Oh, So Dr. Fauci's Pardon From Joe Biden Is Not 'Bulletproof'? ⁠54%

By Matt Vespa⁠79%

7/1/2026, 6:50:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 218 hits. Analysis detected 1,350 faulty-reasoning hits from 686 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (9,854 of 21,182 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.50% of the article peer group.

Dr. 
Anthony Fauci was granted a presidential pardon by Joe Biden before he was carted out of the White House. 
Why? 
Well, we know why. 
Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard <a href="https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2026/4163-pr-10-26" target="_blank">exposed that</a> before she left her post this month. 
Fauci said the National Institutes of Health didn’t fund gain-of-function research on the COVID virus, even though it appears it did. 
Because of this development, Fauci could get yanked onto the Hill again sometime in July&nbsp; 
John Solomon breaks down how Senator Rand Paul has a golden opportunity to finally expose Dr. 
Fauci once and for all — even with his pardon from Joe Biden. 
Solomon says this could be a lose-lose scenario for Fauci. 
SOLOMON: “We know that in the end days of Joe Biden, Anthony… pic.twitter.com/jGnAx5j4rr 
It’s time for Anthony Fauci to tell us the truth. 
He can no longer hide behind his preemptive pardon. 
Justice is coming on July 29th. https://t.co/8Hj4kJon7d 
The language of the pardon is odd but not bulletproof. 
Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge <a href="https://catherineherridgereports.com/p/fauci-pardon-not-bulletproof" target="_blank">broke it down</a>: 
Fauci Pardon: Not Bulletproof 
There are at least two viable, unconventional legal strategies. 
Plus: Will aggravating factors play a role in John Bolton's sentencing? 
In this week's Article @X for @C__Herridge subscribers. pic.twitter.com/G5EbStaooE 
Based on the records declassified by DNI Gabbard, what we know now is that under Fauci’s tenure, the NIH funded high risk “Gain of Function” research at the Wuhan lab in China.&nbsp; 
According to Senator Paul, Fauci lied to Congress about the NIH’s role and use of US taxpayer dollars to fund research on the coronavirus. 
Senator Paul also alleged Fauci destroyed government records which, on its face, is a felony crime. 
There are two statutes that criminalize the destruction of government records, 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1519. 
It is worth noting Fauci’s testimony where he denied NIH had financed gain-of-function research in 2021: “Sen. 
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 of Virology.” 
In this 2023 clip, Fauci urges COVID-19 vaccine boosters. 
Fauci claims there is no data supporting safety concerns about the vaccine, which we now know is demonstrably false. 
There is evidence some of the most adverse reactions were experienced by young people with robust immune systems who were in the best position to fight COVID infection. 
I was told by a veteran of the Justice Department that there are three viable and somewhat unconventional legal strategies.&nbsp; 
One strategy calls for charging Fauci with a crime, with the expectation he would file a motion with the court to dismiss based on the pardon. 
This could open the door to challenging the sweeping pardon’s viability.&nbsp; 
Another strategy involves Congress. 
The pre-emptive pardon complicates Fauci’s scheduled testimony later this month. 
Because Fauci has been pre-emptively pardoned against past and future criminal charges related to his NIH work, Fauci has no plausible claim to the 5th Amendment, the right against self-incrimination.&nbsp; 
If Fauci tried to take the Fifth at Senator Paul’s hearing, the committee could go to a judge to compel his testimony. 
A finding of contempt could follow. 
Finally, one of Fauci’s closest associates has been criminally charged. 
With pressure and the right incentives he might be flipped and become a cooperating witness.&nbsp; 
Dr. 
David Morens, who was a senior advisor to Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was indicted on multiple charges including conspiracy and obstruction, including destruction, alteration or falsification of federal records.&nbsp; 
Along with allegations that personal email accounts were used to evade the Freedom of Information Act, this could be a powerful motivator. 
The question is whether the Trump Justice Department wants to take this on.&nbsp; 
<strong><em>Editor's Note:&nbsp;</em></strong><em>Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.</em> 
Join <a href="https://townhall.com/subscribe? 
tpcc=60sale&promo_code=FIGHT" target="_blank">Townhall VIP</a> and use promo code <strong>FIGHT</strong> to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.5%Matt Vespa: 5.9%Townhall: 5.2%Confirmation Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Matt Vespa: 2.7%Townhall: 2.7%Availability Heuristic10.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.8%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 7.6%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 7.1%Matt Vespa: 8.8%Townhall: 11.3%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.5%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 8.2%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 31.8%Matt Vespa: 13.9%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias31.8%This article: 1.9%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias1.9%This article: 1.5%Matt Vespa: 1.5%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Matt Vespa: 5.3%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.8%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.8%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 1.9%Matt Vespa: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Matt Vespa: 6.5%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem1.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Matt Vespa: 4.0%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 3.4%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 2.5%Matt Vespa: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope2.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.3%Matt Vespa: 9.7%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization2.3%This article: 3.5%Matt Vespa: 0.4%Townhall: 0.5%Red Herring3.5%This article: 2.3%Matt Vespa: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon2.3%This article: 7.0%Matt Vespa: 9.4%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion7.0%This article: 6.0%Matt Vespa: 2.5%Townhall: 2.3%Begging the Question6.0%This article: 5.4%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.3%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof6.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.1%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.3%Matt Vespa: 1.9%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.3%Matt Vespa: 3.2%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote8.3%This article: 5.1%Matt Vespa: 2.9%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 4.1%Matt Vespa: 19.1%Townhall: 16.2%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 3.4%Matt Vespa: 4.7%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Matt Vespa: 13.4%Townhall: 13.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.3%This article: 8.0%Matt Vespa: 5.5%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.0%

686 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers25%attributed speech516writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageTulsi Gabbard • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSenator Rand Paul • 24 words • 100.0% coverageSenator Rand Paul • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageAnthony Fauci • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 3 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tulsi Gabbard

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words11% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+96.7 ptsWriter: 3.3%Tulsi Gabbard: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Tulsi Gabbard: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Tulsi Gabbard: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Tulsi Gabbard: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Tulsi Gabbard: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Tulsi Gabbard: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.