Point of View August 12, 2026 – Hour 1 : Fauci Contempt of Congress

[00:00:04] Across America, live, this is Point of View. Kerby Anderson Thank you for joining me. It's Wednesday edition here on Point of View, where we, of course, will spend just a little bit of time talking about the last of the primaries last night.

[00:00:28] And I'll give you a spoiler alert to Francesca Hong, who was the Democratic Socialist of America candidate, but not endorsed by some of the DSA people, did not win. And, of course, we'll be running a runoff, which will take place between Darlene Graham and Ralph Norman in South Carolina. And we'll give you a little bit more of an update on that in just a minute.

[00:00:50] But let me also give you kind of an overview, because later this hour we're going to talk with an individual that has been following the whole issue of Anthony Fauci and the possibility of a contempt of Congress action. And so we'll be talking with him. Matter of fact, right now, Cully Stimpson is on Fox News. Those of you that are near a TV set, you can watch him there and then you're going to hear him here. And we'll talk about Anthony Fauci and the contempt of Congress issue.

[00:01:19] Next hour we're going to go to JP DeGrasse. He's been on with us once before. We're going to talk about how these dating sites treat people like shoes you'd buy in Amazon and the impact it's having in the church. If you remember last time we had him on, I guess it was back in April, we talked about what the church needs to do to strengthen marriages.

[00:01:37] And he, as a Protestant and his brother is actually Catholic, actually have worked in different churches to do what they can to encourage the churches to focus on the importance of marriage and family. And then just to kind of lighten it up a little bit, but also maybe go down a rabbit hole. We do have this book that Derek Warfel has written called UFOs and God.

[00:02:05] Now there's also a film out. We'll be talking about that with him. Going to spend really just about a half an hour with him at the end of the program today. Just kind of testing the waters, see what kind of interest there is. And then I'll leave it up to you. Would you like to have an in-depth look? This is a 350-page book and it's a very long movie. And if it's something you think we would want to cover in more detail, we certainly could do that in the future. And that's just for the Wednesday program, which once again, I think illustrates as we've said so often,

[00:02:34] even if you don't like one of the topics we're addressing, just stay tuned for a few more minutes because we'll get on to a different one. And we do cover the whole range of issues as illustrated by talking about everything from elections to medical policy. We're going to talk about the economic pressure on Iran somewhere along the way, talking about what's happening inside the church and even UFOs. That's quite a bit for a Wednesday program. So let's get into it.

[00:02:59] And as I've pointed out yesterday, there was a real belief that indeed Francesca Hong would actually be nominated as a Democrat. And Jim Garrity, I think, put it best. He said, you know, yesterday, the voters, at least in Wisconsin, the Democratic voters in Wisconsin, faced with a potential gubernatorial nominee who hates a bunch of American holidays.

[00:03:26] You know, she went through a list the other day, finally decided that maybe that's not enough. And so at least Associated Press called the race for David Crowley at about 2.30 in the morning. And I think the illustrations I want you to come away from in the few minutes we have in this first segment is,

[00:03:46] first of all, in the original polling, they had Hong ahead by anywhere from 18 percentage points to 29 percentage points, and she lost. Now think about that. As you've heard me say on this program, if you've been listening any length of time, the only poll that matters is in November, or in this case, the only poll that mattered was yesterday, August 11th.

[00:04:09] Because many times people either don't answer honestly, or they change their minds at the last moment, or the sampling isn't extensive enough, but this one isn't even close. I mean, we are talking about believing that she was going to win without even a challenge and instead loses. Now it was close, but nevertheless, that's the case. And of course, there were some other issues in her teenage years.

