Fauci Takes the Fifth on Capitol Hill

From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Anthony Fauci is on Capitol Hill today, repeatedly declining to answer questions from lawmakers, as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky publishes a thousand pages of the government scientist's diary from 2020. Meanwhile, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington on Tuesday, and the Senate on Tuesday night advanced a bill to give the president more authority to sanction countries that purchased Russian oil, an important effort to push Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table in Ukraine. Welcome to Potomac Watch. I'm Kate O'Dell, your host this fine summer Wednesday. Joining me today are my colleagues, Joe Sternberg, a columnist in our pages and a member of the editorial board, and Jillian Milcher, also a member of the editorial board calling in from London. Welcome, Joe and Jillian. Joe, let's open up here by getting a sense of the action on Capitol Hill. We'll take a quick listen to what Anthony Fauci had to say about why he was held before lawmakers. Given Senator Paul's obvious obsession, with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee. is to get me to say something, anything that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up in his words, quote, behind bars. Joe, you've spent some time reading the 1,000 pages of Anthony Fauci's pandemic diaries. Thank you for your service on that. I'm sure your combat paycheck. It was 1,100 pages, Kate, not a thousand. I didn't want to marginalize your contributions here. I'm sure your combat paycheck is in the mail. But first, Tell our listeners what the genesis of this diary release is, why Rand Paul has decided to make them public record. And give us your view of whether Anthony Fauci is right that he's just there for basically political theater and to throw him in jail or whether there really is an important effort here to get some accountability on government behavior during the 2020 pandemic. Well, yeah, Kate. So for anyone who is lucky enough to have forgotten, you know, remember that Anthony Fauci was really the scientific face of the government. government's pandemic response back in 2020. And that role became even more important politically as time went on because he came to be viewed as a foil for President Trump or sort of the adult in the room or the voice of reason. But he had also been hanging around working for the government for decades in various roles to do with infectious diseases. And so I think that there is...

legitimate interest at sort of what he was up to during the pandemic. I mean, I think that the public needs to know what mistakes he and other officials did or didn't make or potentially what aspects of the response went well. There might be some insight on that we don't know at this point. And it's important to remember that a lot of his work product is actually public record. And so that brings us to this diary that Senator Anne Paul of Kentucky has released. What we have publicly, primarily it is excerpts that run from very late 2019 until late 2020. of a diary that Dr. Anthony Fauci appears to have kept for his own records as sort of an ed memoir, you know, in case he was going to prepare a memoir one day, which he did eventually go on to publish one in 2024. And so what you have here are various notes about meetings that he participated in and the jottings about who said what to whom, an inordinate amount of press clippings about himself that he seems to have saved. And, you know, Rand Paul has now released a lot of this. My impression is that actually a lot of it was maintained on government computers. Anthony Fauci was typing this up to himself on various files that he was keeping in the office, which would make it a public record. So that's how it, you know, eventually finds its way into the... public realm. And I think that these documents have turned out to be very revealing. You know, partly things that were going on behind the scenes, differences between what Dr. Anthony Fauci was saying in public on issues such as the origins of the virus versus what it's now clear, the discussions that he was having with colleagues behind the scenes. And then also we're getting some not entirely flattering insight into the personality and motivations of public figure who came to have enormous power during this unprecedented period. And I want to dig into the press angle. And just to your point, I mean, it really is a, it's a media diary in some ways that you would expect from a particularly vain senator or something. It's kind of shocking how much the press clips feature in the diary. But before we get to that, let's zero in here on the parts about COVID-19's origins, because I think that in the diaries really does underscore that. intellectual conformity was dominating the public health response to COVID. I wanted to recall for our listeners, and I went back and read myself, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas wrote an op-ed for our pages. On April 21st, 2020, I mean, think about how early in the pandemic that was in retrospect.

