Anthony Fauci Could Actually Face Charges 🙏

Congress is pushing the DOJ. I'm pushing my luck with the Almighty.

There are things you want, wish for, and whine about with the intensity of a kid pining for a puppy—six pack abs, an extra zero or two at the end of your bank balance, a partner who can read your mind and knows how to properly load a dishwasher (back to front! utensils up! what is wrong with people anyway?)—even though somewhere in your soul, you suspect they’re probably not happening in this lifetime.

Seeing Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci in an orange jumpsuit and ankle shackles is at the tippy top of my list.

It turns out, the fat lady is still adjusting her mic. According to people who understand things like “statutes of limitations,” the Justice Department still has approximately two weeks to indict the little weasel before the clock runs out forever—and Congress is begging them to do it.

For those of you just tuning in: earlier this week, Fauci’s former adviser Dr. David Morens—a man whose name precisely zero people knew before Tuesday—was indicted on charges related to allegedly covering up the origins of COVID-19. Obstruction, falsification of records, the whole criminal catalogue. He faces up to 51 years in prison, which is a lot of years for an almost octogenarian.

People said Morens was a fall guy—that he's the expendable one, the aide who takes the arrow so the man who handed him the bow walks away clean. It's a reasonable theory. Fauci has, after all, been walking away clean his entire career.

But here’s the thing. Morens might just be the prelude. The warm-up act. The opening band. We’re ready for the headliner, Lord. Give us Tony & The Indictments!

Where’s the lie though?

Because while the rest of America was locked inside making sourdough and watching Tiger King, while children sat alone in front of laptops doing “school,” while small businesses boarded up their windows forever, while people died alone without their families because of rules that Dr. Fauci himself apparently made up—the man was assuring Congress, with the confidence of a toddler in a Batman cape, that he was absolutely not funding or conducting risky experiments to make already bad viruses worse.

“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect, that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute,” Fauci told Senator Rand Paul at a Senate hearing in May 2021, a statement that—if you cancel out the double negatives—sounds less like a denial and more like a cloaked confession.

Spoiler: Senator Paul was not entirely and completely incorrect. He wasn’t even a tiny bit off base. What the NIH was doing, according to the agency’s own principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak—who woke up one day in 2024 and chose chaos—was textbook gain-of-function research. “If you’re speaking about the generic term,” Tabak told Congress, “yes, we did.”

He did. He said that.

And now here we are! With a ticking clock! And a guy auditioning for a permanent role as Attorney General looking to make his mark and seriously considering going after the man who literally wished for a pandemic! It’s all I can do not to dust off a spot on my mantle for the mugshot.

I have lit a candle. I have said a novena. I have dropped to my knees and made wildly unrealistic promises in exchange for my wish being granted.

Heavenly Father, when he loads that KitchenAid like a drunk, farsighted monkey, I will bite my tongue until I taste the salty blood. Even when he nests the mixing bowls and throws the wooden spoons in there like some sort of sociopath. You have my solemn vow. Amen.

I understand there are complications. There’s the matter of Biden’s auto-pen pardon—issued for “any offenses” going back to 2014, which is the legal equivalent of your mom writing your teacher a note that says “please excuse my daughter from any misdeeds she’s committed since the third grade; she’s had a rough week.” Senator Rand Paul, bless his eternal persistence, thinks “Lock him up” is more than a fun rally chant. I choose to believe him because I once finished an entire tube of ChapStick without losing it, so I know miracles are real.

Here’s how that would actually work, for those of you who, like me, require adult supervision when reading legal documents: the way you test one of these sweeping, preemptive, auto-pen pardons is not by arguing about it on social media. It’s by charging the person first and then letting a court sort it out. Seriously. That’s the plan.

The Justice Department could theoretically bring charges, Fauci’s legal team would immediately scream “but the pardon!” and then a judge would get to decide whether a decade-long, blanket “anything you might have done” hall pass—possibly signed by a machine—is, in fact, a legally-binding instrument or just a very official-looking permission slip.

Senator Paul put it plainly: “You would have to indict somebody who’s been pardoned. And I think it’s worth a challenge.” His questions are not small ones. Is the pardon power so broad that a president can essentially write “whatever he did, we’re good” and have that hold up in federal court? Does it matter whether Biden even knew that he was signing something—or that his staff was signing something for him? Paul’s working theory is that these things do matter, bigly, and that the only way to get the answers is to haul the whole mess in front of a judge and make someone explain it with a court reporter present.

There’s also the question of timing. The pardon covers a specific window—back to 2014—but if anything happened outside of that, or if prosecutors frame certain actions as part of an ongoing conspiracy, suddenly you’re in fresh territory. Different charges. Different clock. Same orange jumpsuit, theoretically.

Fauci’s possible indictment isn’t the only pandemic news blowing up the internet at the moment. After a deep dive into what officials knew about COVID vaccine adverse events—and when—Senator Ron Johnson’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a damning report this week. The committee discovered that way back in 2021, FDA officials were offered a superior method for detecting injuries—one specifically designed to catch what the older, clunkier VAERS analysis was missing—and they chose not to use it. You read that correctly.

You can read the interim report here.

A senior FDA scientist named Dr. Ana Szarfman did the math nobody wanted done and discovered the existing method was hiding evidence of harm including Bell's palsy, pulmonary embolism, cardiac death (NBD!) and more. Despite heroic, repeated attempts to share her findings and methodology with FDA leadership, the response was not “wow, thank you, we’ll look into this immediately!” It was: kindly keep your annoying reports to yourself. (I know, you’re shocked.) Dr. Peter Marks, who ran the FDA’s vaccine division, warned a colleague that Szarfman’s updated algorithm might “create erroneous conflicts that feed in to anti-vaccination rhetoric.”

Their solution? Ordering Dr. Szarfman to stop creating and sharing the new info. A literal cease and desist.

Let that marinate for a moment. The scientists were finding the signals. The officials were suppressing them. And the reason given, in writing, was essentially: this information is politically inconvenient.

Whether the man who was the public face of the entire federal COVID apparatus was aware that his colleagues were burying safety signals is a question someone should probably ask him. Under oath.

Two weeks to flatten the curve Fauci. Tick tock. Can I get a Hail Mary?

p.s. My Subscriber Directory is live! It’s not perfect (for some reason, you can’t search for state or zip code in the search bar—only name, city, keyword, etc.—which is pitifully lame), but folks are already finding each other! Hot tip: You can use your browser’s find feature (mine is control + F) to look for a state or part of a zip code, which is handy. And I’m so glad I added that “a little bit about me” box—y’all are equal parts fascinating and badass! Finally, I’ve noticed that some of your @handles don’t hyperlink to your Substack profiles, which sort of defeats the purpose of connection. This happens when you leave the “Substack URL” field blank. Your Substack URL is where it redirects when anyone clicks your name in Substack (usually substack.com/@yourname). I don’t have the ability to edit profiles, but you can always delete your existing one (copy your “about” info first!) and then create a new one with the link to your profile if you’d like. :)

FREE for paid annual subscribers (or buy it here).