the dice have as to that question, that accurate? thank you. you've been asked a number of times about your former senior advisor dr. morens and that said, and what to make sure i characterize it correctly because it goes a little back

and forth that you didn't conduct official business over a personal email with dr. morens. has dr. morens emailed your personal before on not official purposes? >> as a mentioned, we wrote scientific papers together so he very well may have used that but that's the e-mail i use when i write a scientific paper. >> and that's because niaid policy allows you to write on some official time, right papers but she's had to put a disclaimer at this is -- >> in other words, to be doing something as official visit you shouldn't use your e-mails for official business. an order to be complied with the regulations, you would use a personal ego. >> i appreciate that. i want to ask about some of the public health policies enacted during the pandemic. dr. francis collins from nih director recently said in an

interview and i'm quoting, you attached an infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life that you attach a zero value to whether this actually totally disrupt people's lives, what was in the economy and this kept many kids out of school in a way that the quite recovered. understanding that covid test was that a lot of voices at the table, is that an accurate description of the public health advisors? and then you could fit in other advisors along the way. >> mitch, what i believe that dr. collins was saying was that we give advice based on pure public health issues. it's very, very clear now retrospectively look at the potential collateral negative effects of things like mandating, it would be important for us now since the purpose of i believe why we are here as to how we can do better next time, is to consider the balance. i think things that we did in the beginning were in the

context of horrible situation of for the 5000 deaths per day, but that doesn't mean you go back and look and say that everything we do at that point in the duration for which we did it, was at appropriate and need to be re-examined? i believe that's what dr. collins was referring to. i agree with him on a. >> you got to my next question that we here try to figure out how to do better next time, losing zero lies next time. with that the better thought process going forward thinking about the possible and to the consequences of public health measure. >> was absolutely. >> and you've heard from both sides of the dice today, first weeks, months, noble bars, nobody knew what was going on, call for some drastic measures. understanding, or once there was a better understanding of who the most effected demographics were, do you think would be important to more narrowly craft

public health measures to specifically favor those demographics? >> the answer is yes, but you have to be careful. because if you have a certain group that is being predominantly afflicted, if you are really, really clear that another group is really quite protected, then you should fashion it demographically related. but what often happens without breaks fashion without breaks is the are moving targets and you only hear about other multiples as you get further into the outbreaks. so the answer to question is you are partially correct, that you need to do that but you've got to be careful when you're dealing with a moving target. >> and we can appreciate that. you can ask a lipid again about the theories of natural immunity and herd immunity. those are both real scientific theories in infectious disease, is that correct? >> yes. >> and between infection

acquired injury unvaccinated acquired immunity immunity did the united states hit herd immunity? >> the answer is no peer and i've written a paper on that, is that when you're dealing -- let me take 30 seconds. i don't want to run out the clock on you but i think it's important to make this point. when you talked about herd immunity, it's dedicated on two principles, that your duty with the pathogen that is not changing. and the purdue, that when you either get infected or vaccinated, , the duration of te immunity is measured in decades if not a lifetime. so then if you have a pathogen that stays the same, like measles doesn't change, so i was infected with measles when i was a child. it's the same measles that's infected people in certain countries in the developing world. number two, when you get either infected or vaccinated with measles, you have immunity that's durable minimally in

decades and possibly for life. so if you get the same pathogen and you get a a large percente of the people have either been infected or vaccinated, then you have herd immunity. we did not ever have that with covid. >> and you've also been asked a number of times about the vaccine and vaccine mandates. were you doing to recommend to the president to mandate vaccines for certain individuals. >> is no. >> to get who did? >> know. it was part of, it was the culmination of group and just saying that certain agencies like the labor department or what have you would feel that this would be done. by the was not like i wanted dash i want a saturday, we should mandate vaccines. that did not happen. >> i want back of the comments of the chairman and we agree vaccine saves hundreds of thousands of lives. and we talked about this a little bit in january anything to touch on it a little bit today.

