InStyle

[mspart]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Pleading the fifth for what you have been pardoned for is enough 

My understanding is that once you say something of substance, you can no longer plead the 5th.   This was discussed during a plead the 5th moment a few years ago.  

mspart

[mspart]

He was in style but sitting in a very austere chair. 

mspart

[JimmySpeaks]

Tell me you’re guilty without actually saying you’re guilty.  Fauci looks like he wants to vomit   110% should be locked up.  

[JimmySpeaks]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

My understanding is that once you say something of substance, you can no longer plead the 5th.   This was discussed during a plead the 5th moment a few years ago.  

mspart

Is lying considered something of substance? 

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Tell me you’re guilty without actually saying you’re guilty.  Fauci looks like he wants to vomit   110% should be locked up.  

Probably because he wants to answer the questions but his lawyer told him not to, which is the correct choice given what we’ve seen with the weaponization of the DOJ.

[mspart]

 

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Is lying considered something of substance? 

If you answer a question under oath with anything of substance like 'Yes Senator, the floor is yellow' you have blown your position of pleading the 5th.   Makes no sense to me.   I would think it would have to do with anything about the investigation, not the color of the carpet or whatever.   I don't remember who did this but that is what they were trying to do to Fauci and he pleaded the 5th on the carpet color question.   Because if he says what color he sees, he is testifying and waived his 5th amendment right.   That's a ticky tack thing that I don't understand, but it happened some time ago I remember.  

mspart

[1032004]

22 minutes ago, mspart said:

Fauci is a bad guy.   He lied to the public numerous times and paid no penalty for it.   6 feet apart is science.   Well really they just thought it up.   Covid shot will prevent you from getting covid.   People got the shot and got covid.   Covid shot will prevent you from being a carrier.   People got the shot and were carriers.  

You can say, well we didn't know what we didn't know at that time.   Well then, you don't say something absurd with the authority of being the top virologist in the country when you don't know.   

mspart

The “he said you won’t get Covid if you get the shot!” claim is so disingenuous.   Other people said that, I think Fauci said it once, he said probably hundreds of times that it was “95% effective”

[JimmySpeaks]

15 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Probably because he wants to answer the questions but his lawyer told him not to, which is the correct choice given what we’ve seen with the weaponization of the DOJ.

Ya I know. Biden sure opened a can of worms with his failed witch hunt.  

[mspart]

12 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The “he said you won’t get Covid if you get the shot!” claim is so disingenuous.   Other people said that, I think Fauci said it once, he said probably hundreds of times that it was “95% effective”

His word was understood that it WILL protect you.   He was the man of science, he was science.   When science says this, it must be believed.   And he said that.  

mspart

[Caveira]

19 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The “he said you won’t get Covid if you get the shot!” claim is so disingenuous.   Other people said that, I think Fauci said it once, he said probably hundreds of times that it was “95% effective”

The strongest authority is from the Supreme Court and the Constitution Annotated published by Congress itself.

Supreme Court – Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896)

The Court stated:

"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."

[JimmySpeaks]

24 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The “he said you won’t get Covid if you get the shot!” claim is so disingenuous.   Other people said that, I think Fauci said it once, he said probably hundreds of times that it was “95% effective”

You think Fauci said it once?  Well then it must be a fact.  

[1032004]

16 minutes ago, Caveira said:

The strongest authority is from the Supreme Court and the Constitution Annotated published by Congress itself.

Supreme Court – Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896)

The Court stated:

"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."

IANAL but seems irrelevant to this case since Paul has already explicitly stated he wants to prosecute Fauci, even after the pardon.

 

The Court’s reasoning was that the Constitution protected a person from being criminally prosecuted based on compelled testimony, but Congress could replace that protection with a grant of immunity that prevented prosecution for the matters disclosed. Because Brown had that immunity, the Court said he could not refuse to testify on self-incrimination grounds.

