“Today I am the most famous and talked-about person in the country.” Those words from the diary of Dr. Anthony Fauci will certainly be true today as the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs moves forward with holding him in contempt for refusing to answer over a hundred questions about his past conduct and statements as the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The contempt vote will start a process that is fraught with political and legal challenges. Even putting aside the objections to the direct referral from the Committee to the Justice Department (rather than submit the matter to a full Senate vote), there remain serious questions about whether Fauci can be held in contempt after invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. As I have previously stated, this area is rather murky and Fauci likely has the advantage in any litigation.
At the outset, it is important to note that Fauci always faced a risk of perjury in his prior appearances. Even if immunized, a witness can always be prosecuted for false statements. Fauci is in a much stronger position today than he was in prior hearings due to the sweeping pardon he received from former President Joe Biden. Yet, he suddenly decided to remain silent when his own words came back to contradict him.
Now for the legal questions.
If a witness is immunized, they can be compelled to testify. If, for example, the Senate granted Fauci immunity, there would be little question about his answering these questions as well as the ability to charge him for any false statements.
The Senate Committee is arguing that the Biden pardon had the same impact. Since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any acts during the extended period of the pardon (going back to 2014 when the government allegedly funded “gain-of-function research). Chairman Rand Paul did an excellent job in putting this issue into sharp relief in his final set of questions by framing his inquiry as confined to the period of his pardon.
The argument is credible and, for many, compelling: since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any conduct during the pardon period, he has no legal exposure so long as he speaks truthfully.
For Fauci, that is a question that could be highly subjective. He referred to the risk of a “perjury trap” in his opening statement. He declared, “The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something — anything — that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, ‘behind bars.’”
Even that statement could present a matter for litigation. Congress previously found in 2013 when high-ranking IRS leader Lois Lerner also pleaded the Fifth after giving an opening statement before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The Justice Department under the Obama Administration refused to prosecute. Fauci will argue that such a general statement does not waive the privilege and that, when asked a question, he promptly and consistently invoked it.
Of course, this is the Trump Administration, not the Obama Administration. Ironically, if the matter is litigated, the Administration will be in the position of defending the pardon, which it has long questioned, as the result of Joe Biden’s infamous autopen. The ability to hold Fauci in contempt becomes dependent on that pardon being valid.
The Justice Department can argue that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere fear of a perjury charge is insufficient to compel witnesses who are immunized, dating back to 1896 in Brown v. Walker.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “anticipatory perjury” is not a basis for such a refusal to testify in cases such as United States v. Apfelbaum.
However, Fauci can cite new state investigations as unaffected by the federal pardon, as well as new questions arising outside the pardon that could theoretically pose ongoing risks of criminal prosecution.
Courts have generally adopted broad interpretations to protect the right to remain silent, a touchstone of our legal system. That is why I believe Fauci likely has the edge in any challenge.
The fact is that it is uncertain. The cases in this area remain relatively sparse, and any pardon case is highly case-specific to the confines and scope of the specific pardon.
If so, Fauci can remain silent, but that silence will remain deafening for many in this country.
The right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. Fauci, in my view, was wrong to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination even if it was his right to do so. Millions of Americans lost loved ones during the pandemic, and the United States had one of the worst records in dealing with COVID-19 in terms of costs and deaths. Fauci’s diaries exposed disturbing contradictions between what he previously stated publicly and what he actually believed. Americans have a right to know the truth, and Fauci was not saying a thing, invoking the privilege 111 times.
He will say nothing to the families who lost loved ones or the business owners ruined by now-debunked pandemic measures.
He will say nothing to the scientists who were canceled, blacklisted, and fired for opposing these policies. Those scientists did not get the bobbleheads and celebrity photos that Fauci celebrated in his diaries. As the mob hounded them, Fauci said nothing as he gushed about his own fame in his diary.
He will say nothing despite the protection of a presidential pardon. For that, he should be rightfully condemned. Fauci’s contempt of Congress is challengeable, but his contempt for the public is undeniable.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I think Fauci may have missed a gifted opportunity to plead for contrition on a national stage. All he needed to say is that he was wrong on the science (and science can indeed be wrong at times), and that he was terribly wrong to support and follow the group-think demanded by the Biden administration. The most notable example being permitting large scale BLM demonstrations while simultaneously prohibiting crowds in malls, at athletic events, and church services, among others.
“The most notable example being permitting large scale BLM demonstrations while simultaneously prohibiting crowds in malls, at athletic events, and church services, among others.”
Vincente, you have to understand the virus was a microscopic “Social Justice Warrior”(tm) and could determine the purpose of the event.
Fighting for “social justice” and you were perfectly safe.
Going to a worship service? That’s deadly!
antonio
“Fauci may have missed a gifted opportunity to plead for contrition”
You are making what to me is the erroneous assumption that the SOB is capable of the kind of honest self-assessment that is prerequisite to anything resembling regret or contrition. In my opinion. he is a wholly arrogant narcissist, completely incapable of giving nay credence to even the slightest possibility of his own error. Pretty much like a particular idiotic troll who haunts this space.
You and Fauci do have a lot in common. Your comments are infantile.
