Courtroom Insider Host Nate Eaton Breaks Down Clancy Trial, Plus Matt Boyle on Iran, Fauci and 2028 | 7.29.26 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 2

Sugar, spice, and everything nice. These were the ingredients chosen to create. The Grace Curley Show. Radio, TV, print, Grace Curley does it all. She sings, she dances, she acts. I'm waiting by the door for my pull-it service. She sounds hideous. She's just the worst. Yeah, she's a whack-up. She is, she is the devil. Now here's the millennial with the mic. He still leaves me both breathless and speechless. I love her. I love her. She is the best. Something will ask you to say grace. Grace Curley. Great! Welcome back, everyone, to the Grace Curley show to set up. This next segment with the one and only Matt Boyle from Breitbart. I want to play a cut here from Senator Bernie Moreno from Ohio to Dr. Anthony Fauci today. Can I have cut 12, please, Taylor? Those policies were put in place because you had moronic politicians that listened to the words of a megalomaniac who was more interested in having met a Kardashian. than the suffering of the American people. And that is you. Your advice to communities like that, to idiotic politicians who enforce those rules, arrested that mom for watching a football game with her own family outside. When that story broke, I said to myself, I cannot stand idly on the side and watch this happen. It was about six years ago today that I decided I'm going to give up my businesses, sell them all, run for office, run to the United States Senate. Here I am sitting in front of you six years later saying, who the fuck do you think you were for doing that? Yeah, so Anthony Fauci did inspire a lot of people, but not always in the way that I think he thought he was inspiring people. Matt, I wanted your reaction to that. A lot of these senators calling Dr. Anthony Fauci a megalomaniac saying he's done some permanent damage to the U.S. What were your takeaways from this hearing today? First and foremost, I thought Dr. Anthony Fauci was pardoned. I don't know why he needs to keep asserting the Fifth Amendment, right, to not answer any questions. The fact of the matter is that I think that the assertion of the Fifth Amendment that he made repeatedly, I think more than 100 times somebody will probably have a full count of it, is it's tenuous at best. because the argument that he's making and so asserting the Fifth Amendment or claiming, you know, refusing to answer questions, is that he might say something that could be used against him in a perjury charge later.

Well, the fact of the matter is that the underlying content of what he was there to supposedly testify about he's been pardoned for. So by Joe Biden supposedly, I know it was done on an auto pen. So there's arguments to be made as to whether or not that pardon is even legitimate. But that being said, the fact of the matter is that I think that what the Senate Republicans should do is immediately moved to hold him in contempt of Congress. And then... prosecute him for his refusal to cooperate with a duly issued congressional subpoena to testify because he doesn't have Fifth Amendment protection against stuff that you've been pardoned for. So I do think that the very broad assertion of privilege, and you've seen people across the board, you know, I think I saw somebody from Politico even saying. That it's a very tricky legal argument to make that you are just not going to answer any questions because you may say something that's untrue that you could then later be. held perjury charges over. So if the underlying content hadn't been previously pardoned, that would be a different scenario. But it's definitely a tricky argument, but I think that the Supreme Court has weighed in on this exact kind of a question. plenty of times dating back more than a century. And so hopefully the Republicans don't just take it and they go take it to the next level here rather than just accepting the Fifth Amendment claims repeatedly from Dr. Anthony Fauci. That being said also, I think that it's a stark reminder of everything that Dr. Anthony Fauci did to harm this nation and to harm the world. He was an atrocious individual. uh a holy terror frankly uh as the uh you know the the head of public house for the for the U.S. government for decades. What he did, you know, I mean, it's essentially the atrocities, right? Like, he committed atrocities. The damage that was done during the COVID lockdowns to our nation's kids who were out of school, to our workforce, to our society, we're never going to go back. fully to the way it was before. And it's him to blame, right? He could have done something different than what he did. And that's what's so astounding about the diary entries that we've seen released over the course of the last, you know, week or so that Dr. Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul was able to uncover as the chairman of the committee that these diary entries showed that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

