Rand Paul Threatens Contempt Vote After Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment/ TezzBuzz/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Sen. Rand Paul scheduled an Aug. 5 committee vote on holding Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress after the former health official invoked the Fifth Amendment. Republicans argue that Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon weakens Fauci’s claim that his testimony could expose him to prosecution. Legal complications remain because the pardon may not cover state charges or any allegedly false statements made during new congressional testimony.
Quick Look
- Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment at Wednesday’s Senate hearing.
- Paul warned that Fauci would face consequences for refusing to answer.
- A committee contempt vote is scheduled for Aug. 5.
- Biden pardoned Fauci for federal offenses connected to official conduct from 2014 through 2025.
- Republicans argue that the pardon reduces Fauci’s risk of federal prosecution.
- Fauci could still theoretically face state or local charges.
- A pardon would not protect him from prosecution for new false statements.
- The Senate could consider civil, criminal or inherent contempt.
- Inherent contempt has not been used for nearly a century.
- Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon served prison sentences for contempt of Congress.
- Their cases differed because they refused to appear and relied on executive privilege.
- Capitol Police removed Fauci’s attorney from the hearing room.
- Fauci said he believed Paul was attempting to entrap him.
- Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not establish guilt.
Deep Look
Paul threatens consequences after Fauci takes Fifth
WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul said Anthony Fauci could face congressional consequences after the former federal health official repeatedly invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination during a Senate hearing Wednesday.
Paul, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, scheduled an Aug. 5 vote on a resolution holding Fauci in contempt of Congress.
“It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions for your refusal to testify,” Paul told Fauci.
The confrontation creates an unusual legal dispute involving the Fifth Amendment, congressional contempt authority and the broad preemptive pardon former President Joe Biden granted Fauci last year.
Fifth Amendment usually protects witnesses
The Fifth Amendment permits individuals to decline to provide testimony when they reasonably believe their answers could expose them to criminal prosecution.
Congressional witnesses have frequently invoked that protection without being punished for refusing to answer potentially incriminating questions.
A valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment generally prevents Congress from forcing a witness to provide the requested testimony unless immunity eliminates the risk of prosecution.
Fauci’s situation is more complicated because Biden pardoned him for potential federal offenses arising from his official conduct between 2014 and 2025.
Republicans contend that Fauci cannot reasonably fear federal prosecution over conduct covered by the pardon and therefore cannot rely on the Fifth Amendment to avoid questions about that period.
Biden pardon may not eliminate every risk
The pardon’s existence does not necessarily remove all possible criminal exposure.
A presidential pardon applies only to federal offenses. It does not prevent state or local authorities from bringing charges under their own laws.
It also would not cover crimes allegedly committed after the pardon’s time frame, including any new false statements made to Congress.
Fauci’s attorneys therefore could argue that answering questions still carries some risk of prosecution, depending on the subjects raised and how prosecutors might use his testimony.
Whether that possibility provides a legally sufficient basis for his broad refusal to answer could eventually require a court ruling.
Fauci says Paul seeks perjury allegation
Fauci said he believed Paul’s goal was to provoke testimony that could lead to accusations that he lied to Congress.
The longtime government scientist and former leader of the national pandemic response said Paul had repeatedly called for his prosecution.
Fauci argued that the hearing was designed to entrap him rather than conduct a legitimate investigation into federal pandemic policies or the origins of COVID-19.
“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” he said repeatedly during questioning.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional act and does not itself prove that a witness committed a crime.
Fauci accuses Paul of intimidation
In his opening statement, Fauci directly criticized Paul’s conduct leading up to the hearing.
He cited Paul’s “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me.”
Paul had released entries from Fauci’s pandemic-era diary while accusing him of misleading the public and concealing information about COVID-19’s possible origins.
Fauci denied those allegations and declined to provide substantive answers about them during the hearing.
Senate has multiple contempt options
Congress has several possible mechanisms for pursuing witnesses who refuse to cooperate.
The Senate could seek civil contempt sanctions by asking a court to order Fauci to answer the committee’s questions.