could issuing these mandates and removing the notion of informed consent from some certain sectors of the century lead to faxing hesitancy? >> i mentioned this and i believe in the ti, but as a matter fact, that something that i think we need to go back now when we do and after the event evaluation about whether or not given the psyche of the country and the pushback that you get from those types of things, we need to reevaluate the cost-benefit ratio of those types of things. >> and then i won't belabor the point over talked about the six-foot distance an awful lot today. do you recall it was ever suggested to be ten feet? >> you know, i don't recall, mitch, if it was ever suggested it was ten feet. but when a name explanation of what it was i would say that there was no trial a look at ten versus six versus three versus not even worrying about it at

all. >> and you said today there were discussions at the white house about the six-foot rule. you don't recall if it was discussions about whether or not they should be three or it should be ten. >> with you know, i don't recall, mitch, what the exact discussion was but as i said in response to multiple questions, what we had was came to cdc and we said on the basis of their evaluation, which is based on n the droplet approach, that six-foot would be to go. since there was no clinical trials going one way or the other, that's why it was accepted by the group. >> and that it hasn't been a large topic today and we talked about kind of again the unknowns in early 20 tweets, schools were close to the semester. some schools reopen for the fall semester. some remained close going into 2021. looking back, were there, are the current academic ramifications of remote

schooling for kids not being in school? >> i think there have been a number, not i think, i know that there been a number of studies to show that there are lasting effects, lease up to this point. they can to tenuate overtime but there been substantial negative effects on learning and on children when you keep them out of school for a prolonged period of time. >> have you seen any studies jesting physical health ramifications? >> i have seen physical health ramifications. >> mental health? >> i believe that there are some that show psychological issues that relate to keeping kids out of the environment, the social environment, school. >> i apologize for bouncing around. we don't have 14 hours with you today. i've got 30 minutes. >> i'm so sorry about that. >> i'm going to move quickly. again, across the diets both sides of the aisle a lot of questions on the origins of covid and fun at the origins and

how that could better lead to both protect against spillover and wildlife trade but also increase biosafety standards. as you suited today is it possible that covid-19 was the result of the laboratory related accident? >> oh, absolutely. like i mentioned multiple times i keep an open mind. i feel based on the data that i have seen that the more likely, not definitive, but the more likely explanation is a natural spillover from animal reservoirs. but since there is not an definitive proof one way or the other, we have to keep an open mind that it could be either. >> based on the answer i think is the hypothesis that covid-19 axially leaked from a land a conspiracy to. >> was no. i mentioned that several times. conceptually, the concepts of it is not a conspiracy theory. >> we've talked a little bit about the proximal origin of sars-cov-2, the paper offered by dr. anderson. he came to two primary

conclusions and i'm quoting, our analysis clery show sars-cov-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus and we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based center is possible. do you disagree with those conclusions? >> i think, mitch, if i'm not mistaken, i don't have the people front of me. i think he also said the possibility of if you -- you could've done a. >> and they -- >> if you pathogen it it's in a lab. i mean that could be. >> they dispelled that at the end with the we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible pics so i'm just, i'll ask again is a laboratory-based scenario plausible? >> well, i mean again i'm not, i do want to speak for what they meant in the paper that i said multiple times i keep an open mind that it could be either a laboratory leak or it could be what i think the data is leaning

towards mostly, which is a natural occurrence from animal reservoir. >> and his female is brought up on april 16, 2020, dr. collins wrote to you and said wondering if there's something nih can help due to put in this very destructive conspiracy referencing the lab leak. i hope the nature medicine article and the genomic sequence of sars-cov-2 would settle this but probably didn't get much visibility anything more we can do? the next day you at a white house press conference and side proximal origin and said that proximal origin establish that covid-19 quote is totally consistent with the gem of a species from animal to human. did anyone tell you to cite proximal origin from the widest part of. >> was no. with them responsibly to a question that might been asked by reporter. but i wasn't stimulated to say that at all. i was responding to a question. >> at the time back in april of 2020, was it also you believe elastic was possible? >> yeah, i've always had an open

