BS Summary: This video contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.5% saturation with 459 hits. Analysis detected 2,860 faulty-reasoning hits from 927 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.1% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,547 of 25,428 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 90.00% of the video peer group.
Happening today, Dr. Anthony Fouchy set to appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee over his response to the COVID pandemic with committee chair Kentucky Senator Ran Paul sounding off on what he needs to hear.
>> I think that we need to try to make sure something like this doesn't happen again.
You know, the CIA, the FBI, Department of Energy, all believe that this virus came from a lab.
A host of scientists believe this.
A host of books have been written presenting the evidence of why this came from a lab.
And yet we don't have yet any admission from the architect and the most prominent supporter of gain of function research that it's wrong, that we should be very very careful because it's so dangerous.
His testimony comes after Senator Paul released more than 1,000 pages of Fouch's pandemic era journal, including one diary entry, appearing to contradict his public statements about the COVID 19 origin, writing, quote, "Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier."
Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animal to human.
Joining us now, former DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Meisel.
Chad, what questions would you ask Fouchi under oath today?
>> The very first thing we need to know is why he lied to the American people.
I have a strong suspicion it's because he caught the publicity bug, a disease
far more dangerous than the one he locked down the country for. If I was a lawmaker, I would be pressing him on every aspect of this journal, every aspect of the diary, keeping in mind that if he lies to Congress, he's now facing additional criminal penalties.
Yeah, we're going to get into that. But how can he possibly justify his actions when you have something in writing, his own admission, which is what a diary is, and then what he told us for the better part of four years.
You know, Fouchi showed that he was more interested in managing his personal brand than he was in actually managing a global pandemic.
And every aspect of this diary shows that.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is an isolated event. I think that there are a number of bureaucrats in uh the the deep bowels of Washington DC who think they know better than you, who think they know better than the American people, and they care more about their own fame and their own publicity than the truth.
And they're willing to lie every single day for days on end, months on end, on camera, despite the fact that people were watching their loved ones die and they couldn't hold their hand.
People were seeing their children suffer because they weren't in school.
People were going bankrupt because their businesses were closed.
Real Americans lives were affected in a way.
And now Fouchy, I think, will finally be held accountable and finally get the answers that we all deserve.
>> Chad, do you expect Democrats to tie themselves in knots trying to defend Fouchy at this hearing?
>> I think so. I think so. They can't help themselves because ultimately the Democrat machine rests on the back of these deep state bureaucrats who think that their interpretation of science rules everything and rules the day.
Remember, they're the ones who come up with the motto, trust the science. Trust the science.
We now know that they lied about the science.
It wasn't a matter of trusting the science.
It was a matter of trusting the science.
trusting the man. And that's
fundamentally what they wanted. They wanted our faith in a single man, Dr. Anthony Fouchy.
And it turns out that anytime you put faith in a man like that, you're going to be disappointed.
>> Do you think Fouchy feels sorry?
>> I'm not sure. You know, there are there are tendencies here that strike me as as a bit I'm not a psychologist, but the amount of emotion you would expect someone to feel for again locking down a country, harming loved ones, harming businesses, harming an entire generation of school children. You would think that you'd feel a little bit more remorse that you would come out, that you would be apologetic.
I think he's going to be defiant. I think he's going to come in and say he did everything that he could.
He did nothing wrong. I mean, to me, he's at a minimum delusional.
>> Uh, he can be defiant all he wants, but he has to be honest because of this. You alluded to it earlier. House Oversight Chair James Comr says President Biden's pardon doesn't protect Fouchy from lying under oath, stating, quote, "Americans are still reaping the consequences of Dr. Fouch's actions. Biden's pardon doesn't cover Dr. Fouch's testimony this week, and if he continues to lie, he must be held accountable." I agree with that. While the concept of a preemptive pardon for things we haven't yet discovered in the past is dubious at best, it clearly does not cover something that you do in the future. And lying under oath today, which obviously is the future, we're not there yet, is not covered at all by that pardon. Final thoughts to you, Chad.
>> That's exactly right. Listen, a very simple statute 18 USC 1001. If you knowingly make a material false statement to Congress, you can be punished in prison up to 5 years. If I'm
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.