In the grand theater of American politics, there’s always a spotlight waiting to shine on the next installment of “As the World Turns: COVID Edition.” Today, that spotlight finds Dr. Anthony Fauci once again, as the Department of Justice considers reviewing the contempt vote against him. This all boils down to a piece of technology more reachable than an Apple Watch: Dr. Fauci’s government-issued phone from the COVID era.

It seems that Senate investigators now have their hands on Fauci’s phone, and to quote the exuberant soap opera character, “the plot thickens.” If you listen to Senate Committee Chairman Rand Paul, this isn’t just about phone records; it’s about uncovering truths kept in the shadows. According to him, it’s high time Fauci faced some serious questions. Rand Paul argues that the American people, who watched a million lives fade away due to COVID-19, have the right to transparency about Fauci’s role and advocacy for certain scientific pursuits like gain of function research. Of course, there’s a twist—as there always is in these political dramas. Dr. Fauci reportedly has a pardon that harks back to 2014, coincidentally when the lab in Wuhan began receiving funding. Coincidence or conspiracy? As the saying doesn’t exactly go, ask not what your country hides for you—ask what your government official’s phone might reveal.

But like any good drama, there’s another character to provide a counterpoint—Fauci’s lawyer, who dismisses the Senate vote as nothing more than a political sideshow. The lawyer suggests that Senator Paul’s resolution is all bark and no merit, calling it a politically motivated stunt. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but watching politicians call each other’s efforts stunts is like watching pigeons accuse each other of being too feathery.

Now, let’s bring in the former New York Times reporter, Alex Berenson, for some added spice. His take lies somewhere between legal caution and a call for truth. Legally, Fauci has options, like pleading the fifth, because let’s face it, who doesn’t love a good cop-out in this genre? Yet, Berenson echoes a sentiment many share: Fauci’s decisions during the pandemic left Americans with more questions than answers, from lockdown advocacy to the supposed lab-leak curiosity. It’s akin to the frustration we feel when a TV series halts mid-season—a cliffhanger nobody wanted.

What’s the suggested antidote to this political waltz? Some talk about offering Fauci blanket immunity to get some honest answers out of him. While the idea of granting immunity sounds juicy, the goal here isn’t to give a free pass. Instead, it’s about preparing for the next big plot twist, pardon the pun, in the never-ending saga of future pandemics. Give Fauci a stage to tell his truth without the threat looming over him, and maybe, just maybe, Washington will get the drama it’s desperately been seeking.

So, what’s next for America’s favorite pandemic protagonist? In true TV fashion, the viewers—taxpayers in this case—are left hanging, watching eagerly for the next act. Maybe it’s time for the curtain to lift, for the real conversations to happen, and for accountability to take center stage. After all, some of us are still wondering where exactly the reruns end and the resolution begins.