Fauci was asked about one of the other bits of information from this source and the transcript reads like it was a huge joke to everyone in the room. I think no one brought it up at the hearing?

I suppose the inclusion of WSJ makes the likelihood it’ll be “published” nonzero given the other things they find credible that aren’t and cannot provide any details that would make them credible. imo “multiple unnamed sources have told the WSJ that X is true” is not equivalent to “WSJ has decided that X is likely true.”

If the latter were the case, the WSJ story on the three patients zero would’ve been a bigger deal, but it’s just relating what some people said with no indication that anyone else finds it likely to be true.

To be clear, by "paid money to do X" do you mean other than by being paid their regular salary and being assigned X as part of their job duties?

From Fauci's interview with the committee regarding a claim by a whistleblower about the CIA that would be verifiable by witnesses and problematic for Fauci to lie about and impossible to forget. Asked about it a few times over two days of interviews.

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/cia-analysts-were-bribed-to-change-position-on-covid19-origins-as-fauci-led-orchestrated-effort-to-undermine-lableak-origin-theory/news-story/654fc9e34a605ddc32a43b52111d0d45

https://public.substack.com/p/fauci-diverted-us-government-away

Fauci Diverted US Government Away From Lab Leak Theory Of COVID’s Origin, Sources Say

Fauci allegedly attacked lab leak theory at meetings at CIA, the State Department, and the White House

Any one of the 8 US or UK newspaper described as a newspaper of record on wiki when this question was created

For future reference, assuming this is the Wikipedia article for "Newspaper of record" (revision at the time of question creation), the newspapers are: (US) Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, (UK) Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Guardian, and The Times.

so I didn't know this when I created the question but the tweet itself comes from a senate subcommittee! It doesn't resolve this market, because it merely repeats testimony, calling its source "highly credible", but stops short of endorsing the testimony. But if the committee finds in favor of this source when they conclude their investigation, this market will resolve positive.