And he did it anyway, right? Like, he knew that the virus came from a lab and he did it all anyway. He knew that the things that he was saying and doing were lies and that he did it anyway. And that's what's so disturbing. He said, Matt, just to throw in another one, because this one really stuck out to me. He tried to weasel out of the claim that he shut down schools. But in. the diary entries he's bragging about it well i told bill de Blasio to shut the school down i also told him to shut restaurants down so he knows that he was the reason a lot of places were being shut down a lot of people are losing their businesses a lot of kids were not you know uh being being educated in the way they should have been. And he bragged about it in his diary. But then when confronted with it after the fact, once kind of the worm started to turn on COVID, he played dumb like Mickey the Dunn. So I didn't have anything to do with that. I don't shut schools down. When in reality, he knew the power he had. He was just wielding it in a really bad way. Matt, I did want to ask you about what's happening with Iran. So Iran hit U.S. assets in Jim Jordan. The president responded to this. by saying that we're going to beat the bleeping bleep out of them. I wanted to get your reaction to what this means for this conflict. Obviously, there had been a pause since last Friday. It is looking like that pause is no longer going to be part of the equation. And... The other part is that Saudi Arabia has joined us in these kind of retaliatory strikes. There are a lot of headlines saying, oh, they're being dragged into this. You know, they didn't want to be dragged into this. What's your read on the situation as far as the escalation goes? Well, I don't think the escalation is a good thing for President Trump or for the country politically, et cetera, right? Like, I think that if you go back several months now, we achieve the military objective that President Trump set out to achieve. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, thanks for President Trump and what he did with Operation Epic Fury. They, whether they take the diplomatic route or they take the hard way route, which they seem to be taking the hard way route, right, like rather than the diplomatic route, though that looked like a... Originally, they might go down the diplomatic route, and then we've seen, you know, flashes of that over the course of the months since. The fact of the matter is that their nuclear capabilities have been totally decimated and destroyed. They will never have a nuclear weapon now because of President Trump or because of Operation Epic Fury and what President did here. But that being said, the president's going to figure out a way out of this mess, right? So we don't want to get stuck in a forever war, and I think that the president... I trust him implicitly. It's a tough situation to be in, but the fact is that, you know, he's got to get the oil markets restabilized and back to normal, and he's got to figure out a way that this thing is wrapped up and finished off, right? Like, and so, but the objective was achieved, and it was achieved months ago, right? Like, so now the question is, is how do you get out of this mess, right? Like, and is there a split?

Matt, because I know you're close with people in the administration. I know you have a lot of sources there. Is there a split in this administration about a way to handle this? Obviously, JD Vance was kind of the face of the more diplomatic approach. To be frank, I don't blame people for saying, how are you going to have a diplomatic approach with the Iranian regime if they're not going to abide by anything in it? But then you also have the Marco Rubio's who... are kind of going with a different approach or seem to have a little bit of a tougher stance. So is there a split or is that just the way it's being framed to us? Like inside is everyone on the same page? They're all on the same page. They're all working together, and they all follow the president. So, like, no, that's just nonsense hour. Look, let me be clear. Marco Rubio is never running for president against JD Vance. That will never happen. Like, there are people like Rupert Murdoch who would like to see that happen or like Ken Griffin, et cetera. That's not going to happen. Right? Like, Marco is on board with JD. JD is on board with Trump. Like, they are all working together as one unit inside this administration. JD Vance will be the Republican candidate for president in 2028. And there may be people that run against him, but one of those people will not be Marco Rubio, right? So this whole notion of people trying to read this thing or that thing into this thing or that thing with regard to the Iran conflict, what they're doing is... They're trying to project their political wishes for the future, you know, using the ongoing news cycle to do that. But I don't think that that's going to work. And because, again, Marco Rubio has already made it clear publicly repeatedly that he will endorse JD Vance on the first day of a JD Vance presidential campaign. And so I think that's the – it's abundantly clear that this is all just, you know – the nonsense, frankly, right? Like the president's calling the shot. So when the vice president goes and meets with them and seeks the diplomatic route, that's the president who asked him to do that. When the secretary does certain things, that's the president that asks them to do that. So, no, President Trump is completely in command of this thing. And anybody that's arguing differently, like, certain talking heads on the, you know, the Fox News channel, they're just wrong, right? Like, they just don't understand what's happening in Trump world. And, uh... But again, I do think that the president's going to figure out a way out of this thing, and he's going to wrap it up. So I don't know exactly how that looks like and how he gets there. But, again, sometimes if you hit him really hard, then all of a sudden they'll back off again. So who knows? So we'll see.