So you have the sense that he and his colleagues very early on think that there is, at a minimum, a legitimate debate to be had about the sources of the virus. And yet almost immediately they circle the wagons to try to suppress any discussion about the role that a lab might have played in it and suggests that anyone who is voicing anything other than this natural origins theory must be some kind of crank or conspiracy theorist. Hang tight. We're going to take a break from Potomac Watch. I'm Matthew Hennessy, the editor of Free Expression, the new daily newsletter from the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. Free expression is a little different than what you get in the print paper's opinion section. We've expanded things out a little bit. We have a great mix of columnists, including Matt Continetti, Louise Perry, and Kyle Smith. You also get frequent, sharp contributions from my editorial colleagues. And we publish outside contributors, too, from rock star economists like Tom Sol to real rock stars like John Androsic and David Drayman. You can sign up for free expression by going to the journal's homepage and looking for the free expression tab. We're also on substack, Twitter, Instagram, threads, and TikTok, if that's your sort of thing. Sign up for free expression today, and we'll see you in your inbox tomorrow. Welcome back. I'm chatting with my colleague Joe Sternberg about Anthony Fauci's Big Day on Capitol Hill. Another question I wanted to ask on this, it seems like we won't be learning much from Anthony Fauci in his testimony. He's repeatedly pleading the fifth and refusing to answer any questions in the last I tuned in late this morning. Some senators were trying to get cute and get him to answer what color his tie was and he was continuing to decline to answer the questions. And he may want to avoid any further illegal exposure, but it did look as though he was unwilling to. answer any questions about what was really the most politically important event of his career. I wanted to ask you about what we learned in the diaries about two other parties in the first one. is the press. Tell us a little bit of detail about what is in these diaries that suggest, and you can reject this premise if you want, but really that Dr. Anthony Fauci developed a relationship with the press that was more than just the usual discussion on developing sources that the press does, but that really he was doing more than that, that he was putting his thumb on the scale and that the press was, you know, there are some text messages in these diaries where an interviewer text, you know, wow, great job Dr. Anthony Fauci and other things that just simply don't reflect well on the press. Did we learn anything about the press and the pandemic from these diaries? Yeah, it's not really flattering for anyone. I've detected a couple different aspects of that there. I mean, some of it is normal.

source reporter relationship. So he records instances where medical reporters are calling him up right before they go on air, asking him for details. And that is actually, I mean, certainly, it's clear he's very flattered by that. But, you know, I also think that that's not outside of the normal bounds of the kind of relationship. Any journalist, including you and me, Kate, might have with our sources, although I think that there is an interesting question for journalists and editors to ask themselves in this case about whether they ended up becoming too dependent on Anthony Fauci as a single source for a lot of these stories that they were working on, especially early in the pandemic. But I think that there's this broader phenomenon that you detect, and this comes through both in his descriptions of his... contact with some prominent journalists, but then also in the nature of the clippings about himself that he preserved, where elements of the media were very, very keen to set him up as a foil or an antagonist to President Trump. Here is Anthony Fauci as the voice of science and reason, and there is Trump, who's this crazy orange man who's going to lead us all to death and destruction. And you can see media clips early on in the diary really playing this up, even at a time when Anthony Fauci himself seems to be trying to cultivate a normal working relationship with Trump behind the scenes. But over time, Anthony Fauci really starts lapping up that kind of media attention, playing into it, trying to develop close friendships with various journalists going over to, you know, meeting them in their... spells as for dinner and that sort of thing and having these back channel conversations where he's asking them for advice on image management. Not only are they giving him an add-a-boy when they think that he's done a good interview, but he is asking for their advice on how he can push back against Trump. And I mean, that... really feels like it starts crossing some lines here, especially because, remember, at the time, he was employed by the United States government at taxpayer expense, and the president is nominally his boss and is the vector of political accountability for someone in that position. And so I think that it creates this weird... overlay in all of that, that just seems like it was very destructive. And also, frankly, contributes to the sense that the fix kind of was in the way that the media was covering Trump, the pandemic. And that has also been very damaging for the media's credibility coming out of that episode. I think we did learn about Trump that he had a certain amount of determination to open up the country in that he thought Easter was a deadline to do it and warned repeatedly about the economic damage if we didn't. My last question for you, Joe, is really about the Democratic critique of these hearings seems to be that, look, this was six years ago. Everybody's sorry for it, and there's nothing to be gained from relitigating it. But I think it's fair to call it a breaking point in American politics. It sowed a lot of mistrust in public institutions. And some of today's mushroom clouds of internet conspiracies and podcast culture of refusing to take anything of accepted facts, I do think they started in COVID-19.