[00:04:38] Hong had some serious mental issues, not that we should hold that always against somebody, given the fact that she's now 37 years of age, but it is something there. But then also just some of the crazy things that she kept saying all the time. It was very difficult to find Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, anybody endorsing her, and that is the case. I did also mention, of course, in South Carolina, our listeners there are well aware of the fact, of course,

[00:05:08] Lindsey Graham died, and his sister, Darlene Graham, scored her first electoral win, and will now be in a runoff with Representative Ralph Norman. So we will probably talk a little bit about that in the future, because it, like Michigan and a few others, might be fairly significant in terms of a national story. But in the last minute or two, a couple minutes before we wind down this first segment,

[00:05:33] I thought I'd mention something that also should cause you to be a little bit skeptical. We've talked about the fact that some of the polling is certainly not accurate. And once again, I think we have evidence either of voter fraud or voter incompetence. I don't think it really matters which one, because whether you have incompetent people or people that are deliberately trying to keep your vote from counting,

[00:06:00] or add people voting who then cancel your vote out, it's the same thing. And as Matt Vestua said, it was another chaotic night for our elections are just fine, folks. No, they're not. It's fitting that this message that happened just a month after President Trump gave that primetime address about election issues. And we've talked about that with Dr. Merrill Matthews. I might get his thoughts again on Friday when he joins our roundtable.

[00:06:27] Because after the speech that was given by Donald Trump, you had all sorts of Democrats, the legacy media, everybody just dismissed it. And that's when in New Jersey they found that they had thousands of illegal aliens on their voter rolls. Okay. And then now in Wisconsin it turns out that they've been leaving these USB data sticks all over the place.

[00:06:55] Five of the nine USB drives had audit logs, not the actual resource stuff, but all of that as well. And it just brings us back to something we've said before. Whenever you talk about the fact that we need to clean up our elections, number one, prevent fraud and abuse, but also clean them up because in some cases they are horribly mismanaged. It always is if it's brought up by those of us.

[00:07:25] Even last week you might remember Dr. Merrill Matthews had John Fund on. He's kind of the leading expert in the country about voter fraud. They all just go, well that's just a Republican talking point. Well again, this happened to the Democrats. And I think it just illustrates again that it's a talking point and it's a conspiracy theory when Republicans bring it up. And when it's Democrats, well it's like at least DEFCON 3.

[00:07:51] And again, when I did my booklet years ago on voter fraud, all I did in order to avoid that argument that it's just conspiracy theory, is I just used examples of voter fraud in Democratic primaries, just so you couldn't come away saying, well that's just a Republican talking point, because even the Democrats were complaining sometimes about the problems that were taking place.

[00:08:14] So, we are headed towards an election in November, and it is just one more reminder that whether people are deceptive or incompetent, we deserve better in our election system. And what happened in Wisconsin last night? Pretty depressing, and a good reason to get with the program and bring about some necessary changes. Let's take a break. We have some more to cover before we get into the issue of Anthony Fauci.

[00:08:42] All that coming up, right after this. This is Viewpoints, with Kirby Anderson. You know, many false ideas are being spread by a handful of popular podcasters.

[00:09:11] Fortunately, John Stonestreet and Professor Glenn Sunshine answer with a breakpoint commentary, no, Islam is not kind to Christians. For example, they take on the false claim that relations between Islam and the Christian world were peaceful for 500 years. After the death of Muhammad, the Muslim army moved out of Arabia and took the Holy Land and North Africa from the Christian Byzantine Empire. It also conquered Spain and advanced into France a few hundred miles from Paris.

[00:09:39] Christians in those conquered regions were treated as demis, second-class citizens, and were required to pay a jizra, a special tax and sign of submission. And this leads to another false claim that Muslim leaders protected Christian holy sites. They respond, nothing could be further from the truth. Many were demolished. Others were turned into mosques. They also document the treatment of Christians under the Ottoman Empire. Boys and girls were often taken into slavery.

[00:10:05] They also remind us that the worst violence of the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides of the earliest 20th century, where millions were killed. Today we see how difficult it is for Christians to live in a Muslim country, and the news continually reports the ongoing slaughter of Christians in Nigeria and other African countries. I applaud these two men for setting the record straight. I would encourage you to read their short commentary or get a copy of my book,

[00:10:33] Understanding Islam and Terrorism, a Biblical Point of View. We cannot let these false ideas go unchallenged. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net.

[00:11:00] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, if you want to go to our website, you're going to find a number of things. First of all, a couple of articles that I want to mention, as well as some of the material we'll cover later on with some of our guests. If you go to the website, you'll also notice that my commentary yesterday was on Socialist America. Of course, many times I've held up this booklet, A Biblical Point of View on Socialism.