Yeah, well, that's, it seems like what he plans on doing. I mean, that quote keeps going around that he said, we're going to beat that bleeping bleep out of them. And sometimes he puts in a, if they don't do this, but right now it just seems like that's the statement in and of itself as that's happening. Matt Boyle from Breitbart, thank you so much for joining us today. Matt, tell everyone where they can find you and follow you. Yeah, at brightbart.com and at Mboyle 1 on X Twitter. Thank you, sir, and we will talk to you again very soon, I'm sure. I want to let everybody know that as you drive around right now, you're probably seeing more and more real estate for sale signs. Nothing. stigmatizes a piece of property more than when it just sits there on the market because then everyone starts to whisper they're like oh do you see that house do you see that house on green street yeah but it's been sitting there for a while why do you think what's wrong with it is something wrong with it you don't want that you want to put that first sale sign up or you don't even want a for sale sign they get wobbly they get moldy what you want to do is you want to use an auction you want to stimulate activity and buzz around your property with a j jay manning auction the marketing creates a competitive bidding environment And it allows the market to quickly speak and helps you to plan for your future. In a J.J. Manning auction, there are no negotiations. There are only clear auction terms. Don't list your property for sale because it's traditional. List with J.J. Manning for an auction and stand apart from the masses. J.J. Manning recently sold properties for Grace listeners in Hanover, Mass and bed for mass. And coming up on September 22nd, which will be here before you know it, in Quincy, Mass. We have a 2,800 square foot waterfront townhouse and Howe's Neck with direct beach access. That's a beautiful area. If you have commercial, residential, or land to sell, contact Charlie Gill at 800 52101 or visit J.J. Manning.com. Speaking of September, Taylor, when I see stores putting out stuff. And this is like a tale as old as time. I know. I've been bitching and moaning about this for years now. But I really don't like it. I get why they put out stuff for fall when it's July. But I don't like it. And I don't want to think about the fall. I hate when people are, oh, almost time for pumpkin spice latties. This is my favorite season. Respect people who love the summer. Respect the summer people. I don't want it because you know what fall says to me? Fall says to me, Mr. Winter is around the corner. The darkness is coming. And I don't like that. I don't want to think about how close Christmas is. I'll think about that when we're two weeks away from Christmas. Let people enjoy their summer. Stop pushing this stuff. And if I see pumpkins when I walk into a store in July, I'm never walking in that store again. You've lost me. You've lost me. I feel disrespected. We'll be right back.