If a judge ruled against Fauci and issued such an order, continued refusal could expose him to judicial fines or confinement.
Civil litigation could take months or years, particularly because Fauci’s attorneys would likely argue that his constitutional rights protect his refusal.
A prolonged court case could diminish the practical value of obtaining testimony for the committee’s current investigation.
Criminal contempt requires Justice Department
The Senate could also approve a criminal contempt referral and send the matter to the Justice Department.
Federal prosecutors would then decide whether to pursue the case.
A committee vote alone would not convict Fauci or automatically result in criminal charges.
Prosecutors would have to evaluate whether his Fifth Amendment claim was valid and whether his conduct met the requirements for willful contempt of Congress.
The involvement of the Trump administration’s Justice Department could add a political dimension because Paul and other Republicans have publicly advocated prosecuting Fauci.
Inherent contempt rarely used
The Senate theoretically possesses a third mechanism known as inherent contempt.
Under that authority, the chamber could direct its sergeant-at-arms to detain a witness who refuses to comply with its demands.
Congress has not used that power in nearly a century, making its revival legally and politically extraordinary.
Modern congressional investigations have generally relied on civil lawsuits or referrals to the Justice Department instead of direct detention.
Paul did not specify Wednesday which contempt mechanism he ultimately intends to pursue.
Navarro and Bannon cases differ
Two former Trump White House aides, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, were convicted of misdemeanor contempt charges after refusing to cooperate with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Each served four months in prison.
Their circumstances were different from Fauci’s.
Navarro and Bannon refused to appear for their depositions and relied on claims of executive privilege rather than invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to individual questions.
Fauci appeared before the Senate committee, was sworn in and repeatedly asserted a specific constitutional protection.
Those distinctions could affect whether prosecutors or courts view his conduct as criminal contempt.
Fauci’s attorney removed from hearing
After Paul warned Fauci about possible consequences, attorney David Schertler attempted to address the committee and argue that the Constitution protected his client.
Paul directed security officers to remove Schertler from the room.
“It was outrageous for Sen. Paul to exclude his counsel for counsel making a legitimate legal point,” Schertler said in a statement. “It proves the baseless and vindictive nature of this proceeding and Rand Paul’s personal vendetta against Dr. Fauci.”
Images from the hearing showed U.S. Capitol Police escorting Schertler from the room while Fauci remained at the witness table.
Reliance on legal advice may offer limited defense
Fauci, 85, could face another legal complication if a court eventually rejects his Fifth Amendment claim.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in 1961 that defendants accused of willfully defying Congress cannot necessarily escape liability by arguing that they relied on their attorneys’ advice.
That principle could limit Fauci’s ability to use an advice-of-counsel defense if the Justice Department ultimately charged him with contempt.
Some federal judges have recently questioned the reasoning behind the decades-old decision.
The appeals court, however, has so far declined to reconsider its precedent.
Paul questions Fauci about pandemic response
During the hearing, Paul accused Fauci of concealing information about COVID-19’s origins.
The senator supports the theory that the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese laboratory that received funding connected to American research grants.
Paul also criticized Fauci over pandemic-era restrictions, including the closing of schools and churches.
Fauci declined to answer the questions, relying on the same Fifth Amendment statement each time.
The hearing did not produce new testimony resolving disputes about the pandemic’s origins or Fauci’s role in federal research decisions.
Previous congressional witnesses invoked Fifth
Numerous witnesses in recent high-profile congressional investigations have invoked the Fifth Amendment.
They include Biden’s former physician and several people called by the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack.
Those assertions effectively prevented the committee from compelling testimony because court challenges would likely have lasted far beyond the investigation itself.
Paul’s committee could encounter the same practical barrier if it attempts to force Fauci to testify through civil litigation.
The Senate’s next step will begin with the scheduled Aug. 5 committee vote.
Paul said he would examine “appropriate actions” for continuing the case against Fauci, but the legal validity of the former health official’s Fifth Amendment claim remains unresolved.
More on US News
Comments are closed.