Fauci deposition transcript released, says ‘I don’t recall’ a whopping 174 times

American Thinker ^ | 12/06/2022 | Olivia Murray

[sasquatch]

He’s trying to avoid a striped suit.

[thesligoduffyflynns]

🙋its my opinion that Fauci is well versed , i.e., more than well versed
in high level doublespeak and its similar to pleading the 5th.

Docs in admin positions speak like this when very necessary- similarly,
and if you had a cancer diagnosis the doc will shade the “ truth” only until absolutely necessary.

Imho learned to manipulate the system A LONG TIME AGO, manipulated into his place of power. Not only being the highest paid govt employee but he saw the $$’s waiting for him if he was clever enough + he is a schmoozer & he schmoozed his way 174 times, didnt he? ....and all with a smile on his face ....laughing at you.

Look what he pulled off! He is more than a menace to society .He is pure evil beyond recognition. Instead of sending you to the gas chamber TPTB plan was to let people die on their own jab or no jab

[ronnie raygun]

And what do you think anyone of these pukes who get called before congress for a plethora of crimes is going to say

[hattend]

The Hillary defense.

I worked for the Clinton Crime Family.

[Vermont Lt]

Our country is led by Octo-fools.

Keep it up folks…they aren’t all dead yet. They will end up getting US killed because they cannot let go of the teats.

[TheElectionWasStolen]

174

[lightman]

John Ehrlichman II

[1Old Pro]

Only someone guilty and fearful of lawsuits and justice would hide behind those words.

[M Kehoe]

Fauxi is Hillary Clinton with a dick.

Like Rush said, their minds are Jello.

5.56mm

[lewislynn]

He should have kept a liary.

[Glenmore]

I would never consider any other answer under government questioning: it’s all one big perjury trap; you are guilty if your memory differs from what they say …

[Izzatso]

Meh. Trump did the same “I don’t recall”, “I don’t remember” bit quite a lot.

[nicollo]

Why can't the attorney's turn these "I don't recall" questions around to a negative? For example, if we ask Fauci,

"Did you receive a $50mm backchannel payment from Pfizer in exchange for pumping this murderous vaccine on children?

He'll merely respond, "I can't recall." Instead, why not ask him,

"Did you never receive a $50mm backchannel payment from Pfizer in exchange for pumping this murderous vaccine on children?

The "I can't recall" is not a reasonable response to something that never happened bc if it never happened then there's nothing to "recall" or not. He'd ought to be forced by the court to reply either yes or no to the question -- there's no middle ground there.

I honestly don't understand why the courts -- other than corruption -- allow this crap reply to absolve a witness from perjury. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Another, actual, example, is the FIB SF agent who lied about telling Twitter in advance of the story to expect "disinformation" about the Laptop From Hell. The agent said he "can't recall" if he said it or not. What if he were asked if he "never" spoke to Twitter about it? Would not the "I can't recall" response be an inherently illogical and therefore inadmissible response to the question (i.e., it's impossible to recall something that didn't happen.)?

[Jim Noble]

Congress has no power to investigate crimes.