Fauci Emails Exposed by Freedom of Information Act Exposes Serious Misformation, Critics Call for Fauci’s Firing

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

This is getting silly. 

No, your unwillingness or inability to provide substantiating evidence was silly several hours ago. This was your comment 9 hours ago.

"Dr. Fauci really should be fired for his apparent role in paying for the gain-of-function research of Covid 19 in Wuhan and breaking the Clayton act.  If he has done what he appears to have been done, he should be in prison."

You still haven't given any evidence that there actually WAS gain-of-function research, let alone that Fauci had any role in it. I would settle for proof that he was lying, since that seems to be what Senator Paul is most concerned about.

So show me the lie. Again, you made the claim, you supply the evidence.

 

[Sparks]

59 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No, your unwillingness or inability to provide substantiating evidence was silly several hours ago. This was your comment 9 hours ago.

"Dr. Fauci really should be fired for his apparent role in paying for the gain-of-function research of Covid 19 in Wuhan and breaking the Clayton act.  If he has done what he appears to have been done, he should be in prison."

You still haven't given any evidence that there actually WAS gain-of-function research, let alone that Fauci had any role in it. I would settle for proof that he was lying, since that seems to be what Senator Paul is most concerned about.

So show me the lie. Again, you made the claim, you supply the evidence.

Maybe you don't understand what evidence is?  I am serious about this statement.

You believe there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution, when there is absolutely none.  But when Congress detects perjury in Dr. Fauci's testimony, you say there is no evidence for his lying.

[one.opinion]

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Maybe you don't understand what evidence is?  I am serious about this statement.

Ok, let's investigate that. Here is the dictionary definition.

Notice, that the definition includes the words "facts" or "information". Also notice, that you have provided precisely zero examples of either in your 13 posts in this thread.

Are you going to show the lie in your latest link, or are you going to dodge providing evidence for the 14th time in your next post?

23 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You believe there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution, when there is absolutely none.  But when Congress detects perjury in Dr. Fauci's testimony, you say there is no evidence for his lying.

The "Darwinian Evolution" is a red herring that is both inaccurate and irrelevant at the same time.

Show me the facts or information that prove perjury. Otherwise, you are simply taking opinion and presenting it as fact - there is a considerable difference.

[Sparks]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Ok, let's investigate that. Here is the dictionary definition.

Notice, that the definition includes the words "facts" or "information". Also notice, that you have provided precisely zero examples of either in your 13 posts in this thread.

Are you going to show the lie in your latest link, or are you going to dodge providing evidence for the 14th time in your next post?

The "Darwinian Evolution" is a red herring that is both inaccurate and irrelevant at the same time.

Show me the facts or information that prove perjury. Otherwise, you are simply taking opinion and presenting it as fact - there is a considerable difference.

Congress claims Dr. Fauci testified one way, but it turned out to be a lie.  When you are under oath and lie, that's a crime.  Rand Paul mentioned this in many interviews.

Perjury = The crime of willfully and knowingly making a false statement about a material fact while under oath.

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Congress claims Dr. Fauci testified one way, but it turned out to be a lie.  When you are under oath and lie, that's a crime.  Rand Paul mentioned this in many interviews.

You have not demonstrated any lie. You have only demonstrated that people, including Senator Paul, have claimed he lied. I’m going to trust that you are able to distinguish between the two.

[Sparks]

32 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You have not demonstrated any lie. You have only demonstrated that people, including Senator Paul, have claimed he lied. I’m going to trust that you are able to distinguish between the two.

I guess it's the very same when you describe evolution theory as real, but you have not demonstrated it is real.  Is that fair to say, that people like you have claimed they have evidence, but show no evidence?  I trust you know how to distinguish evidence versus what people have claimed, right? 

You hold your evidence to a different standard when it's your argument, I have noticed.

Now, if Dr. Fauci sits on three boards and is the director of funds, he has broken the Clayton act, and that's a fact.  It's simple addition.  That's the evidence.  His actions are a violation of the law, no matter who ignores it or won't prosecute, no matter how he thinks he is justified, no matter how little the press reports it.  He broke the law.

Was he on three boards?  Yes.  Was he in control of funds?  Yes.  Conclusion, he broke the law.

That's evidence. 

Did he testify before Congress and lie?  Congress accuses him. 

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I guess it's the very same when you describe evolution theory as real, but you have not demonstrated it is real.  Is that fair to say, that people like you have claimed they have evidence, but show no evidence?  I trust you know how to distinguish evidence versus what people have claimed, right?

As I’ve demonstrated, evidence involves facts and information, both of which I’ve supplied in other threads. In any case, the other threads are not relevant.

9 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Now, if Dr. Fauci sits on three boards and is the director of funds, he has broken the Clayton act, and that's a fact.

Here is a chance to provide relevant facts. What is the Clayton Act, and how is being present on three boards, and directing funds, in violation? Did he place himself on these boards, or was he elected?

11 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Did he testify before Congress and lie?  Congress accuses him.

Yes, people in Congress have accused him. That is not a point of contention. Did he lie? I’ve lost count, but you are on about post 15 and still can’t/won’t provide any evidence (facts or information, remember) to support your claim that he lied.

Are you dropping the claim that he is responsible for the gain-of-function research (that may or may not have occurred)? You haven’t addressed any evidence (facts or information) on that in a while.

[Sparks]

10 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

As I’ve demonstrated, evidence involves facts and information, both of which

You have not, especially to the standard to which you are holding me. 

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, people in Congress have accused him.

Why did they accuse him? 

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You have not, especially to the standard to which you are holding me.

Untrue and irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Why did they accuse him? 

Politics.

Are you really going to back up anything you’ve claimed today? Your avoidance is reaching epic proportions.

[Sparks]

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Untrue and irrelevant.

Completely relevant, since you don't hold your evidence to your own standards.

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Are you really going to back up anything you’ve claimed today? Your avoidance is reaching epic proportions.

Your denial is what's in epic proportions.   Answer the question.  Why did they accuse him of lying?  Could it be that he was lying on the record?