One of the most important modern cases in the developing Anthony Fauci pardon controversy begins, improbably enough, with football legend Jim Brown.The Ops Desk is a reader-supported publication.
Yes. By all means. Let's prosecute a man who serves science and his government for decades. Intelligent people change their beliefs as new evidence comes to light. That's how the COVID response worked. But even as he tried to ward off the worst of an incompetent president, one who was told the risk months earlier but didn't care, he did what he could with the evidence at hand. Keep punching up.
The article, of course, does not speak to whether Fauci did anything wrong. It speaks to the propriety of a premptive pardon that blocks the country's ability to determine if he (or others) did.
Before Biden left office, Trump said he was going to prosecute everyone. So, pardons were issued, recognizing that Trump would prosecute to punish, even if he couldn't prove any law was broke. And, that's exactly how he approaches all of his "enemies" as he pardons anyone who commits crimes for him, or who commit crimes similar to his own.
So, if I read this correctly, it's a dog's breakfast. Conflicting accounts of the actual process of the decision made to pardon, an unclear description of the steps taken and by whom to execute this decision, wrapped up in obscurity on the legal mechanics behind the use of the autopen. This entire morass is shoved into a burlap sack of Biden's Alzheimer's. Got it.
Yeah... if this investigation lands on someone's desk, we'll know one indisputable fact:
...lunch and dinner as well. And with the burden of proof on him, it's the good doctor who'll have to vouch for these witnesses and evidence. Mangia, Anthony. Mangia. (Here's one of the possible witnesses justifying his decision to keep Joe Biden in the Presidential race, AFTER his debate with Trump. Spoiler: He had 8 million reasons to keep Joe going...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSWB4EVvpAw
Yes. By all means. Let's prosecute a man who serves science and his government for decades. Intelligent people change their beliefs as new evidence comes to light. That's how the COVID response worked. But even as he tried to ward off the worst of an incompetent president, one who was told the risk months earlier but didn't care, he did what he could with the evidence at hand. Keep punching up.
The article, of course, does not speak to whether Fauci did anything wrong. It speaks to the propriety of a premptive pardon that blocks the country's ability to determine if he (or others) did.
Before Biden left office, Trump said he was going to prosecute everyone. So, pardons were issued, recognizing that Trump would prosecute to punish, even if he couldn't prove any law was broke. And, that's exactly how he approaches all of his "enemies" as he pardons anyone who commits crimes for him, or who commit crimes similar to his own.
So, if I read this correctly, it's a dog's breakfast. Conflicting accounts of the actual process of the decision made to pardon, an unclear description of the steps taken and by whom to execute this decision, wrapped up in obscurity on the legal mechanics behind the use of the autopen. This entire morass is shoved into a burlap sack of Biden's Alzheimer's. Got it.
Yeah... if this investigation lands on someone's desk, we'll know one indisputable fact:
Everyone at the DOJ despises that person! LOL
...lunch and dinner as well. And with the burden of proof on him, it's the good doctor who'll have to vouch for these witnesses and evidence. Mangia, Anthony. Mangia. (Here's one of the possible witnesses justifying his decision to keep Joe Biden in the Presidential race, AFTER his debate with Trump. Spoiler: He had 8 million reasons to keep Joe going...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSWB4EVvpAw