mind about it. >> and then i want to correct the record against a little bit on the drafting and publication of the proximal origin paper. did dr. anderson sin you draft to your. >> as he sent drafts but i'm going to jump ahead of you if i might dribble around. i did not edit it. it was mentioned by f.u. of speech it was. >> i did not edit the paper. >> and i appreciate that. i just wanted to get it on the record. i want to talk about dr. morens and what you put in your opening testimony and some of as a uk today, just for clarity. you are in addition to being unaware of his use of personal email and potentially intentionally deleting federal records, where he also unaware of his actions to assist dr. daszak and eco-health? ecohealth? >> i was aware of his friendship. friendship. i was not aware of his attempts to assist him to respond to an

nih inquiry. >> so not aware of the editing of press releases or editing of letter. >> was no, i was not. >> on november 11, 2021, dr. morens wrote an e-mail to dr. daszak that he attempted to discuss the ecohealth grant with you, and you quote, got upset and told him to have no more communications with peter. why did you tell doctor winston the longer to make it with dr. daszak. >> words because i think it's inappropriate to do what he did. i mean, and your committee has called about very definitely about that and it was inappropriate to do that. >> this is back in 2021. what did you know about what he was doing then? >> i did know exactly what he was doing but it don't think it's inappropriate for people to the community helping a grantee in a response. i do know exactly what he was doing but it didn't think it was appropriate. ..

there e-mails i want read angela record on april 27, 2020 wrote i'm sure privately he's love to see it restored although he did make the comment to me the late

report i told him that wasn't true. he assured he would do anything he could to restore the funds to eco- health on june 5, 2021 wrote your working behind the scenes and the damage to eco- health october first, 2021. the tax on eco- health and october 25, 2021 trying to protect eco- health and the most important nih to get the decision reversed and grants refunded, i believe tony would like to do this.

and secure the following did you have any discussions about protecting eco- health for help and restore refunded? >> not at all. i just don't know what doctor moran is talking about the trying -- he said that in front of the committee but to say that i'm getting involved in trying to help them and protect him from a not so. >> did you have any conversations about what that was? >> he may have mentioned something going through a terrible time but i don't recall, it's conceivable he would have mentioned that.

you are asked whether or not there was conflict of interest in covid-19 hundred testified about what someone else should do the only people i am involved with his my own death in the work of the committee regarding eco- health? >> what we know now we definitely have a conflict communicating with helping him in this issue which is a conflict of interest and i did not know that at the time. >> appreciate that.

in april 2020, terminated and subsequent it suspended the eagle health grant. they were told to cancel the regret. >> a number of retrospectively found out how it was in the white house called the department cancel the grant. >> he was escorted out. and we really do that? i don't think do that and it

turns out i was right. the general counsel said by the way, you can't do that. you got to restore the grant not to keep reading but june 24, 2020 ego referencing you made additional comments in this came from the white house opposed to it. >> is a lot of interpretation. >> do you recall the department asked you first for doctor collins?

>> you went from the department of nih to us. >> i don't believe so. but most of the disciplinary action occurred after i left if i'm not mistaken. >> the suspension and departmental occurred after you left for further information once it was clear there was compliance issues while i was still there, we were told stay out of it compliance will be handled by building the nih sector self compliance was that don't touch it, don't go near it, we will take care of it.

