Over the past weeks or so, at least twice, Dr. Anthony Fauci has signaled to members of the White House press corps his smirky approval. After appearing on a few leftist outlets this weekend, implying that President Trump and his administration “fought” “recommendations” about shutting down the country earlier, Fauci was forced to change his tune yesterday in light of the facts.
But after clarifying and exonerating the Administration’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Fauci was suddenly on the receiving end of the media hate-attacks.
The change in sentiment apparently angered the career bureaucrat.
DB Update explained it perfectly:
The immutable truth about today’s corrupt news media is that it operates on a narrative coordinated with the Democrat Party.
Reporters are not the legendary – probably imaginary – intrepid souls of black and white noir films from the 1930s and 1940s, dogged pursuers of the truth in their role as the people’s watchdog over those in power.
What we call “reporters” today are actually narrative engineers, individuals corrupted by those in power who are given an overarching, politically-motivated narrative by their editors and the people who control their editors, and who go out every day to look only for information that can be used to support that preconceived narrative.
We see this played out in real time every day on our TV screens in the question and answer sessions that take place during the White House Coronavirus Task Force updates. The reporters in the room, with a few exceptions, are not there to actually gather information about the Wuhan Virus that might be useful in the lives of their readers and viewers; they are there to argue with the President, the Vice President and the medical experts in a way that they hope will illicit responses that fit the day’s narrative.
Thanks to his stupid statements made over the week on CNN and MSNBC, yesterday’s narrative coming into the update was all about Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Fauci, in his boundless search for media attention, had decided it would be a great idea this past weekend to do interviews with execrable hacks like CNN’s Jake Tapper and MSNBC’s Al Sharpton. During those interviews, he agreed with leading questions from both hacks whose premise was that lives could have been saved if only the evil Orange Man in the White House would have acted sooner.
…
But the narrative was set, and all Fauci had to do was to stay silent while the narrative engineers pounded on the President in order to keep it going. But, to his credit, the overly-loquacious Doctor chose not to do that. Instead, he made a point of attempting to clarify those weekend remarks in a way that not only killed the “Trump acted too late” narrative, but also decimated the corrupt media’s “Trump never listens to the experts” narrative that they have repeatedly attempted to mount over the past three months.
In the clip below you will see Fauci state categorically that President Trump not only listens to the advice of the “experts,” but has responded to each and every one of their recommendations. Watch:
Watch the media jackals turn on Fauci in real time:
Transcript:
Fauci: I had an interview yesterday that I was asked a hypothetical question, and hypothetical questions can sometime get you into some difficulty because it’s what would have, or could have. The nature of the hypothetical question was, if in fact we had mitigated earlier, could lives have been saved?
And the answer to my question was, as I always do, and I’m doing right now, perfectly honestly say ‘yes.’ Obviously, mitigation helps. I have been up here many times telling you that mitigation works. So, if mitigation works, and you instigate it and initiate it earlier, you will probably have saved more lives. If you initiated it later, you probably would have lost more lives. You initiate it at a certain time.
That was taken as a way that maybe something somehow was at fault here. So, let me tell you from my experience, and I can only speak from my own experience, is that we had been talking before any meetings that we had about the pros and the cons, the effectiveness or the not, of strong mitigations. So the discussions were going on, mostly among the medical people, about what that would mean.
The first and only time that Dr. Birx and I went in and made a formal recommendation to the President to actually have a “shutdown,” in the sense of not really a shutdown but to really have strong mitigation, we discussed it. Obviously there would be concern by some that in fact that might have some negative consequences. Nonetheless, the President listened to the recommendation and went to the mitigation.
The next, second time, that I went with Dr. Birx into the President and said, 15 days are not enough: We need to go 30 days, obviously there were people who had a problem with that because of the potential secondary effects. Nonetheless, at that time, the President went with the health recommendations, and we extended it another 30 days.
So, I can only tell you what I know, and what my recommendations were. But clearly, as happens all the time, there were interpretations to that response to a hypothetical question that I just thought would be very nice for me to clarify because I didn’t have a chance to clarify. Thank you.
[He thinks he’s done here: Boy, was he in for a rude awakening. He had just decimated not one, but two narratives almost all of those reporters had carried into that room with them, and they were not going to let him get away so easily.]
Reporter: [As Fauci tries to leave the podium] Do you remember the date?
Fauci: No, I, to be honest with you, I don’t even know what the date was. But I can just tell you that the first and only time that we went in and said that we need to do mitigations strongly, the response was ‘yes, we’ll do it.’
Reporter: What did he do? Did he lift the travel restrictions?
Fauci: No, the travel restriction is separate. That was whether or not we want to go into a mitigation stage, of 15 days of mitigation. The travel was another recommendation, when we went in and said we probably should be doing that, and the answer was ‘yes.’ And then another time was we should do it with Europe, and the answer was ‘yes.’ And the next time, we should do it with the UK, and the answer was ‘yes.’
Reporter: In this interview, you said there was pushback. Where did that pushback come from?
Fauci: No, that was the wrong choice of words. You know what it was? When people discuss, not necessarily in front of the President, when people discuss, they say, ‘well, this is going to have maybe a harmful effect on this, or that. So, it was a poor choice of words. There wasn’t anybody saying ‘no, you shouldn’t do that.
Reporter: [Now clearly angry that the guy has destroyed her directed narratives, which might force her to actually engage in independent thought processes she hasn’t used in years.] Are you doing this voluntarily, or did the President advise you…
Fauci: No, I’m doing it….everything I do is voluntarily. Please. Don’t even imply that.
[End]
Wow, that look on Fauci’s face at the end for the hack reporter just reeks of contempt and disgust. It was his best public moment during this entire three-month process.
SHARE ON FACEBOOK | SHARE ON TWITTER
The post Fauci Debunks Leftist Narrative, Gets Angry When He Finds Himself Being Attacked appeared first on Conservative Daily Post.
Comments are closed.