[00:11:25] So if you are wanting to get some more research, the best place, of course, would be to go to the website. Yesterday we were talking about Socialist America, and I talked about the interview that was done at the time with Shannon Bream, and also the co-chair of the DSA, and that is Megan Romer. What we now have is another piece that you can find today. So good news is, whether you support this ministry or not, and I hope you would support us because that helps us bring these programs,

[00:11:55] there's a lot of just free material, and free material today, this comes from our good friend Jim Garrity at National Review, who does such a good job. I mean, I can't even believe the amount of work and patience it takes for him to produce some of these. And what this is, is just a back and forth of an interview between the New Yorker, which is again left of center, David Rynmick, and then the co-chair, Megan Romer.

[00:12:18] And he entitles his piece, DSA, that is the Democratic Socialists of America have slogans, but they aren't interested in policies. You think? I've said on more than one occasion, some of the people that we have in the political realm are not serious people. This is the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and you can't even begin to think that she's really serious, although she's very dangerous, and these policies are very dangerous.

[00:12:48] And so anyway, the New Yorker, David Rynmick, says, well, okay, let's get into it. And almost off the bat, she says, we believe in taxing the blank out of millionaires. And so he comes back and says, well, what do you mean by taxing the blank out of them? And she says, well, you know, and so they're going back and forth. And finally, he's saying, look, you're the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. What does this really mean?

[00:13:15] On Friday, by the way, we're already going to have a very good conversation with Dr. Merrill Matthews and Holly Randall as well on the so-called millionaire's tax and all the rest. But here, just going to tax the you-know-what out of individuals. And she never answers the question. And if you have any doubts about that, I would encourage you to read this because it's the back and forth. So then he asks, well, what do you mean by prison abolition? You want to abolish all prisons?

[00:13:43] And she talks about needing to keep the community safe. We want to have good parks. And it's like talking about not getting the point. So then he gets into, what do you mean by defunding the police? And she says, well, we have to ordain the remainder. And so, well, no, defunding means no funding. And she said, well, no, that's not what I mean.

[00:14:03] And you're into a conversation with what you would think would be maybe a very uneducated teenager or something who's just full of little slogans but nothing that's any importance. Then they get into foreign policy. Oh, my goodness. You can't even think what that's going to be like.

[00:14:22] You know, there are people in the Democratic Socialists of America organization that have been very firm saying that the United States actually is the reason that Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place. Well, you can't even imagine the kind of word salad you get there from Megan Romer. And then finally we get into, well, should we should have been involved in diplomacy?

[00:14:47] Well, again, to his credit, again, David Remnick is probably not exactly a fan of Donald Trump, you think? But nevertheless, he at least acknowledges that there had been a lot of attempts at diplomacy that didn't work. So he then says, well, then you seem to be saying you just think we should allow Russia to overrun Ukraine entirely. Is that what you're saying? And so they get nowhere with that conversation. So let's move from Ukraine to the Middle East.

[00:15:15] And at this point, she's making a big deal about free Palestine and then making it the capital in Jerusalem. Not happening, of course. So then again, to his credit, David Remnick points out the fact there were the Camp David Accords, which were actually put together under the Clinton administration in which they offered the things you're talking about here and a real true state solution. And it was completely rejected by the Palestinians.

[00:15:43] Her answer was, well, I really don't have any specifics about that. I really don't know off the top of my head. And you're thinking, and you're the national voice for the Democratic Socialist of America. By that time, they get into Hamas. And again, David Remnick points out, you know, they're not exactly queer friendly here. I wouldn't call it a queer friendly organization. And she doesn't know what to do with it there.

[00:16:10] And so at the end, you know, you have this long list of questions that tripped her up. What does taxing the blank out of them mean? Why does prison abolition mean different things to you than it does the English language? How does defunding the police mean? What does that mean? How do you feel about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? What is the position here towards a two state solution in Palestine? It was a rough go.