>> you brought this up one griddle policies are you aware of those? the mark i am. >> during previous hearings when asked if they support everyone of these actions in department. >> yes. >> i'm going to from early 2020 on october 20 : 2021 sent a letter to then ranking member mister, the said the coronavirus

studied under equal help was not a source of sars cov2 and covid-19 pandemic and testified similarly in january and today. and they have had results that we can't know. >> no. of everything we do. >> do they routinely publish every experiment? >> i'm sure there are people who don't publish every experiment that they do. >> is there lag time between the analysis and publication? >> they often take months before

they come around. >> is a possible there are samples between 2020 when they published the paper? >> just go in there, you can't get it, the virus is studied that the nih gave a grant to study don't pull back on the fact that no matter what you did with the viruses, it's so different they could not possibly be the precursor of first kobe. >> you don't know all the viruses you're working with. >> and let's make that clear because i answered you quite

honestly in china or what have you and that is the reason i say today i keep an open mind. >> you touched on this today, the pandemic is result with a large debate including dangerous research policy surrounding seo prior to october 2021 the website listed cannot function as a type of research that modified biological visions for new or enhanced activities and regulate so part of research

more dangerous because widespread is. other types of research second folder broad definition but not definition? >> i believe they have mentioned that. influenza and data function equally ineffectual foretelling the quality something he wasn't able to do before. >> the gain of function without falling under further regulation. >> i know where you're going.

>> the progress report the backbone of survived with one and the other viruses and eco- house own words. >> i was read back to a little bit but on may 16 weeks ago nih in a function research at the institute of virology if you're speaking about the generic term, yes we did. you are asked a similar question answered in age has never and does not want in a functional research.

gain of function research testifying pursuant to gain of function research. >> the broad definition of gain of function in my mind is not applicable here and does nothing but confuse the situation and that is the reason why after three years of deliberation including an is abd as well as the national academies decided to make a regulatory definition you harken back to the original definition, it does nothing but confuse people and every time i've mentioned gain of function but senator paul today the

definition is not my personal definition, it is a qualified regulatory definition that has nothing to do with me. >> you covered many different topics today and just want to make sure you have the opportunity provide perspective on any and all about is anything you would like to add, verify or say about the topics discussed today? >> with covered just about everything but, with something want to ask, be happy spent extensive today. >> with that, will yield fund the remainder of our time.

>> would like to thank you for your testimony decades of service right nation especially with hiv in the nation suffered through pandemic flu, ebola and covid-19 and years of research and investment that led to rapid development of the covid-19 vaccine that saved millions of lives.

for months in the narratives of than the federal and the former federal officials mind extreme narrative republicans on probe as i alluded to at the beginning of his hearing democratic colleagues and i are committed to speaking objectively about what the evidence shows and this is what it shows. doctor project about funded research that calls covid pandemic. doctor project did not lie or

orchestrate a campaign to suppress the loudly. these findings are apparently evident by the time of doctor fauci the interview january i'm of since, the subcommittee several more revealed several pages of documents. the origin of the covid pandemic. evidence of the origins

remained. and they offer in this. conditional rights on this on the subcommittee. in the fourth quarter of this congress committee. it is not an objective the origin andrew spent the vast

majority and research that created this virus and in order for that to be true proving the lab leak theory to be true is not an objective investigation whether or not the virus came from a lab and finally prove their narrative and public health equipment and medication

for schools and churches to safely stay open during the pandemic and it said it was accusations without evidence and seemed even though evidence was there it didn't matter still use them on a cobra edited the origins that he funded gain of research that created the stars kobe to virus all of us.

it doesn't matter majority. there's no evidence to prove this narrative addressing accusations that doesn't matter. intentionally misleading the public propagating disinformation and its wrong dangerous not only because it manufactures distrust and public agencies but also targets doctor fauci and other public health officials and anytime anybody ... false accusations he created

in the covid pandemic but recklessly members on the subcommittee accused him of that so the remaining months i reaffirmed my commitment to look at the possibilities whether the novel coronavirus emerge from the lab and i emphasize any uncertainty is an opportunity to together to improve our nation's readiness. thank you and i yield back. >> i want to thank you again for coming today this was an

opportunity how it can do better. operation warp speed is one and an opportunity work closely because there is significant wrongdoing by believe we can make changes in preventive from happening in the future and that is my goal. and all institutions and our states and that's what we are. my staff the same a hard look at the facts.