The conversation doesn't end when the show does. Subscribe now to the Howie Car Radio Network wherever you get your podcasts. And listen when it's convenient for you. This is the Grace Curley Show. This is the Grace Curley Show. Welcome back. I want to go back to something, Taylor. Not about fall, not about pumpkins. Stay away from me with those pumpkins, please. But about Anthony Fauci. Because Holly made mention of the money element. And that is kind of the answer to everything. The older I get, I realize. If you have a question about why would someone do that? Why are they acting that way? Why would they have made that decision? Follow the money. is not a bad place to start. But when it comes to Anthony Fauci, I think the really peculiar thing about him is that I don't think the money was the point. It probably was an element of the reason, like, of his raison d'être. But I don't think it was his everything. I think the fame was way more of it. I remember seeing this interview with Ben Affleck and he talked about how... If you think you want to be rich and famous, just try being rich and then you'll probably be all set. Like the fame aspect doesn't really do much for you once you have it. And I think that's true. I think that people knowing you or people heaping praise on you after a while. It's probably really cool in the beginning. And maybe Taylor, you can speak to this as a resident famous person. But I'm sure it's cool in the beginning when everyone knows where everybody knows your name. But after a while. you can't you can't take that with you and I know you can't take money with you either but like money at least you can afford you can take your family on a trip you know you can make your life a little nicer you can redo your patio you could build a garden you can go to Italy you could do all these things the fame part of it I find so strange that that seemed to be a huge part of his motivation in life and it seemed to be giving him A lot like I bet if you went into Mariah Carey's diary Yeah, I'm talking about Mimi She wouldn't be jotting down every time someone told her how great she was and you know why? Because she's probably at this point in her career learned that a lot of people are full of crap a lot of people he preys on you and then they'll go online. They'll say whatever they want doesn't really mean much a random stranger being like I love your work Cool. Okay. Like, yeah, it's nice to hear. But to stake your whole life on that seems weird to me. Taylor, why don't you chime in? You know this better than I do. You've been around this. Look. If you had to choose one, fame. Or... Fortune. Hens down. No question. I could care less if I'm famous. I mean, I couldn't care less if I were famous. You know... You were. I are. It doesn't mean anything. Okay, people recognize you. So what? That becomes more of a nuisance than anything else. Not that...

Not that I find it to be a nuisance. I'm always happy to engage with people who happen to recognize me. He's always happy to shake hands with the little people. Yeah, I'll take the picture. I'll sign the, you know, whatever. But do you think that's a big part of people in politics? Because a lot of times you talk about, oh, the graft, you know, and all the stuff you're getting and the stipends and the money and the plane trains and automobiles. And I do think that's a part of it. But for a lot of these people in D.C. specifically, they... do seem to be fame horrors. Like, they really want the attention more than they want anything else. It's definitely something that I think is more associated with somebody's personality. Like, they can hide it for as long as they can until they can't anymore. Because once they get a taste of that, it maybe just unlocks a part of them that they never knew existed. And it seems that's what kind of happened with Anthony Fauci. I mean, he was such a behind-the-scenes guy for such a long time going back several administrations. Back to Reagan, I think, right? And finally, he starts getting a taste of fame going back to, you know, SARS, swine flu, whatever. And I think that he was really trying to make a name for himself. I was telling my wife, and you this yesterday, that... I don't think this was so much nefarious in the sense that he intended on committing evil acts. I think he was just driven by being a fame whore, making a name for himself. It kind of snowballed. It's like the frozen screen on Anthony Fauci during this hearing today, and he says, you're probably wondering how I got here. We'll be right back.

The early show is on the air. Welcome back, everyone, to the Grace Curley Show, and thank you for joining us today. I do appreciate it. It is Wednesday, July 29th, and the Lindsay Clancy trial has resumed here in Massachusetts, the woman who killed her three children and then tried to kill herself. Now, her husband, Patrick Clancy, was on the stand on Monday. They took yesterday off, and he was back today. I'm... really happy to be joined because he has very sobering serious takes on all of these issues by Nate Eaton, who is the news director of East Idaho News.com, but he's also an investigative journalist and host of courtroom insider on the courtroom insider YouTube channel. Nate, walk me through what has happened today. I know that the trial is on break until 2 p.m. But you had told us yesterday. or I'm sorry, on Monday, that you were expecting this second day of testimony from Patrick Clancy to be far more graphic and far more heartbreaking because of the 911 call. Give me your reaction to what you've seen so far. Yeah, it was a very somber morning, Grace. Patrick Clancy was back on the stand. He spoke about what happened the day that his children were killed. He was away getting takeout food. He returned home. The home was silent. He yelled out for his wife and his three kids. He ended up finding her below a window outside of their home. She was bloody. He said their bedroom looked like a fire hose of blood who had been sprayed everywhere. He went and spoke to his wife. She was in and out of consciousness, and he said, where are the kids? And she said, the basement. And he called 911 on his way down to, you know, in the process of all of this, he walks down into the basement, and he finds that all three of his children are dead. So he testified about that this morning, and then the prosecutor released him from the stand. He was able to leave the courtroom. And then the prosecutor showed the exercise bans that each of the children died. They were found around their necks and the clothing that they were wearing when they died. And then the prosecutor asked the judge to play the 911 call. That was not transmitted out of the courtroom. The judge did not allow that to be live streamed. My producer was in the courtroom. And she said it was just horrific. It was shocking. Lindsay Clancy started to sob. She started to shake. She started to wail at one point. as we heard the events unfolding in real time on this 911 call, and then the judge called for a recess so that everybody could kind of compose themselves. I've read a lot of posts on social media from either journalists or people who were in the courtroom during that call, and the overall reaction to it is just that.

