Senator Joanie Ernst of Iowa is no stranger to making headlines, and her appearance on a recent segment covering Dr. Anthony Fauci was no exception. There she was, representing the good folks of Iowa, questioning Fauci’s knowledge and actions related to the origins of COVID-19. Her sharp focus was on taxpayer funds allegedly funneled to the Wuhan Institute in China, where gain-of-function research was reportedly conducted. Gain-of-function, Ernst reminded viewers, was deemed dangerous enough to be previously halted by President Obama. Yet, there Fauci was, figuratively shrugging at the idea that public funds might have been used on risky experiments overseas.

But the senator didn’t stop there, because what kind of oversight are we discussing without a little extra zest? Ernst highlighted the stark reality: funds that might have been used on aborted human baby parts for research. Let’s be honest, “disgusting” was the mildest possible word she could have used. And yet, there it was, a poignant reminder of how deep these issues run and how they allegedly took place under Fauci’s nose—or on his watch, to be more precise.

Now, the grand performance of the day: Dr. Fauci invoking the Fifth Amendment. A whole 111 times, no less. It’s almost as if he was aiming for a high score. Ernst wasn’t the only one wagging a disapproving finger, of course. Rumor has it, a vote concerning a contempt charge against Fauci is in the works, courtesy of Senator Rand Paul. With the amount of pleading the Fifth that went on, one could be forgiven for imagining a jury taking notes and nodding excessively in a courtroom drama series.

It’s imperative, Senator Ernst noted, for the American public to see the full picture of how one man’s apparent decisions led to a nationwide shutdown. And more than that, for everyone to understand the extent of authority such a figure can wield—from muzzling scientific opinions that didn’t align with his preferred narrative to offering monetary incentives to silence dissenters. What an inspiring sentiment: vibrant academic discourse thriving under… hush money. Quite the role model for school debates, if sarcasm wasn’t lost here.

Lastly, enter Jonathan Turley, constitutional law heavyweight, outlining the complexities of a presidential pardon in this scenario. Turley pointed out that the pardon might not be the all-encompassing shield Fauci hoped for, particularly with regard to state-level actions. So as things stand, legal proceedings could potentially expand if states decide to open investigations of their own. All in all, the real winners here are the viewers, because just like the plot of a finely tuned legal drama, this saga is bound to have a few more twists and turns to keep everyone engaged.