[00:16:39] And again, this is the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialist of America. Now, the tendency might be to say, well, then I just won't take them seriously. No, these are very dangerous ideas. And there are a very significant number of individuals, including just wrote yesterday a future piece that many of you will be able to read in which I came across a survey that was done of the Gen Z.

[00:17:08] That would be the youngest generation behind millennial generation. And more than a third of them, I think it was up to 38, 39 percent of them said they would vote for a Democratic Socialist candidate.

[00:17:18] So you've got to understand that this is a very unserious organization, full of slogans that has attracted a lot of young people and perhaps in some areas maybe even elect some of these individuals to Congress, given the fact that some of these Democratic districts are really not going to be significantly affected by a Republican candidate.

[00:17:46] And so some of these people actually are going to serve in Congress. Don't know if any of them are going to be governors, but we will see. And this, I think, illustrates again why we should be concerned and why we are dedicated here at Point of View to do in what we can to educate you and your children and your grandchildren and people that you know about the dangers of socialism and the value of a free market. Real quickly, I thought I'd mention one of the other pieces, which I had asked to be posted but was not.

[00:18:15] But it, I think, illustrates something we talked about earlier in the week with Mike Cote. Trump's blockade keeps the economic pressure on Iran. Even yesterday, I mentioned the fact that some of the individuals, including our U.N. ambassador, suggested the Iranians may be more fearful of the Treasury Secretary than the Secretary of War. Because, again, these economic sanctions are indeed having an impact.

[00:18:43] And if indeed there is going to be a removal of the blockade and removal of the sanctions, this look at what Iran is asking for. The foreign ministers said, look, in order for Iran to start letting more ships to pass, the United States would have to pay reparations for damage from the war. The United States naval blockade would have to end.

[00:19:08] Other regime officials said also this would require for a release of billions of dollars in foreign assets, an end to sanctions, a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, and an end to strikes against Iran's terror proxies. All of which, of course, aren't going to happen. And so when people say, well, why can't we negotiate with them? If that's what you have on the table, there's not much to negotiate with.

[00:19:34] But it's just a great illustration, again, why this war in Iran, like it or not, will continue to be going on. And there will be the implication and some of the impact that's going to take place over these next few weeks and months. But just before I take a break, let me just mention that we, over these last few days, have encouraged you to take action. And you can scroll down to our take action item.

[00:20:01] It says protect privacy against flawed cameras. Now, for those of you that receive an email, it probably will look like this for those of you watching online. It's from me saying, again, you may have noticed new flock cameras set up in your city. Motion-activated, automated license plate readers. Sounds real good, but as I've pointed out before, it's one thing to use these so that we can, what?

[00:20:27] Begin to catch criminals or even track down individuals that were being sought because of an amber alert or a silver alert. But there are serious concerns about the fact that it can track your license plate and you anywhere you go and that these databases get larger and larger. So the argument being made by Representative Keith Self in his particular bill called the Privacy Act is that we still have a Fourth Amendment.

[00:20:56] And it has not been invalidated by having new technologies. And as a result, there are some things that we can and should do to protect American citizens. If you agree with that or you'd like to read more about it, scroll down to the website at pointofview.net or check your email probably going to you this morning. And it would be a great opportunity for you then to contact your representative and tell him or her what you think about this issue. Let's take a break.

[00:21:25] We'll talk about Anthony Fauci right after this. Many years ago, they began saying that we live in the information age. Well, today there is so much information coming at us from every direction. The hardest thing is to discern which issues are really important and how can I make a positive impact without wasting my time trying to figure out accurate information.

[00:21:54] Let me give you a suggestion to help with that. Visit pointofview.net. Look at the tabs across the top. Find the one named Viewpoints. Kirby Anderson and others on our team are constantly watching for news to identify those issues that you really need to know about. They boil things down in a brief summary. And then you can decide if it's something on which you want to learn more and get involved. Again, when you go to pointofview.net, click on Viewpoints.