It was brutal to listen to and that a lot of people don't think they'll ever be able to get it out of their heads. I saw reporters who were veterans for like 40 years saying it was the worst thing they ever heard in all of their time reporting on stories. Do you think that's an accurate description? Oh, yeah. I just spoke with my producer, whose name is also great. She worked for Court TV for 30 years. She said that she still, I mean, this was an hour or so after they played the call, she still can hear Patrick's screams. I mean, the call starts off that he's calling on with one saying, my wife's been injured. He doesn't know what's wrong. He's saying, my wife's hurt. She's bloody. I don't know what's really going on. And then she says, he says, where are the kids? She says in the basement, first responders are responding to Lindsay, Clancy. When they arrived, Patrick then, you can hear him walking down the stairs. You hear the steps. And then he just starts to scream, oh, my God, oh, my God. And he's whaling. And then at one point he screamed, she's killed the kids. and the 911 operator pauses. And again, it's being played out in real time. Now, the judge told the jurors you cannot show any sort of emotion. It's going to be hard, but the law requires that you not break down, that you not cry. You have to hold it together. And for these jurors who really did not know much about the case a week ago, and now they're there sitting there listening to this, I cannot imagine how they do not forget this. Oh, can I ask you a question, neat, because I know you've covered a lot of trials. Why is that? Why can't the jurors show emotion if they're the ones who are trying to interpret this case and come away with the conclusion? Why is it so important? Because I know this judge is not alone in feeling that way. There's a lot of judges who have given the same directions to jurors. Why do they have to remain so stoic in the face of something like this? I think it's just to show that they're not. quote unquote, showing that they're choosing a side this point on, that they're not emotionally relating to either side. I have been in other cases where the judge has given the same admonishment. I've been in cases, though, where I have seen jurors cry during autopsy photos, and they ask for tissues. I know during the Alec Murdoch trial, a juror actually handed Alec Murdoch a tissue. at one point when he was on the stand. So it's not like they're going to get arrested or they're going to get in trouble if they do show that emotion. I think it's a reminder that you need to remain impartial. You need to remain focused on what's here. I would imagine once they left the courtroom, there may have been some that needed to go back and take a breath. I don't know that for sure. We'll likely find out after the trial's over. But I think it's just to maintain some sort of neutrality.

You know, we've been watching Patrick Clancy on the stand. What are you seeing from him? I mean, this is a person who has endured now, I think, unimaginable pain and suffering and trauma from all of this. So while you watch him on the stand and answering these questions and kind of reliving this, how hard is it for him? I can't imagine what this. I know he's not a young man per se. He's probably older than I am, but he seems to have more strength in this than I think a lot of people would be able to have. Without a doubt, he has not broken down at any point. He hasn't really cried at any point. He has... stoically, somberly answered the questions. The portion where he had the most difficulty was when he was asked to describe each of his three children. He had to take deep, heavy breaths. Some people wondered if he was, you know, experiencing some sort of panic attack. I mean, how do you describe your five-year-old and three-year-old then that they like Paw Patrol and princesses? And they like to, he wanted to be a fireman, his little boy. I mean, just these really personal aspects. He has looked at Lindsay Clancy from time to time, but she has not looked at him as far as we've been able to tell. It's possible they have had eye contact. She has looked down. She has looked at the floor. Patrick Clancy filed a motion through his attorney not to have that 911 called disseminated to the world. And my producer who heard that said she can now see why. that she would not want that sort of emotional toll if it was her played for the world. And so, you know, those that were in the courtroom heard it, but the rest of us won't be able to. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Yeah, no, I would agree just the reactions I'm seeing online from people who heard it. I think it was absolutely the merciful and correct move from the judge to make and not just for Patrick Clancy, but for a lot of people who would probably be traumatized from hearing that. I did want to ask about Lindsay because her reactions during the 911 call and during the... portion of the trial today where the exercise bands were shown has generated a lot of headlines online. Can you walk us through what her reactions were? When the call was played, she started to cry and gradually, as the call went on, she started to wail to the point that her sobs were louder than the 911 call being played. When it finished, the judge, as I mentioned, took a recess.