And that even in things like school reopenings, children have not relost learning gains from COVID. There continues to be a lot of resentment about missed funerals, not being able to take goodbye to a loved one. So tell us why you think even six years later, if you think this exercise that Rand Paul is trying to do, is fundamentally worth it to try to understand what happened during COVID and avoid some of the mistakes from happening again. I think that the fundamental argument that Republican senators seem to be making this morning is pretty persuasive, which is that, you know, it's. very likely, if not practically inevitable, that we're going to face pandemics and other disasters in the future. So I think that it's incumbent on us to try to understand what actually happened in this pandemic so that we can have a better understanding of how to respond to it in the future. comes with a lot of dimensions. I mean, one thing is that the public deserves a full accounting of the origins of the virus that is going to include an open debate so we can understand if there were particular... behaviors or forms of virology research that actually put us at risk that we need to make sure that we avoid in the future. There are also a lot of important arguments that we have to be having about what is the proper relationship between elected officials and bureaucrats in this kind of situation? What is the way to think about the cost-benefit analysis? I mean, one of the most compelling critiques of Dr. Anthony Fauci all along has been, even if you set aside some of the implications of dishonesty, that you're lurking in various parts of this diary. He just viewed this solely as a medical problem when, in fact, it was a much bigger social and economic challenge as well. So, I mean, it's an important question, whether that's how we're going to want to approach the situation in the future, or do we have to have a mechanism that will include, you know, more formal or more astute or sensitive? trade-off of the medical, economic, and social risks and benefits of various policies in the future. And so the sort of circling the wagons that people are doing around Anthony Fauci now, which I think is partly because he continues to be viewed as a resistance hero against Trump. is really, really damaging. I mean, you can understand politically why Democrats are tempted to do that. But in terms of maintaining public faith in our institutions, maintaining... public faith in the public health officials in a way that we would need in a future crisis. I think that there is going to have to be a full accounting of what happened in COVID, and that's going to have to include a more honest accounting than we've had to date of exactly what Anthony Fauci was up to in that era. Well, thanks, Joe, so much for joining us. We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back with more Potomac Watch.

Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Welcome back to Potomac Watch. We're going to switch gears here and welcome Jillian Melchirk, a member of the editorial board, calling in from London today. The Senate voted Tuesday night, 86 to 12, to advance a bill that would allow for increased sanctions on countries that purchase Russian oil. The final bill could be passed by the end of the week. We also had the same day on Tuesday, President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington, and we'll take a quick listen to what Volodymyr Zelensky had to say about his meeting. with President Trump. And we're very thankful for this discussion. Discussion was with the details out of Ukraine. And we are thankful that this bill is very important. Sanctions pressure on Russia is very important. And really it gives, it's not only about money, how Russia helps stop to finance this war, but it's also a big signal to Europe, big signal to Ukraine, big support of all of people. Jillian, the Volodymyr Zelensky visits to Washington this week was relatively uneventful. But as you and I both know, I mean, that is sometimes good news when it comes to Trump and Ukraine. We are a long way from that famous Oval Office meeting where the administration where Trump is saying, you know, you don't have the cards to win the war. What it's looking like lately is actually Ukraine has some cards left. Ukraine has managed to gain some momentum in the war. They are running a highly effective long-range strike campaign on Russian energy assets. And even Trump recently agreed to allow Ukraine to license the Patriot missile defense interceptors and try to build those on their own, which is crucial for Ukraine's air defense. And also it would be good for everybody in the free world who wants more patriots. So I guess my first quick question for you is, am I missing any news out of the Volodymyr Zelensky meeting? Do you think... This period of warmer relations with Ukraine actually represents a strategy shift from Trump's earlier attempts to try to negotiate directly with Vladimir Putin and pressure Ukraine. Is he changed that tack? Or is it more of the same of we can wheel and deal and eventually end this? Well, I think it's promising, like you said, that this meaning was not eventful. Look, the Trump administration likes to back winners. And Ukraine is little more and more like a winner these days. You mentioned the long-range strike campaign. targeting Russian energy targets, military targets, really reaching deep into Russian territory and bringing the war home to ordinary Russians. And I think that's significant. It's happening at the same time that there's been a mid-range strike campaign. targeting the Russian rear, and that's softening Russian positions, certainly making it much more difficult for them to advance on the schedule that they'd been trumpeting, in some cases, allowing Ukraine to make real gains on the ground. So, you know, Vladimir Putin likes to say a lot of the time, or was like to say last year, that any piece has to reflect the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is pretty good for Ukraine these days.

