To Fauci and Collaborators: Stop Hiding & Deleting Evidence

In light of recent congressional testimony from Fauci's deputy, our lawyers have sternly warned defendants against hiding records from subpoena. Plus, did Fauci perjure himself in our case?

Our lawyers at NCLA sent a letter this week to Anthony Fauci, Google, and several of their associates regarding their obligations to preserve records relevant to our Murthy v. Missouri case. Those named in the letter include, besides Fauci, his colleague from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. David Morens, Adam Kirschner of the US State Department, and Google General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado, among others.

This letter was sent in light of recent revelations of Fauci, Morens, and company evading Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by using personal email addresses with the intention of hiding government work-related communications from public scrutiny, in violation of federal law. Fauci’s right-hand-man, David Morens, recently covered himself in shame during his congressional testimony, admitting that Fauci and associates took deliberate steps to illegally evade FOIA requests.

As our letter explains, in light of Morens’ admissions, we now have reason to believe that Fauci may have perjured himself during his deposition in our case:

However, Moreno’s recent congressional testimony, and his emails obtained by congress, clearly contradicts Fauci’s claims, as our letter explains:

The context here involves Fauci’s attempt to evade questions about his role in the covid origin story, namely, his NIAID funding, via EcoHealth Alliance as an intermediary, of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A “secret back channel” for relevant communications is not a good look here for Fauci and colleagues. Our letter goes on to elaborate:

High-level NIH employees deleting relevant evidence about the origins of covid to avoid being implicated in the creation of the virus—that is what is at stake here. And there seems to be mysterious a “foia lady” at the NIH—some staff member who knows how to hide the ball and can instruct other government employees on NIH’s “best practices” for evading public scrutiny and hiding relevant evidence. Whoever this foia lady happens to be, let’s keep in mind that her salary—as well as the salaries of those at the NIH she is advising—is paid for by your tax dollars. Tax dollars that also seem to have funded the research that resulted in the covid virus. The mysterious foia lady’s role there seems analogous to a fixer for the mob: follow her advice and you don’t have to worry about the cops, the law, or trouble from the populace who pays for your salary.

So all that sounds very bad—sounds in fact like a cover-up regarding our government’s role in the origins of covid. Which is kind of a big deal. But why is this relevant to our Murthy case challenging government censorship, besides the issue already mentioned of Fauci’s apparent perjury during his deposition? Well, if they delete evidence on covid origins, why would we trust that they would not similarly delete evidence related to government censorship? If they engaged in elaborate and willful deceptions to evade FOIA requests in violation of federal law, why would they not engage in similar deceptions to avoid a subpoena from a federal court?

And so our letter includes this stern warning to those potentially copied on the relevant communications:

If we catch you in the act, don’t say you weren’t warned first. It only takes one person copied on an email—one person with some integrity and a functioning conscience—to leak it to the press or to lawfully hand it over to the court under subpoena. It’s hard to cover all your tracks all the time, as Moreno’s recent admissions to congress made clear. The truth has many ways of surfacing. And in our Murthy case we lawyers are doggedly pursuing the truth.

In their commentary on the letter, Reclaim the Net explained what is at stake in our case:

NCLA’s own, direct “skin in the game” is spelled out in a statement that says, “Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis.”

This refers to epidemiologists and co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines. The statement added:

“We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country, and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive.”

On that score, we anticipate a ruling from the Supreme Court on our injunction any day now. Stay tuned!…

---