[00:22:23] You'll see exactly what I mean. You'll see the issues that we are covering right now. And when you like what you see, I honestly think you will, you can slide on over, enter your email, and get them automatically sent to your inbox each day. That's it. Take a minute now. Be informed. Pointofview.net. Click on Viewpoints. Point of View. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:23:00] You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again. We're going to talk about Anthony Fauci. And I might just mention that in addition to this conversation we're going to have with Cully Stimson in just a minute, we also have posted a piece by Kevin McCullough of Fauci Now We Know,

[00:23:29] which also goes into the fact that we also now have the first tranche of text recovered from Anthony Fauci's old government iPhone. So, you might remember on our Friday weekend edition a couple weeks ago when we had the first information about the diaries. We had Dr. Merrill Matthews with us. We had Kelly Shackle for the First Liberty Institute. And I said, guys, you know, this is a good example of what I sometimes refer to as a political Rorschach test or inkblot test.

[00:23:58] Everybody sees what they want to see in it. You've had some people that have referred to Anthony Fauci as an individual that saved thousands of lives. You have others that are very upset about information that he withheld, maybe even deliberate deception about the origin of the vaccine and on and on and on. And then, of course, when it came time for the testimony pleading to Fifth Amendment. And, of course, now the possibility of a contempt of Congress vote.

[00:24:28] And so we'll see where that takes us. We bring to the microphone Charles Cully Stimson. He is an individual who has been a policy expert in a variety of different fields from national security and immigration, homeland security, individual that has served as the acting director of the Legal Policy Center, also the Senior Legal Foundation, also served as the chief of staff as they have over these years changed from different presidents at the Heritage Foundation. And so, Cully Stimson, thank you for joining us today here on Point of View.

[00:24:57] Nice to be with you. I might just mention, I think you were just on Fox News just a few minutes ago, so raced from that interview to this one. And, again, let's see if we can get into this. The diaries really give us a very great window into Dr. Fauci. Now we have a little bit more because we have some of these texts from the iPhone. And I think it is fair to say that even though he said, I'm the science, we're following the science,

[00:25:25] there's some real questions about that, aren't there? Yeah. And I think if he was forthright honest with the American people at the time he made the public statement, what he should have said, and we'd have a kicker tape parade for him these days, is, look, there's a lot of debate in the scientific community. I'm hearing a lot of variety of voices. A lot of people are leaning towards a lab link. I don't know if we know that for sure.

[00:25:54] We're going to rush the vaccines the best we can. We're going to do the best we can. When the data came forward on the vaccines and its impact, negative impact on pregnant women, he should have just been forthright honest and direct. Look, I think there's, you know, you've got to talk to your own doctor, but here's what the data says. And just left it at that. You know, he made up the six-foot social distancing. He made up the masking, despite hearing from other people saying, you know, there's no there there.

[00:26:22] And what you expect from public health officials is truth. Just be honest. And if you don't know the answer, say, I don't know. We don't know. Then people would be like, well, okay, you know, but at least you're honest. And that's – he has himself to blame for this, the situation he's in. Again, Dr. Merrill Matthews, who was with us a couple weeks ago, and he'll be with us again Friday, he said, look, we don't always know when we first hear it. We don't know how bad it is.

[00:26:47] Now, when you start making really extreme statements that this will be worse than any flu we've ever had and there are estimates on how many people will die, well, you're just working off of a limited data set. But over time, certainly, Cully, we're dealing with some evidence that was surfacing, as you point out. And that's why I have this article by Kevin McCullough about what we now know, what even was published in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time.

[00:27:16] But we also knew something else in addition to the issue of pregnant women, and that is that children probably weren't going to be affected that much. And the closing down of the schools seem to, for those of us on the outside looking in, to have more to do with the influence of the National Education Association or the National Federation of Teachers. What have you found? Yeah, I mean, I see all that as well.

[00:27:42] I mean, it's going to take a while for us to get all the pieces of this huge mosaic put in place and then step back and look at the full picture. But I think as we're getting these bits and pieces of evidence from everything from the Great Barrington Declaration, from Jay Bhattacharya and other really distinguished scientists saying, hey, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Can we have a discussion about this? This is not a good idea.