She left the room, as did everybody. And it was about 20, 30 minutes before the court was back in session. She returned back, composed, with her glasses on. She squosed the hand of her attorney during this morning, during the testimony, and during the 911 call, there's a photograph that we just got from the Boston Globe, the pool that shows them holding hands. I mean, her attorney couldn't do much other than put his hand on her back and hold her hand. Her parents are there. They're sitting behind her. They've been there every day. They're not allowed to, you know, reach up and comfort her, though. So she really was listening to this. on her own. I don't think she's heard this 911 call. I don't know when she would have. Maybe her attorney played it for her beforehand, but it's probably the first time she's heard it and heard the events unfold from her husband's point of view as things are happening, and she's laying on the ground outside their window. Was there any more talk today, Nate, about the prescription drugs that she was prescribed during her postpartum and kind of like the start and end date of those? I was wondering this yesterday because I know a lot of people, myself included, are shocked at just the number of different prescriptions that she had. But is it... Within the realm of possibility that maybe some of these drugs were given to her and then she was told to stop and move to a different one and she was taking them at the same time, or was she actually being just prescribed one after the other after the other to take them all in tandem? No. The first scenario you described is the case from everything we have heard, that she would go to the doctor, she'd talk about symptoms she was suffering, they'd give her some medicine. She'd go home and start to take it, and it wasn't working, or she didn't like the side effects. She'd go back to the doctor or a different doctor. She'd quit the first drug and start a second one or a third one. By our count, I believe it was 11, up to 11 medicines. She was on between the fall, September, October-ish, before the children were killed and January. So in the course of three or four months, some of those very heavy... anti-psychotic type of drugs that have very severe side effects. Some common, like Zoloft, that many people take. And it seemed to be a series of none of them working. We did see the first day of trial. They showed photos of her being admitted into an inpatient facility. And she took selfies. She had a selfie showing her face, and then a selfie showing... like her feet under a blanket that she sent to her husband. And she was released the next day. And the prosecution, I believe, showed those to show that, okay, was she really severely mentally ill to the point that they released her after one day to the point that she was taking selfies or was this kind of a fun little thing for her? So...