talk about the types of vaccine other members here i appreciated the conversation very much and in the end you thinking for your fairness in the opportunity share a lot today. i think what i am most concerned about going forward is country is that can be can we are better in our messaging was actually patience and i recommend her illegal america needed to hear more from thought just kidding what they were seeing and what was working and what was not working.

i compared it, everyone to dinner every night emotional politicians but the general in charge and i think that was important. the one in the trenches. the ground back-and-forth and pretty fair generic definition is regulatory and when we go through this, larry matters. when you are in front, if you were clear about what he meant, the american people have never heard of gain of function until

this came about. clarity matters. conducted great trials, they were phenomenal what we say is a lot. it didn't make that so someone stands up he but someone stands up and says it vaccinated, you will never go to the icq and you're not going to die, but still haven't. reset message? i wish you would have corrected the right then and there. ... maybe just inject bleach. some people maybe thought that was serious.

it was important but here we have operation warp speed but firsthand you are working on it kind enough to work with doctors to explain what was going on with operation warp speed and we have a presidential candidate who says developed taking the paraphrasing. it the american public deserves a lot of what should have been on 9/11 moment in this country is pandemic what was turned into a global alignment. and what we have learned today, as long grandma since when i

signed, i am responsible. somebody needs to be responsible going out and if the advisory committee didn't need to sign the so there is some level of responsibility compliance from a it's one of the biggest lessons learned the role that. we have to take a good hard look at what we did or didn't do and be honest with ourselves and veteran messaging especially when it comes to health. don't do things like mandates but let there be a conversation with the doctor they know and trust and make sure we get the

doctors all the information and data from adverse effects of the vaccine which we've always done, adverse effects of the vaccine with the vaccine can and can't do whether you are at risk or not, what are your risks? as her personal conversations i need to take place and i look forward to trying to establish a system that does a better job than say thank you once again that would be glad to have more off the record conversations about things we can do in the future from of the drugs we may be able to develop in vaccines be able to produce. and i may reach out to you and varying opinions. without objection, all members have legislated.

additional bring questions for the response, as is known for the business without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations] conversations][inaudible [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]>> "wa"

continues. conversations]>> "wa" host: at our table this morning, ed whelan

. we are talking about the supreme court in upcoming decisions they are yet to issue by the end of june. i want to start with justice alito's letter on calls for him to refuse -- recuse himself from cases. he said about the flags at his home, is that i had nothing to do with it. as soon as i saw it i asked my wife to take it down. my wife and i own a virginia home jointly and she therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit. there were no additional steps i could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly. you agree with him? guest: i agree with his decision not to recuse. it is easy. the broader question that was

spelled out years ago in a different context was, a spouses views and actions however passionately held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse. it is the exact situation we have here. it is in stark contrast to other episodes that get little attention. back in 2016 during the presidential campaign that ruth bader ginsburg gave two prominent interviews in which she spoke very harshly of republican presidential candidate donald trump. she called him a faker and said she couldn't understand how he hadn't been required to disclose his tax returns. she even said i can't imagine what the country would be with donald as the president. i can understand her saying those sentiments but sing them in national interviews and she never recused from cases involving the 2016 election. and when the case come up on

donald trump's release of the taxes, she didn't recuse. you had the justice herself engaging in conduct that presented a stronger case for recusal than what we have here in the conduct of justice alito's wife. in the ethics it said they should recuse themselves in a proceeding where impartiality might legally be questioned, when unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of relevant circumstances would doubt the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. in the new york times when he writes about the letter to congress he says notably at the justice alito letter does not dispute that the upside down flag conveyed support and before the court this term is a case dealing with a january 6 brian turk.