And I think the Trump administration's shift in tone reflects that. I mean, there's no question that Ukraine continues to defy expectations. I mean, the big one being who even thought this for would be going on as long as it has, but even in just smaller ways, one thing I'm hearing a lot about is the manpower issue. We know that Ukraine is a much smaller country than Russia, both in landmass and demography. But Ukraine seems to be inflicting such heavy losses on the Russians that Russian manpower may be a faster existential question because of how Ukraine's man. managed to use technology to its advantage. But let's talk a little bit about the sanctions bill. This is Lindsey Graham's, the late senator from South Carolina's longtime project to pass this bill that would allow more sanctions on Russian oil purchasers. And I think that's important because, one, China is a major purchaser of Russian oil. And I think it's appropriate to say that the war in Ukraine... continues at China's discretion because of its financing, because of its legacy chips and commercial components that flow into Ukraine and allow Vladimir Putin to finance this war machine. But why don't you give us your sense of what new tools would the president have here that might be able to increase the pressure on Russia and particularly focus on the Russian saddle fleet and how they try to sneak oil around the world and keep financing the war? Yeah. So last night's bill, the vote was to allow it to move forward in the Senate. So we're expecting a final vote on this possibly as early. is this week. But what this legislation does, I kind of divided into three components, and one of them is the tariff section, and that's really going after the buyers of Russian oil, Russian natural gas, the top countries that are enabling Russian sanctions evasion. The second part, you're absolutely right. This is targeting the Russian shadow fleet, and it's important to keep in mind, Russia uses its shadow fleet to facilitate illicit oil and natural gas exports, and it's using that revenue to finance the war. But there's also a real national security interest for the West and cracking down on the shadow fleet. And the reason for that is Russia uses it for all kinds of nefarious activities at sea. I mean, I'm looking at the Baltic Sea, where there have been several instances where Russian shadow fleet vessels have been implicated in anchor-dragging incidents that have taken out deep sea pipelines, communication cables, vital underwater infrastructure for countries in the Baltic countries. in the Nordic countries. And then also, you know, I'm looking at an International Institute for Strategic Studies report earlier this summer. And it was raising evidence suggesting that Russia has actually used shadow fleet vessels to launch drones and to survey Western military infrastructure, including some of our nuclear forward position. So if we are able to constrain Russia's ability to operate at shadow fleet, it's not only helping Ukraine, it's enhancing Western security. So that's the second problem. component, the shadow fleet. And then the third bucket of what this legislation would do is it's kind of an all-purpose sanctions bill, expanding the pressure on Russia. So it's going after, you know, Russian military officials, political officials.

oligarchs and their families, Russian energy projects, financial institutions, banks, some of the countries that are, and companies that are supporting Russia's defense industrial banks. And I think the cumulative effect of this is to increase the pressure on Vladimir Putin. You know, Russia is not going to agree to make a peace until it starts feeling the pain. Ukraine's been conducting these long-range strikes, and Volodymyr Zelensky often refers to them as long-range sanctions. And America passing this bill really comes in alongside. It's a complementary effort and it increases the pressure on Russia to stop doing what it's doing. I think the major question about the bill really, too, is what took so long? It passed with 86 votes. It has overwhelming bipartisan support and it has for months now. And I think behind the scenes in the Senate there's been this. waiting game trying to get Trump to want the bill to move and bring the bill to the floor. But there has been a dance around that and not wanting to get in front of the president, whether he doesn't want the bills. I think this does indicate at least a modest shift in the administration's politics on Ukraine, even if the administration doesn't appear prepared to really restart U.S. weapons deliveries at a heavy clip. But what do you think about the political prospects of getting the bill through the House? And again, if you like me read this as a subtle, but perhaps important pivot on the president's part to at least impose some more pressure on Vladimir Putin. Yeah, well, I think Lindsey Graham as a statesman was always reaching across the aisle looking to build interesting coalitions behind legislation like this. And one of the interesting things that he did was throw the White House a carrot on this. I mean, it does expand the president's ability to impose tariffs. That's his weapon of choice to force people to the negotiating table. So Trump definitely gets something out of this. The later version of the legislation does scale back that tariff. of authority. It was originally envisioning sanctions up to 500%, now looking at about 100%. But yeah, I think you're absolutely right. This is a bit of a momentum shift. And I think the strength of the vote last night to advance with this legislation to push it forward, it's a signal of the bipartisan support behind this. And I think it's a real sign to the House that there's political momentum here and that it would be a good idea to pick this up fast and that it not only supports President Trump's priorities, but that it's something that can be a U.S. contribution to global security and Western security. right that there are risks of handing President Trump more tariff authority given how willing he has shown himself to use it. And I think that was part of the thinking in Congress was to call it a tariff to increase the president's interest in the bill. I think that is part of one way why it's written that way. But I think it does present a certain amount of risk. The bill has not passed the House yet. So it needs to pass to become law. And we'll keep you posted on that. Thanks, Jillian. Thanks, Joe. For joining us on Potomac Watch. We'll be back tomorrow with more of the show.