Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Making Dr. Fauci the New ‘Enemy of the People’: The Senate’s Degrading, Disgraceful Show Trial

By and large, Capitol Hill and the media have moved on from last week’s Senate “hearing,” if that’s the right word for it, featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

But the stench lingers over the questioning of an 85-year-old retired official who dedicated nearly four decades to protecting the health of Americans. It won’t dissipate any time soon.

What was it that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HDGAC) paraded before their constituents? A hearing? No. An interrogation? Only slightly better. A witch-hunt? Nearer. A McCarthyite public burning? There you have it.

For the past several years, committee head Rand Paul has claimed that Fauci, while director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), approved research in China that could have produced COVID-19.

As the hearing began, the Kentucky Senator urged the witness to “come clean” about mistakes made early on—and, when Fauci on the advice of legal counsel exercised his First Amendment rights, threatened him with “consequences” for obstructing the “investigation.”

Aping President Trump’s foul-mouthed antics and degradation of his office, Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio screamed “who the f— do you think you were” at Fauci, then had the temerity to demand that the immunologist apologize—rather than having the grace to do so himself.

As there are virtually no GOP public officials, even down to the local level, ready to defy Trump, I expected this berserk performance from the Republican Senators. In a way, it’s also probably part of the job description of members of the nation’s fallaciously named “greatest deliberative body” to posture and pontificate.

But I hoped for more from the nation’s media. Instead of examining how much truth actually resided in the accusations that Fauci misled the country, they engaged in tsk-tsking him for what they deemed insufficient humility and for shading the truth:

*Gal Beckerman’s Atlantic summary of Fauci’s private notes was headlined, “The Revelatory Cringe of Anthony Fauci.”

*Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan compared his appearance to “congressional hearings on la Cosa Nostra, and the head of one of the five families is fiddling with his diamond pinkie ring as he asserts his right not to incriminate himself.”

*Contrarian commentator Andrew Sullivan, starting off by urging readers not to blame Fauci for the coronavirus or the lockdown, concluded on a shrill rising note by saying that they should hold him responsible for “protecting his own ass at all times, stigmatizing those he disagreed with and basking in fame at champagne parties as others died alone, gasping for breath, only to be denied a proper funeral (like my own father).”

These and similar commentators failed to recognize a variation on a longtime Trump theme—one that should have struck close to home for them. The GOP HSGA committee members’ attempts to stigmatize Fauci parallel the President’s charges that the American media represent “an enemy of the people.”

That phrase, as several historians noted when the President began using it at the start of his first term, echoed similar words popularized by Joseph Stalin whose mere use, as successor Nikita Khrushchev said later, “made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man be proven.”

The attempted show trial of Fauci may have disheartened his supporters—and thrilled his critics—but would hardly have surprised aficionados of classic theater.

More than 140 years before, the Scandinavian playwright Henrik Ibsen had anticipated a community squabble over a health and environmental crisis—and the vulnerability of a medical professional who warns of the danger—in his fiery satire, An Enemy of the People.

Ibsen’s protagonist, Thomas Stockmann, blows the whistle on the contaminated water supply for his town's lucrative new baths, only to be foiled by vested interests who manipulate public opinion against him.

Unlike the journalists who rolled their eyes or clutched their pearls over Fauci’s resort to the Fifth Amendment or note about every celebrity praising his work, Ibsen never lost perspective on the full humanity of his truth-speaking doctor.

For all his idealism—and correctness about the spa—Stockmann is hardly selfless, let alone saintly. He expects the town to greet him as a hero—and when it turns on him instead, he denounces them all in increasingly vitriolic terms that only alienate them further.

While hardly embodying perfection, Stockmann demonstrates an integrity in sharp contrast to his detractors. He pays a steep price for his unflinching honesty, as he loses his job, his children are expelled from school, and his home is vandalized.