-- january 6 rioter. guest:guest: in the legal aftermath of this ugly neighborhood dispute, this reporter went down and determined this was a neighborhood dispute. mrs. alito said that this was a sign of international distress. no one back then thought this until two weeks ago and i can't imagine one person in 100 in this country would associate an upside down flag with the movement. justice alito did not address the points. it was irrelevant because whatever she meant by it had no bearing on his obligation to sit in this case.

you cited the standard for recusal that what comes first is the general obligation. host: there was another flag, the appeal to have an flag that was flown at a different property in a different state. and this from the politics in nation from the washington post, today it is an emphasis that the flag is embraced by eight movement that has become ever more comfortable with the idea that political violence might be necessary to save america from those largely imagined in the left. extremists say they are fighting communism and satanism that they blame for societal ills, talking about the appeal to heaven's flag. guest: the same appeal to heaven flag flew over a san francisco hall for decades until they decided it last week to take it down. flags can have all sorts of

different meanings. this is a flag george washington authorized and is flown widely. the idea this is some sort of symbol that we understood as stop the steal is far-fetched. host: interpretations very and it is said they appealed to have that flag broadly to host political id that mythologized his revolutionary history are a precedent for a modern-day uprising. guest: the san francisco city hall was flying that flag over its building as it was for decades up until last week and that interpretation is far-fetched. host: the january 6 case that i referenced talked about the decision before the court that these justices had to make and the impact of it. guest: the question before the court is whether a former president has criminal immunity

from federal criminal charges for actions taken as president and if so, what the extent of the immunity is. this is a question that relates not just to donald trump's conduct on january 6 but to his course of conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election. i was and remains very critical of his conduct during that period. that is a separate matter and legal question whether he has immunity and we will see with the court rules in the next few weeks. host: what do you think about not getting that decision yet from the justices? do you read into that or not? guest: that case was argued barely a month ago. the court is right near the end of its term. still half of the cases are yet

to come out. it is a very intense and busy time for the court. i would be surprised if the ruling had come out by now, especially given all the issues that were raised by lots of different justices thinking through the consequences of this issue. i think it is very likely the ruling will come down in the probably day of the term. host: this is an opinion piece from msnbc where they say the court delay on trump immunity gets more outrageous by the day, each day without a ruling on immunity from the justice is an intentional delay. this was written by a former house judiciary committee member. he writes in the piece that what is more unbelievable is the supreme court had the chance to consider the issue in december but chose not to and decided to take the case in late february.

now it is dragging out deciding the case. guest: with all respect to the author that is far-fetched reading. no one would expect a case like this with such consequences and importance to be decided so quickly. the justices want to think this through and get it right. there will probably be more than one opinion. i don't see how anyone familiar with the operation of the supreme court could fault the court for taking two months as it will probably to issue the opinion in this case. host: other decisions we are waiting on from the court as well. we want you to join us in the conversation to talk about the cases before the court this term. you can do so if you are a republican at (202) 748-8000, democrats at (202) 748-8000, and -- republicans at (202) 748-8001

, democrats at (202) 748-8000, independents at (202) 748-8002. what else are you watching it for from the court this term? guest: you are testing my memory on those yet to be decided. host: if you have the two abortion cases. do you think those are key cases to watch? guest: they are certainly interesting and important cases. one is involving the fda approval of the abortion pill and that presents interesting questions on legal standing. we will see what the court has to say on that. host: a legal test for a standing, what do you need for that? guest: standing is legal jargon for whether or not a plaintiff has a right to pursue a claim in

court. there is no general tax payer's standing. i can't file suit and say i object to the weight the government is spending money on x, y, or z. that is a case for how am i suffering particular injury from that. the question is the plaintiffs, the doctors associations have suffered recognizable injury and will see how the court decides that question. the other abortion case you referred to is a very complicated one involving how a federal law and how it fits with idaho's life of a mother exception for abortion. i think the court will end up determining that federal law does not override the state law but we will see. host: there are also a couple of