[mspart]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The Court’s reasoning was that the Constitution protected a person from being criminally prosecuted based on compelled testimony, but Congress could replace that protection with a grant of immunity that prevented prosecution for the matters disclosed. Because Brown had that immunity, the Court said he could not refuse to testify on self-incrimination grounds.

yes, with Congressional immunity this is true.   Fauci is pardoned for stuff he did.   Not for any perjury he commits now.   I don't think his pardon says he cannot be prosecuted if he kills someone in the future or sets a building on fire in the future.  

mspart

[1032004]

19 minutes ago, mspart said:

yes, with Congressional immunity this is true.   Fauci is pardoned for stuff he did.   Not for any perjury he commits now.   I don't think his pardon says he cannot be prosecuted if he kills someone in the future or sets a building on fire in the future.  

mspart

Sure, but that ruling says it was based on “prosecution for the matters disclosed.”   I’m sure his legal team thinks “the matters disclosed” can include literally what he says.  Paul has explicitly stated he still wants to prosecute Fauci despite the pardon, so there is credible reason to believe the admin will try to prosecute him for perjury based on the scantest of evidence.   They literally indicted a guy for taking a picture of seashells, so I hope no one tries to say “yeah but he won’t be prosecuted if he tells the truth!”

Edited July 29 by 1032004

[JimmySpeaks]

Why couldn’t an individual state charge/prosecute him?  Has to be 25-30 that would be interested. 

Edited July 29 by JimmySpeaks

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Why couldn’t an individual state charge him?  Has to be 25-30 that would be interested. 

Probably a good indication he didn’t commit a crime

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Probably a good indication he didn’t commit a crime

It’s a good indication he was pardoned federally which means nothing at the state level.    

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Probably a good indication he didn’t commit a crime

So when NY hit trump with 34 charges it was a good indicator he didn’t commit a crime.  Got it.  

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It’s a good indication he was pardoned federally which means nothing at the state level.    

Cool, so why hasn’t a state charged him?

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Cool, so why hasn’t a state charged him?

Now that the diary is out there they probably will.  Cool huh? 

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Now that the diary is out there they probably will.  Cool huh? 

Ok now we’re getting somewhere.  What’s new in the diary that gives a state a reason to prosecute him?

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Ok now we’re getting somewhere.  What’s new in the diary that gives a state a reason to prosecute him?

Let’s go in chronological order. Why was there a need to pardon him?  And why was there a need to take the fifth today?   No guilt no reason to.  

Edited July 29 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

16 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

So when NY hit trump with 34 charges it was a good indicator he didn’t commit a crime.  Got it.  

Oi812 you skipped this one. Why?  

[1032004]

20 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

So when NY hit trump with 34 charges it was a good indicator he didn’t commit a crime.  Got it.  

Thanks for proving your stupidity.  No state has charged Fauci.  That indicates they don’t think they could actually convict him of anything 

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Let’s go in chronological order. Why was there a need to pardon him?  And why was there a need to take the fifth today?   No guilt no reason to.  

Already addressed, and I even predicted what you’d say before you said it.  lol at you still saying it though, kudos.  The clear and obvious weaponization of the DOJ is why is he was pardoned.  You can argue that Biden started it if you’d like, that doesn’t change the clear and obvious fact that it is currently being weaponized.

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Probably because he wants to answer the questions but his lawyer told him not to, which is the correct choice given what we’ve seen with the weaponization of the DOJ.

 

37 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Sure, but that ruling says it was based on “prosecution for the matters disclosed.”   I’m sure his legal team thinks “the matters disclosed” can include literally what he says.  Paul has explicitly stated he still wants to prosecute Fauci despite the pardon, so there is credible reason to believe the admin will try to prosecute him for perjury based on the scantest of evidence.   They literally indicted a guy for taking a picture of seashells, so I hope no one tries to say “yeah but he won’t be prosecuted if he tells the truth!”