[00:28:06] From social media companies, deplatforming and silencing people's voices from the Biden administration, pushing them to do that. And then you line up what Fauci was saying publicly with what he said in his government computer diary. What a dummy on that one. And then his government-issued phone where he was texting. It's going to take a while to line all that up. But sooner or later, months, maybe years down the road,

[00:28:34] somebody's going to write the definitive book and sort of show what he was getting, what he was hearing, and what he was saying publicly. And then I think we can have a fuller picture of the duplicitousness of his actions. Since you mentioned Jay Bhattacharya for a moment, a lot of people go, I don't know who that is. Well, he is now the director of the National Institutes of Health. Of course, you've got to see Donald Trump having a little bit of humor in that regard.

[00:29:00] But he and others, and this is an individual, MD, PhD, Stanford University, well-qualified. And you mentioned, of course, the various gatherings of individuals like him and the Great Barrington Report Declaration and all the rest. And this is something I thought we might talk about, even apart from Anthony Fauci, just the attempt to censor and completely deplatform, debank in some cases,

[00:29:28] individuals who even challenged or raised legitimate questions about the safety of the vaccine and the wisdom of the way in which we were going about having a lockdown. So there's an issue broader than just medical issues. It's back to this whole issue of censorship and debanking and deplatforming, isn't it? Of course. And that's why kudos go to then Attorney General, State Attorney General of Missouri, Eric Schmidt,

[00:29:57] who sued the social media companies. That case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, Murthy v. Missouri. And even though they sent it back on standing grounds, they didn't dispute the facts. And the facts are there. That case is actually still being litigated. But if you read the facts of what was admitted into evidence and what the social media companies ultimately admitted,

[00:30:23] and then Mark Zuckerberg and others apologizing for bending to the will of the Biden administration, there was clearly an effort to suppress so-called, I'm using air quotes, misinformation, which most of us call First Amendment protected speech. That's right. That's what it should be called because that's what it is. But that was disgusting. It was despicable. It cannot happen again.

[00:30:49] Look, we don't expect our people in government, and I've been in and out of the government, to be saints. We just expect them to be honorable and forthright, honest, and direct. And if you don't know the answer, say it. And the people will be like, well, okay. I mean, when are you going to get to it? I'll try. I'll do my best. I mean, that's the most you can expect, especially in a national crisis like that.

[00:31:13] But, you know, Fauci, look, character's destiny, and Fauci's character has been revealed through his diary and through his drip, drip, drip of his text. And it's only going to get worse for him. Mind you also mentioned, since we were talking about that case out of Missouri that went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided not to decide. Of course, you are a graduate of George Mason University School of Law. Kelly Shackleford said that was a missed opportunity just to say, well, they didn't have standing.

[00:31:38] And in some respects, it could have been a great victory for First Amendment, but we'll leave that where it is. What about some of these texts now coming out of the government iPhone? There's always been some that said, well, you shouldn't be reading somebody's diary. Okay, we can have that debate for sure. But if you're a government employee and it's a government phone, that's fair game, is it not?

[00:32:02] And it does seem to me that anybody that complains about that doesn't understand the nature of what public service is. Is that fair? Right. Who works for who? Yeah. The government works for us, right? And government employees work for the American people or the local people who put them into office. And there's this thing in every state called the Freedom of Information Act or some variation of it at the state level. And, of course, at the federal level, there's the Federal Freedom of Information Act.

[00:32:28] And the second you take a federal government job and a state level job, you're told by the HR department that all your stuff on your government computer is not yours. It's the government's. All the stuff on your government-issued phone is not yours. It's theirs. And Anthony Fauci has been around a long time. He knew that. I suspect, although I don't know, he did it just out of convenience. But, I mean, when I was the Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary in charge of detainee policy, I kept a private written, handwritten diary of unclassified stuff from my own memory.

[00:32:58] I kept a handwritten notes of classified stuff, which I turned into my office when I left the building and it's in the National Archives now. Fauci's no dummy. I just think it was really careless on his part. So he has no Fourth Amendment right to those. He has no right of privacy to that because it was on a government-issued device. Let's take a break. And when we come back, just real quickly, I do want to get into the other issue about contempt of Congress, what that might mean as well.