cases before the court dealing with social media companies, facebook and content moderation. what do you think the court comes down on those cases? guest: those aren't cases i follow closely i have to acknowledge what based on oral argument it seems the court may not have a lot to say on those. people are looking at some decisive ruling may be disappointed. the court takes cases with big issues and they end up being decided often on narrow grounds. host: we are waiting for the justices to decide on a case dealing with the january 6 rioter who is accused of disrupting official proceedings. guest: this presents a technical statutory question about whether a provision of an act seems to be dealing with destruction of records can be interpreted more

broadly to relate to any interference with a proceeding. it has implications for the prosecution by the actions of donald trump in that one or two of the charges against him are rooted in the same provision. it is also possible the provision could be interpreted in a way, even if it doesn't apply to this one protester but might still apply to donald trump. interesting and challenging questions. we will see. it wouldn't surprise me if there is a broad ideological consensus on that one. host: let's circle back to the idea of recusal. what to think about some calling for justice thomas to recuse himself based on his wife's actions? guest: it gets back to the same standard, set forth in a case in

which a ninth circuit judge's wife had participated in a very case in which she was sitting. the organization she led wrote the amicus brief and she had conflict engaged in strategy sessions and celebrated on the ruling. yet the judge did not recuse himself and they told the supreme court a spouses views and actions however passionately held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse. and judge reinhardt is not presumed to be the reservoir in carrier of his wife's beliefs. that broad principle is correct. in that case it was conquered by the fact that judge reinhardt's wife had participated in the very case by submitting briefs and making comments and she should have recused.

the broader principle answers some of your question about justice thomas. host: let's go to david in gaithersburg, independent. caller: thank you for including me. it has been interesting to listen to the comments in the juxtaposes with something you all aired recently. there was a panel with people and hearing the gentleman be so dismissive about the reporting on alito, which i kind of agree with and putting that against the panel where they were accepting of the new reporting and how could he not recuse himself in hearing the gentleman talked about that he thinks probably the state law, and how on the panel, i can't believe i have sent mention the supremacy law. i just mention these because i hope others like me find

themselves not at all on either of those pages. i hope when it comes to the media and the left, and with the gentleman that if i had an upside down american flag because i was listening to rage of the machine. at the same time i wish we would look at alito on the merits. he is an embarrassment as a jurist and so is thomas. some who may be leaning a little left can draw a line between folks like cavanaugh who seemed to be trying to get into the administrative questions of the places. my question is, how do you feel about the chevron deference? i am asking that you may want to see it go but do you have a read on the justices? and also the immigration case where dhs keeps not doing with

the court says. do you think they will rule the same way. guest: i don't think i have been dismissive of the news reports. i've tried to put them in what i think is proper context. on the case i have a good read on the legal issues but he raises another interesting case being decided this term involving the so-called chevron deference, should judges continue to defer to agency interpretations of federal law so long as those interpretations pass a minimum threshold of reasonableness. i have been supportive of chevron than other conservatives and it is difficult to come up with just the right test should be but i think there are some conceptual problems with chevron and i think the court may at the

very least cut back on it quite a bit. i am not familiar with the dhs case as familiar as i should be. host: ray, ohio, democratic caller. caller: it has been 50 years ago in august that richard nixon resigned. president ford pardoned richard nixon. as such, that would appear that they both knew that richard nixon had no immunity. all of america knew that richard nixon had no immunity. the appellate court held a hearing for why there was no immunity for president trump. why is the supreme court taking this case up? it is obvious it is politically motivated and why the court would be taking this case up when most of america, those who

know the history of america know that a president does not have immunity when it comes to criminal, when out of office, that the hello -- have no immunity when it comes to the law. host: let's get a response. guest: it is true that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon and it arguably applies to could have been a prosecution. i am strongly against the notion that the former president enjoys absolute immunity. the supreme court took this case because there are interesting arguments that there may be more limited immunity in certain contexts and there was criticism of the d.c. circuit judge case, around some of its reasoning. i think the court believes it ought to address the issues and give an authoritative answer to them. host: what part of the reasoning of the questioning?