We've heard a little bit more about the medicines today, somebody that works at the CBS, where she got the prescriptions filled, testified. We haven't heard the kind of the science of the medicine behind it. I imagine that will be coming, where they'll have experts testify about what these types of drugs do to you if you're experiencing postpartum symptoms and things like that. And that will be fascinating testimony to hear, as I imagine, there'll be experts on both sides that say, yes, it can do this or no, it won't do this. Nate, as someone who's covered a lot of trials, how long are you predicting this is going to go for? I mean, I know with like a trial like Karen Reed, some of these go for weeks and weeks and weeks or months. This one, I would guess, is going to be shorter. But do you guys have a time frame of when you think this is going to end? Well, the judge originally had told the jurors to plan for six weeks, which would put this through the end of August. I know her defense attorney is not objecting much at all, thus far and has stipulated to all the evidence, meaning that will help things move along quicker. I think her defense team hopes that it's shorter than six weeks. We've already had, we've only had really, well, I guess at this point we've had three witnesses, two very short ones and then Patrick Clancy. But we didn't have court yesterday. The judge has been releasing a little bit early on the days yesterday and on Monday and maybe today. It could take all the way up to six weeks, Grace. I mean, we will see, based on what type of witnesses there are called. The prosecution has a list of 182 who could possibly be called. I doubt all of them will be. And the defense also has a list. And the judge seems to be kind of reading the room, you could say, very emotionally heavy days. Like on Monday, he released court an hour early. And I could see him, you know, keeping up with that pace. You don't want to overwhelm the jurors. You don't want to exhaust them and sometimes taking a break, leaving earlier or maybe canceling court one day can help. Yeah, and even today I saw on your social media that originally it was like a five minute recess and then he came back and said, we'll be breaking until 2 o'clock. So to your point, he seems to be gathering whether or not people can handle things or whether or not they need more time to kind of decompress from it. Nate Eaton, thank you so much for joining us today. I'm sure we'll talk to you again. Everyone follow him on social media at Nate News Now. He's a really good resource for this. And if he's not in court, one of his producers is. Thank you, Nate. I'll talk to you again soon. and we will be right back. More of the Grace Curley Show up next. This is the Grace Curley Show. Well, nothing says honesty like taking the fifth, my doc. Let's try something.

What day the week is it today? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What color tie you're wearing? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What colors the carpet in front of you? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Let's just get one thing straight. You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you've been pardoned, as you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more. Brown v. Walker, 1896, when he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege. You know that. Your lawyer is sitting behind you now shifting nervously in their chairs. They know it. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the law. This is about contempt. Contempt for this body and contempt for the American people. Yeah, I got to say, Taylor. I know people really like Bernie Moreno's F word. I don't know. I take Holly. I think, because if that were a Democrat dropping the F-bomb, I'd be accusing them of being a fake tough guy. I just don't think that you should be using expletives in Senate hearings. I don't think it's the way. And it's not me being like, oh, prim improper. I just prefer the Holly route, which is kill them with smarts. Kill them with how intelligent you are. Like, that's the way to win these arguments politically. And... I just think that he's very, very good at doing just that. Now, I will mention that he keeps saying, well, you know because you're pardoned, you can't plead the fifth, unless Anthony Fauci sees a lot of things, but I don't know how, I don't know if I'd describe him as dumb. Maybe Anthony Fauci has doubts about the legitimacy of this pardon. Maybe Anthony Fauci's a little bit nervous that the pardon ain't gone last. As long as he hopes it does. Today's poll question is brought to you by our latest episode of Meet the Experts, featuring the team from Perfect Smiles, Meet Dr. Tam, Dr. Cy, and hygienist Lori, and learn how they transform smiles, including my own. I had TMJ, I had crooked teeth, and they did such a wonderful job for me. So watch now at Grace Curly Show.com or listen wherever you get your podcast. Taylor, what is the poll question and what are the results thus far? Today's poll question, which you can vote in at Grace Curley Show.com, is, are you saddened or? gladdened that Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment. I'm gladdened. I don't think we would have got much out of him. I don't think it would have been as impactful if he was going back and forth with these senators. I think having him plead the fifth to what color his tie is drives home a point that we wouldn't get if he was squeaking and, you know, complaining and giving us the run around. 66% say they're saddened that he didn't answer any questions. He wasn't going to answer any questions.

He was going to give you his version of events. He was going to tell you how wonderful he is. He was going to, you know, go back in the diary. So I don't think you missed out on much. And now it's looking like they're going to hold him in contempt. I think they're going to vote on it August 5th. So is that next week? So. this ball is going to keep moving. Thank you everyone for tuning in today. I appreciate it. Howie Carr is coming up next. He's going to go through the Anthony Fauci Chronicles. He's going to give you the latest on this hearing and his takeaways from it. And in the meantime, I will see you all tomorrow. So have a wonderful Wednesday. Happy hump day. And God bless. Dr. Anthony Fauci, give me that ouchy.