[00:33:25] Because, after all, Anthony Fauci was granted a pardon by President Biden for his actions from 2014. But, again, how does that relate to the issue of contempt? We'll certainly get some more perspective on that from Charles Cully Stimson right after this.

[00:33:44] You're listening to Point of View. Your listener-supported source for truth. Privileged to have with us for a few more minutes, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Cully Stimson. And let me just mention that if you scroll down on our website, pointofview.net, you'll see his picture.

[00:34:13] There's a link to, of course, heritage.org. There's a link to Facebook, to X, to Instagram, to YouTube. There's all sorts of ways that you can follow what is going on at the Heritage Foundation. And, as well, if you would like to know more about Charles Cully Stimson, we have his profile. There's a way you can follow him and, of course, what is happening at the Heritage Foundation. But let's see if we can talk about the issue of contempt of Congress.

[00:34:39] On the one hand, of course, Cully, we have the President Biden who had a pardon, issued a pardon, pretty blanket pardon from 2014. That's when the gain-of-function research first began all the way to the end of the Biden administration. But just because you agree with an individual or disagree with an individual, that seems to me to be an issue that Congress should vote on as to whether or not this constitutes contempt of Congress.

[00:35:08] I know the vote will pretty much go along partisan lines. But how do we sort that out legally, given the fact that there was a pardon given in the first place? Well, let's start with the law. A federal statute lays out the elements of contempt of Congress. You have to refuse to testify or provide testimony and or documents when compelled by Congress to do so.

[00:35:32] If so, another section of the statute says then that a factual statement of what you did has to go to, if it's the Senate, the President of the Senate, which was the Vice President or the Speaker of the House, if it's in the House, then that person, quote, certifies that and sends it to the, quote, appropriate U.S. attorney, which here is in D.C., Janine Pirro. It does not say, parenthetically, that the full House or the full Senate has to vote on it,

[00:36:00] although that's been the rule of the Senate and the rule of the House. There's an open legal question whether federally required. I think the Senate will say it is required. But the state of play is Rand Paul made an end run around that. I suspect the Vice President has certified it. And so he sent the factual summary over to Janine Pirro and DOJ. So, again, that is a possibility. As you said, we almost always usually get a vote on it, even if it's seen as perfunctory.

[00:36:27] But, again, we can use good examples of individuals that had served, for example, in the Trump administration, that during the Biden administration were cited with contempt of Congress. We've had some Democrats have been cited contempt of Congress and nothing came of it. But others, they actually spent time behind bars. So what is the possibility? Can you, again, give us an estimate?

[00:36:54] I recognize that trying to predict what happens inside the Beltway in Washington, D.C. is always difficult. But what are your thoughts? So we know what Congress thinks of contempt against them. They think it's a misdemeanor. The statute authorizes a penalty of up to no more than one year and a $1,000 fine. And as you noted, other people have been found guilty in a court of law of contempt of Congress, but very few have gotten much jail time because, of course, the max is a year.

[00:37:25] And so in the history of our country, contempt of Congress criminal convictions are pretty rare because these are, by definition, political processes. And nobody's ever happy with a contempt of Congress investigation or outcome because the people on the one side who want contempt want much more than a year and want them convicted, and the people who think it's a political charade think it's a political charade. And this is playing out this way as well on this case.

[00:37:54] Well, just before we let you go, I did want to at least encourage people to go and check out what's at the Heritage Foundation. And, of course, you have more recently talked about everything from parental rights and the school library. You've talked about the issue of just war and a variety of other topics. So I'm hoping that in the future we can get you on because many of the topics that we address here at Point of View, you and other scholars at the Heritage Foundation have been addressing.

[00:38:20] And I would encourage people to go to heritage.org. Then you can type in staff and then Charles Stimson or just simply follow the link because we have a link there that actually just simply says follow or go to the profile, and you can get some of that material. So I appreciate you being on. I know it's been a busy day for you, first on Fox News and then on A Point of View. So thank you for joining us today here on Point of View. It was an honor to be with you. Thanks for having me.

