Anthony Fauci rolled into his Senate hearing like a guy showing up to divorce court with three attorneys, a bodyguard, and a pre-written speech about what a great husband he was. He read his prepared remarks defending his pandemic legacy, then proceeded to invoke the Fifth Amendment a whopping 111 times when anyone tried asking follow-up questions. That is not a typo. One hundred and eleven times. According to USA Journal, his strategy was basically: say your piece, hide behind Biden's pardon, and stroll out like nothing happened.
Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, looked at that plan and said absolutely not. On Tuesday, Paul announced he is pushing forward with a contempt of Congress resolution against Fauci, with a committee vote scheduled for Thursday morning, conveniently one day before the Senate skips town for recess. Nothing like a deadline to keep things spicy.
Here is where the legal argument gets genuinely interesting, even for people who normally fall asleep during C-SPAN. Biden's pardon covers Fauci's previous conduct. A pardon eliminates criminal jeopardy. If criminal jeopardy no longer exists, you cannot claim Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. That is not just Paul's argument either. Ryan Goodman, who served as Pentagon counsel under Obama, went on CNN and acknowledged the legal reasoning was sound. When both sides of the political aisle agree on a legal point, maybe pay attention.
Paul actually warned Fauci during the hearing itself. He made the ruling from the chair. He ordered Fauci to respond. Fauci declined anyway, 111 separate times, which takes a certain kind of commitment.
The situation gets even messier because Fauci voluntarily talked about gain-of-function research, COVID origins, and his public statements in that opening speech. Legal experts, including Paul, argue that by putting his version of those events on the official record, he gave up any remaining Fifth Amendment privilege on those exact topics. You cannot tell your side of the story and then refuse cross-examination about it. That is literally what IRS official Lois Lerner tried during the Tea Party targeting investigation, and it set the precedent being cited right now.
Fauci's legal team apparently decided that absorbing the PR hit of 111 Fifth Amendment invocations was preferable to answering questions freely. That calculation only adds up if the pardon has holes, like Florida's open state investigation, potential perjury exposure for post-pardon statements, conduct falling outside the pardon's scope, or the autopen validity question that Trump himself raised publicly. Someone who genuinely has nothing to worry about does not plead the Fifth 111 times. That person answers the questions and goes home for dinner.
The Thursday vote sends any contempt resolution over to the DOJ for prosecution. Peter Navarro served prison time for contempt of Congress. Steve Bannon did the same. Whether this resolution ultimately leads somewhere depends on incoming decisions at the Justice Department, but one thing is clear: Rand Paul is not letting this one slide quietly into a filing cabinet.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
