As a non-US-citizen my understanding of this is limited, but I see very little fact-based criticism and instead personal attacks and calls to "jail him" without even a clear case.

That in itself is strongly anti-democratic behavior that I would be extremely hesitant to support even if there was a strong factual foundation to the accusations (which I can't see so far).

Which aspect of this report makes you confident that MTG is "right"? What exactly should Fauci be imprisoned for?

> That in itself is strongly anti-democratic behavior [...]

Not sure what this has to do with democracy? Seems more like a rule of law issue?

I don't think it should be punishable to call for political opponents to be imprisoned.

But derailing a discussion from factual criticism into emotional populism appears extremely harmful to the concept of democracy itself to me:

In an ideal democracy, candidates would be elected based on how their political alignment and intended actions match up with voters. But if politicians denigrate their competition instead, and paint everyone outside their camp as enemy/traitor/unvotable, then this essentially frees them from having to compete on policy (which leads to incompetent politicians in power that are super hard to get rid of).

Well, blame the voters who reward the politicians who use these tactics with their vote?

Sure. But just consider a politician that just straight up buys votes:

I'm gonna blame that politician first and the voters that are on the take second, same in this situation.

How do you 'buy' votes?

In most systems voting is secret and anonymous. So even if I wanted to sell my vote, the buyer can never be sure that I actually voted as promised.

Or do you mean 'buying' in the sense of politicians making promises to enact certain policies that specific voters like, if elected? If yes, that seems less like 'buying' and more like straight up democracy working as intended to me. (Even if you or me want to disagree with the outcomes.)

>if politicians denigrate their competition instead, and paint everyone outside their camp as enemy/traitor/unvotable, then this essentially frees them from having to compete on policy

What? How does the conclusion follow from the premise? That a politician resorts to ad hominem fallacies does not by itself mean that whoever listens to them will act purely on those fallacies over everything else. Moreover, the voters are just as likely to vote based on similar fallacies that they come up with themselves. "Oh, I don't like that guy, he has a bent nose." Ultimately it's each voter's responsibility to judge the candidates based on appropriate metric and not be swayed by bullshit, whether of their own creation or not.

Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally more policies to benefit yourself instead of your voter base.

This is in fact exactly what happens, just consider the ANC in South Africa, US politics or like literally every conservative party in Europe ever.

Which is why any politician is harmful to democracy that primarily competes with non-policy arguments, appeals to tradition/emotion/faith or similar, and any such appeal or argument is a bit of a red flag for the politician in question (to me, but trying to be objective about things).

> Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally more policies to benefit yourself instead of your voter base.

Alas, no. By and large, people don't vote for policies that are good for them.

People vote for policies that sound good. By and large, they don't really care too much about whether the policy sounds good specifically for them---they are happy to think of eg their country or community. But they are really bad at judging what policies actually work.

So to use your phrasing:

Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally fewer policies constrained by having to keep promises for bad policies.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter for more background on the argument. (I don't expect my very brief sketch to convince anyone.)

It is incredibly important to make the life of decision makers from the covid times as unpleasant as possible in order to reduce the chance of a repeat when the next pandemic comes.

Which decisions were made during Covid that went so strongly against facts known at the time that people should be imprisoned for making them?

The most clear cut case is 1st amendment violation / censorship (e.g. Berenson v. Biden - civil case, but it should just be the beginning). There is possible fraud in Fauci's case regarding covid origins, which would also imply perjury charges. But ultimately I and many others want to see people held responsible for the arbitrary, oppressive and selective exercise of power during covid (e.g. lockdowns for some but not for BLM, firing people for not injecting the vaccine, and so on).

Surely you want to target the ones who made the wrong decisions, then?

Is that based on your personal interpretation of the facts, or do you think there is part of this study that proves that?

The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people. Even if he had saved more from covid (he had not), it would not change the fact that his policies killed many who would not have died otherwise.

Following that logic, I suspect 90% of congress should be executed for one law or another that they voted for.

> The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people.

No. To establish that "Fauci killed lots of people" you would have to show that cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for (=> difficult because you lack a good baseline). This report most definitely does NOT show that.

Then, to have an actual case, you would also have to show that those decisions were made in a manner criminally neglecting facts known at the time (=> not 4 years later!).

> cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for

Ethically, it is enough to show that his policies killed people. I cannot go into a tobacco factory, kill the night guard, burn the factory to the ground and expect recognition for saving lives. So starting from the position that unjust things were done during COVID, it is now the time to investigate what specific laws were breached, so that justice can be sought. Hence the slogan 'arrest Fauci'.

The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions? There is also a large number of contemporary warnings regarding the effect of lockdowns on diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.

> The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions?

From what I can see the article makes no effort to separate Covid related excess mortality from direct or indirectly covid related, which would be crucial to support your argument.

Consider e.g.: - Death by delayed/cancelled medical procedures/diagnostics (because healthcare was busy with people dying from covid at the time) - Weaker immune system because of lack of exposure during/after covid

If your hypothesis is "by ignoring covid and skipping lockdowns we could have avoided this excess mortality" then that hypothesis is quite contrarian in first place AND not supported by the facts presented in the article.