"Redacted" and"most of the information"are the meat of this article. Think Fauci Financial Reports

The Hill via MSN

"GOP senator plans to introduce FAUCI Act after clash at hearing"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-plans-to-introduce-fauci-act-after-clash-at-hearing/ar-AASL7Fc

While this article documents pretzel-like gymnastics in this fact check from The Center for Public Integrity, the fact check actually contradicts its own statement and supports Sen. Marshall's position that Fauci's financials are not available. The article states that, "The Center for Public Integrity, anonprofit journalism center, found that Marshall was incorrect about Fauci's public finances being private, but said it is hard to obtain them."

This article says the center's reporter stated that, "The NIH also chose to give the disclosure to me under the Freedom of Information Act, which they didn't need to do and caused the document to bepartially redacted. (Thoughmost of the informationabout Fauci's income, gifts and investments in 2019 is still there for all to see.)," the reporter stated."

If redacted information is public information, then let use see all of the information. Fauci has been employed by the NIH for more than 50 years. Let's do the financials for all of those years.

IRL is a thing today and Anon can't dig on The Center for Public Integrity. Respectfully, this Anon makes aCall to Dig.