Dr. Fauci and the FBI Refuse to Answer Questions from U.S. Senators

Two exchanges yesterday between United States Senators and representatives from powerful federal agencies highlight succinctly the distrust many Americans feel toward their government, especially over the past two years. First, Senator Ted Cruz from Texas questioned Jill Sanborn, Executive Assistant Director for the National Security Branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Asked repeatedly whether plainclothes FBI agents in any way participated in instigating what happened at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. And just as repeatedly, the FBI declined to answer whether in the negative or the affirmative. Second, Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky grilled Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases on leaked emails exposing collusion on his part with efforts to discredit epidemiologists at Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford who had questioned or contradicted the official narrative regarding the government's characterization of and response to COVID. And just as adamantly, Dr. Fauci tried to flip the script on Rand Paul by making the whole business into a kind of dueling argumentum ad hominem game. "I know you are but what am I" hardly inspires confidence in 'The Science.'  So also, "I can't answer that question" repeatedly from the pre-eminent national law enforcement agency with regards to the active role that agency may have played in an alleged instance of domestic terrorism for partisan political purposes cannot engender anything other than fear and distrust in the Department of Justice. But both of these exchanges really get to the crux of the problem with our government. When direct, specific, substantive, important, and relevant questions are asked by Senate committee members tasked with providing oversight of unelected government officials and their respective bureaucracies, the public and our elected representatives have a right to clear-cut answers which are simple, concise, and sensible. Script-flipping and unresponsiveness will not do. The "conspiracy theorists" can be forgiven then for having said for some time that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. And this really does get to the problem with supposing that anyone but God is basically good.  If people were inherently good and could be relied upon to act in accordance with justice and science, what need would we have for these agencies in the first place? The darker and more unsettling answer is the one which those who are quick to dismiss all uncomfortable questions have chiefly in mind when they wave off attempts at connecting dots and calling spades by their names. Sometimes the greatest threat to justice and good science comes from those who are chiefly tasked with guaranteeing those things. Sometimes indeed the fox is assigned guard duty at the hen house.