Since the start of COVID-19, Fauci has been lambasted not just in his hometown, like Stockmann, but nationwide. Even while heading the NIAID, he faced threats that became so frequent and alarming that he and his wife needed federal protection—a security detail that Trump has since gracelessly withdrawn.

MAGAnauts were quick to trace the assassination of Charlie Kirk to incendiary progressive rhetoric. They might ask themselves whether claims that Fauci was, as new movement member RFK Jr. claims, a “criminal” given to “lying about everything” might produce similar results.

The hypocrisy of such charges is rank, especially coming from legislators like Paul, Moreno, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose self-regard during the Trump Administration has increased even as their usefulness in exercising their constitutional duty as a check on the President has radically declined.

Typical of how—well, infectious—such talk might be was NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who demonstrated that the effects of his acknowledged three concussions might be worse than thought when he called Fauci an “absolute coward.”

If Rodgers truly wants to see an “absolute coward,” he might want to view Feb. 28, 2020 footage of an election-fearing Trump, a month into the pandemic, assuring Americans that “One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

And if Senator Paul wants anyone to “come clean,” he can start with himself and explain why in March 2020, as the pandemic accelerated, he continued to work, travel and use the Senate gym for nearly a week while awaiting COVID test results that proved positive—forcing colleagues like Mitt Romney and Mike Lee to self-quarantine.

The Fauci browbeating in no way fulfilled any Congressional mandate to investigate, to ascertain facts so appropriate legislation could be passed.

It’s not just because it will be nearly impossible to discover the truth about conditions in China while that government tightly controls the flow of information—a characteristic of an authoritarian regime being adopted at a frantic pace by the Trump Administration.

Not, it’s also because Congress in Trump II—and, arguably, earlier—is no longer capable, and probably not interested, in enacting laws.

Instead, what Americans witnessed last week was a blame game that will frighten away exemplary medical professionals from entering the public health field lest they, too, like Fauci, experience abuse, calls for their imprisonment, and threats to their safety and that of their family members.

It is a particularly shameful aspect of the Age of Trump that public health—like sports, once thought to be a matter beyond politics, where Americans could unite in a common concern—has become just another front in the culture wars. 

Anyone who dares face a public aggrieved by job losses or deaths and inflamed by misinformation will indeed prove, as Ibsen’s beleaguered hero maintained, that “The strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.”

(The image accompanying this post, of Dr. Anthony Fauci attends a coronavirus update briefing Tuesday, April 7, 2020, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, is an official White House photo taken by Tia Dufour.)

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Oooh, Cage Fight! Or, the Great Mullin-Paul Confirmation Faceoff

“What is so appealing to men about a cat fight?” Elaine asked on a famous episode of Seinfeld. Just the use of the term is enough to make her friend Kramer stop in his tracks and exclaim, “Oooh, cat fight!”

Last week, instead of the female hair-pulling contests that, Elaine noted in exasperation, turn on so many men, our nation’s capital was transfixed by a male variant involving two U.S. Senators from the same party: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, the Trump Administration’s nominee to replace the late, unlamented Kristi Noem (nom de guerre “ICE Barbie”) as Homeland Security Secretary.

Trust me, I have seen more examples than I’d like of heated confrontations between our nation’s representatives and individuals testifying before them, but nothing even remotely like this.

Yes, it’s the Capitol Hill answer to the cage fight, those Ultimate Fighting Championships, with contests unapologetically brutal, in an enclosed area to prevent participants from going out of bounds.

Mullin first came across the radar screen of many of us in 2023, when he sparred at a Senate committee hearing with Teamsters head Sean O’Brien, challenging him to “stand your b—t up” over a social media post. 

Matters got so heated between the two that Senator Bernie Sanders, the panel’s chair, had to remind the two would-be gladiators to maintain Senate decorum. (Nice to know that the two men have apparently since reconciled.)

