Levin responded almost immediately, insisting the sounds had nothing to do with Kirk’s death.
“No one was laughing at the Charlie Kirk tragedy,” Levin said at the time, explaining that the reaction was tied to unrelated footage of a vehicle pursuit playing elsewhere in the newsroom. He also issued a public apology shortly afterward in an effort to address the criticism.
That incident has now resurfaced after Levin strongly defended Fauci following his appearance before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, where lawmakers questioned the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director about pandemic policies, federal research funding, and his past public testimony.
Rather than focusing on the substance of the hearing, Levin argued that Fauci had become the target of a politically motivated campaign.
“We are in a Senator Joseph McCarthy climate.”
Levin praised Fauci’s decades of public service and suggested the hearing was driven by an effort to criminalize political disagreements rather than uncover facts.
The Senate hearing itself quickly became one of the week’s biggest political stories.
Committee Chairman Rand Paul questioned Fauci on issues ranging from gain-of-function research to the government’s response during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout the proceedings, Fauci repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights instead of answering numerous questions posed by senators. According to Republicans on the committee, Fauci declined to respond more than 100 times.
The hearing also became heated when Fauci’s attorney repeatedly interrupted questioning. At one point, Capitol Police removed the attorney from the hearing room after multiple exchanges with committee members.
Republican lawmakers argued that Fauci’s refusal to answer basic questions only fueled concerns surrounding his previous testimony before Congress.
Sen. Josh Hawley offered one of the hearing’s most widely circulated remarks.
“Nothing says honesty like taking the Fifth, huh, doc?”
Meanwhile, several media personalities defended Fauci and criticized Republicans for pursuing the hearing.
MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle described the proceedings as deeply upsetting and argued that Fauci had been unfairly targeted after years of public service during the pandemic.
Others maintained Republicans were attempting to rewrite the history of the federal COVID-19 response by placing blame on Fauci years after the emergency had ended.
Legal analysts, however, raised separate questions surrounding Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment after reportedly receiving a broad presidential pardon from former President Joe Biden before leaving office.
Some constitutional scholars argued that a sweeping pardon could complicate the legal justification for refusing to testify if the recipient no longer faces realistic federal criminal exposure.
Constitutional attorney Ross Garber argued that such a pardon significantly weakens the basis for asserting Fifth Amendment protection because the privilege generally exists to guard against self-incrimination in future criminal prosecutions.
Former Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky also noted that a presidential pardon would not necessarily shield someone from future prosecution for allegedly making false statements during new testimony before Congress.
“He’s being prosecuted for lying to the committee now,” von Spakovsky said.
He also pointed out that presidential pardons apply only to federal offenses and do not automatically prevent possible state-level investigations if applicable laws and statutes of limitations allow.
Legal scholar Eugene Volokh has similarly argued in previous legal analysis that Fifth Amendment protections become far more limited once no realistic criminal exposure remains.
Republicans on the committee insisted those legal questions deserve additional examination.
During the hearing, Paul accused Fauci of obstructing congressional investigators through repeated refusals to answer.
“It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress.”
Fauci rejected Republican accusations during his opening remarks, arguing instead that Paul had spent years attempting to criminalize scientific disagreements and personally target him.
The former health official also declined to answer questions concerning medical issues referenced in his personal diary, including inquiries from Sen. Ron Johnson regarding a pulmonary infarction reportedly mentioned in those writings.
As political and legal debate surrounding the hearing continues, Republicans are expected to move forward with a contempt vote against Fauci in the coming days.
At the same time, Levin’s comments defending Fauci have become a story of their own, with critics revisiting the TMZ controversy following Charlie Kirk’s death and arguing that the media figure displayed dramatically different levels of emotion depending on the subject.
Whether the legal arguments surrounding Fauci’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment ultimately withstand further scrutiny remains to be seen. But the Senate hearing has once again placed the former pandemic adviser at the center of a fierce national debate over accountability, executive power, and the lasting political legacy of the COVID-19 response.
