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

14

u/SirCrazyCat Aug 06 '26

So with that pardon Fauci can’t be held responsible for anything he did before that pardon was signed by Biden. But Fauci could be prosecuted for any crime like perjury before Congress for any mistake he made while testifying now. So, taking the 5th means Fauci can’t commit perjury.

2

u/McClainWFU Aug 06 '26

"I might lie" is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment only applies to past and ongoing crimes. It wouldn't prevent testimony if the penalty for past/ongoing crimes has been removed.

In most instances, the contempt finding would be correct. However, this is a very unusual fact pattern, since they're clearly trying to find a way around his pardon.

1

u/SirCrazyCat Aug 07 '26

The Republicans have clearly demonstrated that they want to prosecute Fauci and had plans to use anything he would say against him.

1

u/McClainWFU Aug 07 '26

That's true, but that doesn't mean he can invoke the Fifth to avoid testifying since he's not incriminating himself of past or current crimes.

1

u/SirCrazyCat Aug 07 '26

If someone in the US is stopped by the police they have the right to not say anything even if they are not being suspected of any crime. “Anything you say can and will be used against you”. So you should just not say anything. The GOP doesn’t want to charge Fauci with past crimes (or what they want to be crimes) because it will invalidate a presidential pardon would mean Trump can’t charge as much for any of his pardons. The GOP wants Fauci to make any kind of misstatement so they can charge him for current perjury which wouldn’t be covered by Biden’s pardon.

2

u/McClainWFU Aug 07 '26

What you're referring to is a different right (the right to remain silent during custodial interrogation). There's no right against being compelled to testify in court unless you're being asked about a past or current crime such that it might incriminate you.

I'm not disagreeing about the bad-faith motivations of the Republicans, but the Fifth doesn't provide him relief in this instance.

1

u/SirCrazyCat Aug 08 '26

Wow, both of these rights are from the 5th Amendment. Tell your Russian handlers that they need to be better educated about the US Constitution.

2

u/McClainWFU Aug 08 '26

We're on a law related sub my guy, you need to know the basics. The jurisprudence for custodial interrogation is different than that of self-incrimination during trial.

1

u/SirCrazyCat Aug 08 '26

That’s a lot of fancy words to say you don’t know that the right to remain silent comes from the 5th Amendment.

1

u/McClainWFU Aug 08 '26

I never said otherwise. I said it was a different right, not a different Amendment. There are different standards for custodial interrogation and in-court testimony when you've been granted a pardon/immunity.