[00:38:46] Again, Charles Cully Stimson, if you find yourself saying, I'd like to get a little bit more, he is an individual that really you can benefit from his legal understanding and scholarship. So let me encourage you to look for that there. Let me also mention a couple of things. First of all, this article that I posted by Kevin McCullough, I thought for just a minute I might summarize it because it says, you know, for years, the question we've had is what did, of course, Anthony Fauci know and those kinds of things.

[00:39:15] And he said this was kind of in a maddening loop. Does Anthony Fauci know more than he's telling us? Did he understand the risk he wasn't disclosing? Did he actually believe the certainty he projected on our television screens night after night? We asked, we speculated, we demanded accountability, which was never his strong suit, and mostly we got silent spin or a lecture about trusting the science.

[00:39:40] But now, of course, we have the texts as well as, of course, we have the diary. But the texts are something where you may agree or disagree with whether or not we should have access to a person's diaries. But you cannot argue, as you just heard Charles Cully Simpson point out a minute ago, that if you have a government phone, yes, those are a matter of public record. And that is certainly the case.

[00:40:06] And so we can now see some of the questions that he had about, for example, pregnant women. Now, there's been a real internal debate, so I'm not going to get into much of it. But, again, if you read through this, by the time you get to, I guess, about the fifth paragraph, it points out that, you know, we even in 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine, a study that was tracked there, and that's kind of the gold standard for medical research, tracked pregnancies of women who were exposed to the mRNA vaccines.

[00:40:35] And of the 827 pregnancies exposed, 104 ended in what the researchers called spontaneous abortion, in plain English, miscarriages. So some of this was known. And, again, that would have been probably helpful to him and to the country if you could simply be able to get in front of the American people and say, this is what we know, this is what we don't know. And yet, on a couple of occasions, especially with the diary, but we also have the e-mails and other things even before that,

[00:41:05] we knew that there was a deliberate attempt on the part not only of Anthony Fauci, but others as well, including his boss, to mislead people about the origin of the virus. And it never made any sense to us around the table that that virus came from the wet market in light of all the things that we knew at the time. So certainly that is an issue that people are concerned about and certainly will be a conversation piece.

[00:41:33] As Charles Cully Stimpson said, probably going to be a book coming out or probably others. Of course, you had one by Rand Paul, but this one will be a much more extensive one, no doubt. And when that book comes out, we'll see if we can do an interview here on Point of View, because most of us went through that experience. And it would be nice to even dig into some of the facts that are uncovered when people look through mountains of e-mails, texts, and everything else.

[00:41:59] But just before we take a break, I did want to again remind you that, again, you can go to the website, pointofview.net, scroll down to the section, which simply says, Take Action. The first one listed there is Protect Privacy Against Flock Cameras, or go and check your e-mail. If you receive regular e-mails from Point of View this morning, we sent one out that gave you the information necessary so that you could contact your member of Congress.

[00:42:29] This is a piece of legislation that I think has a chance of being considered. I would hope it has a chance of passing, but for now, our argument is let's get some attention. It's called the Privacy Act. And as we had an opportunity to talk with Representative Keith Self, he told us at the time he'd love to just get some more people being a co-sponsor of his legislation so it would actually see the light of day. So there's your action item.

[00:42:57] If you're concerned about privacy, Fourth Amendment protections, I've given you a very easy way to let your representative know about that issue. Let's take a break. We have a lot more to cover next hour right after this. There are so many big stories happening literally everywhere. So much information, documents released, grand jury testimony, political accusations and claims on all sides.

[00:43:25] How in the world can any of us keep up? How do we weed out the truly important from the merely sensational? None of us can do it alone. I've been in media for more than 45 years. I've trained my skills, and yet even with that, I am glad for the more than 50-year track record of the team here at Point of View. They help us to cut through the noise and focus on the authentically important.

[00:43:52] More than that, biblically informed eyes to help us understand and develop ways to respond effectively. Providing what we need takes time and resources, and your partnership makes it all possible. Click on in to pointofview.net, hit the donate button, or call 1-800-347-5151. Please give today. Better, sign up and help monthly.

[00:44:21] Pointofview.net, and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.