Trump Taking Heat Over A ‘FireFauci’ Retweet — Here’s The 411

Written by Wes Walker on April 13, 2020

This time, he’s not even getting dragged for something HE said, so much as something he retweeted.

A Conservative chica who took her shot in a run against Nancy Pelosi said something that caught the President’s eye, and got a retweet with a comment.

For those unfamiliar with here, here’s her Twitter bio: “I’m DeAnna Lorraine, Conservative Sicilian spitfire running against Nancy Pelosi for Congress. I will replace her soulless leadership with love, laws, & fierce patriotism.”

Here was the tweet at the heart of the current controversy:

The part that’s getting the attention is the hashtag at the bottom: #FireFauci

Here’s how WaPo is framing it (taken from a social media screengrab from someone I know on the Left):

Trump came into the controversy with this retweet:

Let’s break this tweet down.

It has a couple of parts. The #FireFauci hashtag is only ONE part of it. Is it the part he wanted to inject into the conversation? Or was his interest in some OTHER part of the tweet?

It is (at WORST) ambiguous as to whether he agrees with the controversial hashtag.

More plausibly, he’s defending himself against the ‘blood on his hands’ accusation that has been a preferred line of attack on the part of Democrats.

If only Trump had acted earlier, the claim goes.

What is the President saying in response?

‘Fake News’ — which is a more socially appropriate version of saying that the accusations against him are unfounded horses**t.

He is giving his reply — ‘fake news’ he was putting that marker down. In the second part of his answer, he explained why it was fake.

The claim — that Trump waited too long to heed the advice of medical experts — doesn’t square very well with what we know about the timeline — or even Fauci’s OWN role in the timeline.

Now that she’s found herself in the firestorm, she’s doubled down on that controversial hashtag.

Both with her OWN tweets, and retweets of others.

 

 

Suppose there is some reason practical, political, or otherwise — where Fauci needs to remain on — is there nothing preventing Trump from adding in some other experts with dissenting voices?