Of course, we can see the obvious mature cognition that goes into your comments. Not to mention the admirable courage of posting as “anonymous”. F**king imbecile coward!
So all that posturing comes down to one simple conclusion: “F**king imbecile coward!”
Well done, just proved you’re no different than the anons.
BTW, apparently you don’t know that you too are anonymous. How’s that for stupid?
“wrong on the science”? Now what red blooded liberal would ever contradict the science?
Vincent (Estovir) Fauci doesn’t have to grovel to MAGA overlords.
QUESTION: had Fauci answered the questions put to him in the Senate hearing, could those answers be used in a state-level investigations, considering that four state attorneys general in Florida (AG James Uthmeier), Louisiana (AG Liz Murrill), Alabama (AG Steve Marshall), and Oklahoma (AG Gentner Drummond) thus far are conducting these investigations?
I think the anonymous folks should take one of the names of anonymous and anonymous jr and anonymous III, etc. so we can figure out who is yapping.
A simpler solution is to ignore all the anonymous comments.
So why are you reading this?
Yapping? And what exactly is your comment?
Anyone who wishes to post a comment without logging in or otherwise presenting a verifiable identity is free to provide a consistent alias after clicking on the envelope icon at the bottom of the comment form. That is exactly what I do. The email furnished need not exist at all, it merely needs to be in legitimate email address format. So there is no excuse for anonymous posting other than pure obfuscation, and no need to follow your suggestion.
You do realize it’s not your blog. If you don’t like the commenting – noting that your comments aren’t worth reading, – then move on.
Such absolute arrogance by Dr. Fauci. He gave medicine a black eye. It is difficult enough to develope rapport with patient’s and then have this strutting peacock come out and lie and coverup. It makes me ill.
I would love to see him convicted of lying in order to get some sort of justice for his misguided, wrong, and capricious actions and pronouncements but I reluctantly think this is all going to go nowhere. Unfortunately. Bringing it to light is likely all we are going to get.
He’s as old as you. You’ll be gone before anything happens. So enjoy your remaining time on earth. But get off the internet. Drink beer with friends and go fishing. Or sumptin.
GEB,
I agree.
The closest thing we may get if someone were to make a documentary, based off of Fauci’s email, diary, compare and contrast what he said vs what he wrote, a timeline of events to discredit him is the best we may get.
“The closest thing we may get if someone were to make a documentary”
I would hope that any such documentary would make plain the obvious parallels between Faschi and Josef Mengele.
You agree. To what? GEB just regurgitated his breakfast.
Lifetime presidential pardons extended to so many for undisclosed crimes regardless of the damage to the nation and loss of life. Meanwhile money and years wasted on a phony dossier intended to destroy a legitimately elected president and no one faces consequences. I hate these Marxist communists (DSA) pushing for change (the wrong change) but I can understand why their anger.
Consequences? The law works in mysterious ways. He’ll be dead soon enough and the history books (assuming there will be suck things in the future) will destroy his name.
Fauci must be held legally responsible for the deaths & suffering he caused the entire world! Biden’s autopen pardon isn’t worth the paper it’s written on!
Not worth the paper? It’s worth a lot more than a just paper. Your husband would love one of those.
Democrats have CONTEMPT for America
I mean how many examples do you need?
Examples? You haven’t given any.
Fauci is the current example, genius.
Just one example? That’s all?
The entire history of democrat welfare legislation was the first slap, it opened up the iteration of what was enumerated in the Cloward–Piven strategy and we see it attempted to be implemented with each utterance of a democrat. Now we have open communists and islamists gaining access to our positions of government because the progressive/communist indoctrination of so much of our younger generations through their death grip on our media/education industry.
So you’re saying Fauci is the linchpin to the C-P strategy? Just kidding. You realzie this thread is about Fauci, right? Come back once the LSD has worn off.
Suppose he HAD answered truthfully and admitted the contraction, under the protection of the pardon. Then months later, the Pardon is found to be invalid. Would he then be able to be prosecuted with his own testimony as evidence? Or is this analogous to the “fruit of the poisoned tree”?
Fauci “refusing to answer over a hundred questions . . .”
For a creature who brags about being the embodiment of “science,” he’s a coward. Which is typical of bullies.
If you were in Fauci’s place you would do the same. Assuming you have any smarts. You don’t.
Protecting himself and his chinese owners doesn’t make him smart, it makes him a treasonous coward, a democrat.
If I were smart and cared about anyone else in the US, I would have spoken, truthfully.
GFY
A hearty GFY to you too. Someone with your obvious subhuman intelligence would never had had a position or career such as Fauci’s. So STFU.
If I were in Fauci’s place, I would off myself, it is the least shameful option
You don’t need to be in Fauci’s place, just do it. No one will miss you.
Oops. Forgot to sign in.
Gillotine, GILLOTINE!
If you’re going to call for someone’s death. You could at least get the spelling correct. It’s “Guillotine!”
Oh oh, grammar Nazis onboard!
Grammar and spelling are two very different things. But both spelling nazis and grammar nazis are welcome! They keep our spelling and grammar correct, which should be the norm in a free nation! Definitely needed in Republican ranks, to keep our side smart.
You could have at least punctuated your attack correctly.
Race war in progress folks! Batten down the hatches.
He’s having his period.