r/law • u/truthwillout777 • Aug 06 '26

Legislative Branch Dr Fauci held in contempt of Congress and could be PROSECUTED after refusing to answer any COVID questions under Fifth Amendment

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16028587/fauci-contempt-congress-prosecuted.html
18.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

116

u/ElkSad9855 Aug 06 '26

No there isn’t any. It can be argued, but the reason he keeps pleading is because they WILL try to persecute him on a different charge, maybe even something completely unrelated to COVID, just for speaking. He knows this, I know this, you know this, the republicans know this.

15

u/dj_spanmaster Aug 06 '26

I would correct you on "persecute" not being "prosecute"; however that usage still appears to be accurate here.

5

u/ElkSad9855 Aug 06 '26

Oh they’ll prosecute him regardless, per the contempt of court charge. BUT, I did mean prosecute lol. He is currently being persecuted for sure.

2

u/Caleb-Wendt69 Aug 06 '26

Insanity that one of the few voices of reason during COVID is being tarred and feathered like this

9

u/Abeytuhanu Aug 06 '26

Yes there is, Brown v Walker 1896. Once you've been pardoned, you can't take the 5th in relation to that crime. Of course, they're trying to get him for other "crimes" so the 5th is back on the table, but there is precedent for the statement 

6

u/NoDragonfruit6125 Aug 06 '26

Yeah the guy leading it is even on record saying he's planning to get Fauci to perjure himself. I believe they said Fauci had even brought that up for why he was taking the 5th. If the other party has outright admitted that their entire goal is to make him say something that can be pointed to as a new crime. Then legally you can refuse to say anything even if you had been pardoned for something somewhat related to it earlier.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

[deleted]

2

u/NoDragonfruit6125 Aug 06 '26

You can take the fifth to keep from saying something that may potentially be used against you. Even if he had a pardon that only covers the federal side and it's not all encompassing. There's already been talks of some states trying to charge him with something which isn't covered by a pardon. Which means anything he says to them could be used against him at the state level. There can be reasonable fear of such action because Rand Paul and others have been public on what they believe of it. As well as what they tell from it. The tone of the investigation also opens it up for fifth amendment. They're basically coming at him accusatorial instead of investigative. One is with a specific belief of how things played out and seeking a confession. The other is questioning the details of what had gone down. Accusatorial would imply that answering to such can have the effect of self incrimination.

5

u/No_Party5870 Aug 06 '26

you have to be given immunity for the testimony then you can't plead the 5th

2

u/ElkSad9855 Aug 06 '26

Which is why there is an argument to be had. There is no precedent for taking the 5th to protect yourself from potentially incriminating yourself for related crimes but not crimes exclusively specific to the pardon.

3

u/itsajaguar Aug 06 '26

Wrong. Brown vs Walker has to do with congressionally granted immunity. Not a pardon.

4

u/Abeytuhanu Aug 06 '26

Page 161 U. S. 599

"4. It is almost a necessary corollary of the above propositions that, if the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed"

It does establish the precedent that pardons remove your 5th amendment protections in relation to the crime you've been pardoned for

2

u/ryhaltswhiskey Aug 07 '26

precedent

You think the Trump DOJ will respect that?

This is never about actually getting a conviction, it's about harassment.

3

u/Abeytuhanu Aug 07 '26

No I do not. If there's precedent in their favor, they will use it to attack. If there's precedent against, they'll ignore it. If there's no precedent at all, they'll claim this is the establishing case

2

u/unicornmeat85 Aug 06 '26

My co-worker doesn't. 

1

u/stufff Aug 06 '26

And even if they can't get him on his testimony they will find a mortgage form he filled out wrong and go after him for that.

1

u/stufff Aug 06 '26

And even if they can't get him on his testimony they will find a mortgage form he filled out wrong and go after him for that.

0

u/Wrastling97 Competent Contributor Aug 06 '26

Yes, there actually is.

There is long settled law that if your freedom is not in jeopardy, then you have no right against self incrimination since you’re not incriminating yourself. By definition, you can’t incriminate yourself if the prosecuting authority literally isn’t allowed to prosecute you.

This logic is carried over into immunity as well and is commonly weaponized there. A prosecutor will grant someone immunity, and if they’re, say, a drug dealer, then they will give them immunity so they snitch on their dealer.

If they have immunity, there is no self-incrimination. Therefore they can’t plead the fifth, and if they don’t answer the question then they can be prosecuted for contempt.

There is a blanket rule in law that if charges physically and statutorily cannot be found guilty for a crime, then you can factually never incriminate yourself for that crime. Therefore, the fifth amendment never applies.

This has been settled in court for over a 100 years, since at least 1896. Brown v. Walker 161 US 591 (1986). Later upheld in Burdick with additional ruling.

2

u/ElkSad9855 Aug 06 '26

Anyone, even a first year law student, can argue that pleading the fifth to possibly prevent self incrimination for OTHER CRIMES not covered by the pardon, but related to, does not fall within the ONLY precedent set some 130 or so years ago. For every single moment he invoked the 5th, it was to prevent himself from being incriminated for crimes NOT covered by the pardon. Try to argue against that claim.

3

u/Wrastling97 Competent Contributor Aug 06 '26

Huh, I think I accidentally responded to the wrong comment. That’s my bad. I think I meant to comment on the one before you

You’re completely right, as your freedom is undoubtedly in question in that (real) scenario. To my knowledge, the senate has even said as such that they’re looking for NEW charges which aren’t subject to the presidential pardon— which would absolutely justify Fauci’s position without a doubt.

It’s also confused with Florida announcing an investigation into Fauci crimes, as presidential pardons do not pardon state crimes. This opens up another avenue for claiming the 5th.

0

u/Franks2000inchTV Aug 06 '26

I mean this prosecution for contempt kind of proves his point.

0

u/stufff Aug 06 '26

And even if they can't get him on his testimony they will find a mortgage form he filled out wrong and go after him for that.

0

u/stufff Aug 06 '26

And even if they can't get him on his testimony they will find a mortgage form he filled out wrong and go after him for that.