Senator Paul brought up that exchange in his own face-off with Mullin, and added to it. The background to this—and the resulting anger and bitterness on Paul’s part—are worth quoting in full:

Paul: Senator Mullin, if you have time to listen, you were confronted by constituents that were angry because you voted against my amendment to stop all funding for refugee welfare programs. Instead of explaining your vote to continue these welfare programs for refugees, you decided to transfer the blame. You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted. I was shocked that you would justify and celebrate this violent assault that caused me so much pain and my family so much pain. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force.

You might argue you were mad and upset about being confronted by your constituents, but Senator Mullin, your constituents are justifiably upset with you. By now, most of America knows that the Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota stole over $9 billion. But instead of defending your vote, you took to continue the vote to continue these refugee welfare programs, you chose to lash out at me. You went on to brag that you had already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault. Well, that's a lie. You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record.

You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified. So today you'll have your chance. Today I'll give you that chance to clear the record. Tell it to my face. If that's what you believe, tell it to me today.

Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken, and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents. Explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example for over 250,000 men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security.

Did Mullin apologize, let alone “explain,” as Paul demanded? See what you think.

Mullin: I think everybody in this room knows that I'm very blunt and direct to the point and if I have something to say, I'll say it directly to your face. If you recall back in your back in my house days, we actually did have this conversation because of remarks that I made. You were in a room. I simply addressed that I said I could understand because of the behavior you were having that I could understand why your neighbor did what he did. As far as my terms, the snake in the grass, sir, I work around this room to try to fix problems. I've worked with many people in this room. Seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us. I did address those remarks. I did explain your gimmicks by the amendment you put forth. And as far as me saying that I invoke violence, I don't think anybody should be hit by surprise. I don't like that. But if I do have something to say, everybody in this room knows. I'll come straight to you. I'll say it publicly and I'll say it privately, but I'll never say it behind your back. So for you to say, I'm a liar, sir, that's not accurate. And I got proof to say that because you have spent millions of dollars in my campaigns against me because we just don't get along.

However, sir, that doesn't keep me at all from doing my job. I can have difference of opinions with everybody in this room, but as Secretary of Homeland, I will be protecting everybody, including Kentucky, as much as I will my own backyard in Oklahoma. It's bigger than the partisan bickering that we have. It's bigger than the political differences we have. The truth is I have a job to do and I don't like to fail at anything at all. So I can set it aside if you're willing to set it aside. Let me earn your respect. Let me earn the job. I won't fail you. I won't back down from a challenge.

You have to ask, as MS-NOW’s Joe Scarborough did: Why didn’t Mullin just apologize? 

He was certainly risking his confirmation, as demonstrated by Paul’s committee vote against forwarding the nomination to the full Senate. Mullin was lucky to squeak by in committee, courtesy of a “yea” vote by (take your pick) maverick/renegade Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Despite their experience with this feisty colleague, the Senate approved the nomination last night, 54-45.

It’s just another example of Congress letting Trump having his way with them. Back in 1989, the Senate rejected one of their own (and the hoary tradition of “senatorial courtesy” with it), John Tower, when George H.W. Bush nominated him for Defense Secretary. 

There were concerns about the nominee's past experience with alcohol intake and hitting on women--issues also raised about Pete Hegseth for the same post in the second Trump administration, but not enough to sideline him. 

Mullin, then, is not even the worst nominee that Trump has sent up to Capitol Hill. All the President’s major nominees have been confirmed. Why should Mullin be any different?

Mullin is an example of a notable trend of the second Trump term: facho, or fake macho. As the Iranian War began, Secretary of War Hegseth vowed “No stupid rules of engagement,” before a US military-guided weapon struck school building, killing 168 people, including over 100 children. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. went shirtless with Kid Rock in a bizarre workout video.

Not to be outdone, Mullin glories in his past as an undefeated professional mixed martial arts fighter. Like his new boss, he doesn’t so much stand his ground as dirty the ground beneath him. He sees an apology as groveling rather than a grace note and confuses rudeness with candor.

No question: cage fights like Mullin’s make for great spectacles. They don’t make for good, let alone great, government.