guest: well, the d.c. seemed to say that there would be no acts at all by some and sitting as president for which that person can be immune from prosecution. i think the court in looking at the view invited the parties to address whether there were some circumstances in which there might be immunity. host: public versus private acts, is that what it will come down to? was the president acting in a public capacity or private act? guest: public, private, official, unofficial, defined official. those are some of the questions. i think there is a lot to be said for the argument that there is no criminal immunity at all

for former president. i would not be surprised if some justices rule on that ground. that was my read on the case that i was expecting to go on my own thinking. we sought in oral arguments twists and complications. host: what were those complications for those who may want to go back and listen to the oral argument. we covered it on c-span and you can find it on our website. give your insight as to what parts or who should they be listening to. guest: that is the tough question. oral arguments, reading tea leaves, we all over read them. i would encourage people not to go back and read the oral argument but just to sit back and wait. view the opinions carefully when they come down. i think there is concern about

how expensive some federal criminal laws are and how open to abuse they would be. there was some discussion and oral argument about how some laws could have been deemed to apply against fdr's internment of japanese americans or against actions of drone strikes taken by barack obama. i think the court is really trying to figure out what are the sound principles here. my answer to that is, if anything goes as far as prosecutions, there's something to be left to the local processes and there are not discernible standards for deciding when immunity exists and when it doesn't. host: trent is in monroe louisiana, independent. caller: i will bring this right back to the appeal to heaven

flag. i wanted to tell our guests that the president of the ethics and public policy is to be kind to meet years ago. every once in a while i would call him and he would talk to him and ask intelligent questions and he was very helpful. you guys have been on some fascinating think tanks in bc and on your website is an article about how can we save evolution. it is about the evolution of man and i have been talking to olson about that. c-span on sunday it ran a lecture about cs lewis' abolition of man. i am using both of you guys to ask my question here and to tell you what middle-class americans are feeling such warmth about the appeal to heaven because we are in such frustrated decision

-- a right now. host: speed it up i will ask because the house is ready to gavel in. caller: do you want me to wait? host: no, just hurry up and make your point. caller: it said once christianity is evicted from a society, a host of devils will rush in. do you feel like that could be a political position we need to exert. it is middle america. guest: thank you for your comment about the ethics and public policy center and about my late colleague. i appreciate that. the role of religion and religiously guiding moral convictions in public policy is a crucially important one. those who are critical of

morally guided religious beliefs perhaps now may have more insight to what the alternative is and that may be much less favorable. we live in a society that is founded on judeo-christian moral beliefs and we can see lots of problems in our society resulting from our straying from those. host:, scum a fillet -- dennis, philadelphia, real quick. -- caller: i will try to be as quick as i can. but to follow up on the ohio caller, it is not just the fact that the supreme court decided to take up the case but also the fact that they waited until late april to hear the oral arguments, especially when the events in colorado took place only a month after they decided. host: comments?

guest: there was a vote in the court wanted to decide that case before then and it did expedite it. i don't think anyone here has made a strong argument there is any great advantage to rushing the decision. two months for a case like this is not a long time. host:

it was founded in 2017. and the basic mission is to help encourage a bipartisan conversation about ideas. about evidence-based solutions to the hardest, toughest policy questions we face. as you heard, they are

responsible for bringing us here today. this program is at the center of one of the great debates in american politics today which is how to craft economic strategy in a more dangerous world. what level of trade and economic integration is important to our national service and which is important to commanding our innovation today. u.s., and what level of resilience is necessary in what industries and technologies, what is the right mix of subsidies, tax incentives, protection, investment, and export restrictions. we were the leader -- the u.s. we were the leader -- the u.s. the u.s.a. was theth leader in e first microchips. 's, and that waa mixture of private capital and government support. a me