InStyle

[1032004]

42 minutes ago, Caveira said:

He’s also covering for other people.   You know this.  We know this.  Everyone knows this.  But yet here we are 

Who is he covering for?

[1032004]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Also.  Looks like they want answers 

 

Senate Panel Votes to Hold Fauci in Contempt for Refusing to Answer Questions

Legal scrutiny mounts on the former top health official after he repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during a hearing about the pandemic response

By 

Sabrina Siddiqui

 and 

Liz Essley Whyte

Updated Aug. 6, 2026 at 10:56 am ET

They want “answers” just so they can try to charge him

[mspart]

5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

If they wanted actual answers and not just to try to catch him in the slightest contradiction to try to charge him with perjury, they’d have given him immunity for what he said.   Even Turley acknowledged this.

Yes, this is correct.   Turley also acknowledged that his pardon will probably protect him from any prosecution, but he does have the right to claim the 5th.   Turley also acknowledged that Fauci was under perjury concerns during his many other times before Congress yet he answered freely.   So Turley agrees that Fauci can use the 5th, understands prosecution will be extremely difficult to impossible, but that Fauci is being duplicitous in doing so now, and not before.  

The REASON is the diaries contradict what he was saying publicly and he does not  want to admit that.   But it is in the diaries for all to see.  

mspart

 

[1032004]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Yes, this is correct.   Turley also acknowledged that his pardon will probably protect him from any prosecution, but he does have the right to claim the 5th.   Turley also acknowledged that Fauci was under perjury concerns during his many other times before Congress yet he answered freely.   So Turley agrees that Fauci can use the 5th, understands prosecution will be extremely difficult to impossible, but that Fauci is being duplicitous in doing so now, and not before.  

The REASON is the diaries contradict what he was saying publicly and he does not  want to admit that.   But it is in the diaries for all to see.  

mspart

 

I really don’t think there is much contradiction.   Most of what I’ve seen people claim as contradictions were comparing statements from different times. 

The reason he’s pleading the fifth is because Rand Paul has went on a crusade against him and specifically said he wants to charge him (even before the diaries).

[Caveira]

17 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Who is he covering for?

You tell me lol.  However would one know bhahahahaha 

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

They want “answers” just so they can try to charge him

Because he committed crimes in all likelihood 

you know that’s what a pardon is for right ?

[Offthemat]

On 7/30/2026 at 5:18 PM, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/07/30/the-sound-of-silence-fauci-takes-the-fifth-amid-outrage-over-his-diary-disclosures/

Turley agrees that Fauci could use 5th amendment but is angry about the hypocritical  nature of Fauci during the pandemic.   Interesting read.   Obviously he wants answers as well.  

mspart

A Yale law professor takes a different tack on Fauci’s rights while citing Supreme Court precedent.  Lawyers apparently, astonishingly, disagree. 
 

Fauci’s Legal Defense Has a Fatal Flaw

By Jed Rubenfeld

The Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, led by GOP senator Rand Paul, voted Thursday morning to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at last week’s hearing. Many legal experts have argued that Fauci is in the clear. They’re wrong.

A subpoenaed witness commits contempt of Congress if he refuses to answer any pertinent question posed to him by a committee. That’s a criminal offense. If Congress refers a contempt finding to the Justice Department and a prosecution ensues, a conviction is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. Former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon served four months for contempt in 2022.

But a witness can avoid a conviction if he’s found to have validly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So the critical legal question is whether Fauci validly pleaded the Fifth. The answer seems to be no.

Fauci supposedly pleaded the Fifth because he and his lawyers believed the hearing was a “perjury trap”—an attempt by Senator Paul and other Republicans to coax Fauci into lying under oath about his record as the top federal virologist during the Covid pandemic. Perjury is a live risk for Fauci because his famous pardon, issued in January 2025 by President Joe Biden, does not absolve him of any crimes committed after that date.

 

---

According to Fauci’s defenders, Fauci’s exposure to a perjury charge gave him a right to refuse to testify at last week’s hearing. Fauci had “a constitutional right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,” as former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade put it last Wednesday, because “if he were to say something in his testimony today that was different from prior testimony, he could be prosecuted for perjury.”

But unfortunately for Fauci, and apparently unbeknownst to his lawyers, the law is clear: A witness is not allowed to plead the Fifth to avoid a perjury trap. As a federal appellate court stated 40 years ago, “A witness may not claim the privilege of the Fifth Amendment out of fear that he will be prosecuted for perjury for what he is about to say.” Or as the Supreme Court put it when dealing with a related issue in 1980, “anticipatory perjury” does not permit “invocation of the Fifth Amendment.”

So if Fauci’s best defense is the perjury trap, he’s out of luck—and is therefore guilty of contempt of Congress.

 

Fauci’s fallback defense is that he had a right to plead the Fifth because of the possibility of state prosecution. This is a stronger argument, but Fauci appears to have made a mistake last Wednesday that fatally undercuts it.

Because a presidential pardon does not cover state crimes, pardon recipients retain a Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions subjecting them to state prosecution. Although no state charges against Fauci have yet materialized, several states and state officials have threatened prosecution. Indeed, after Wednesday’s hearing, Florida attorney general James Uthmeier posted on X that he was launching an “investigation into Dr. Fauci” to “get the truth of what happened during Covid.”

But unlike a criminal defendant, a witness before Congress is not allowed to engage in a blanket refusal to testify. As numerous courts have held, a witness does not have a carte blanche right to refuse to answer all questions put to him. Instead, a witness’s right to plead the Fifth is question-specific. He can invoke the Fifth Amendment only when a truthful answer to a particular question could subject him to criminal liability.

Fauci did not do that. He refused to say what color tie he was wearing. He refused to say what color the floor was. As far back as 1971, federal appellate courts have upheld contempt convictions (with prison sentences) when a witness simply refused to answer all questions, including “questions the answers to which in no way could have incriminated him.”

 

The question-by-question requirement for pleading the Fifth makes good sense, especially in the context of a claim that Fauci could refuse to testify because of a fear of state prosecution. In principle, narrow questions could have been put to Fauci that would have shed tremendous light on the federal government’s handling of Covid without subjecting Fauci to any plausible state criminal liability. He had no right to refuse to answer every question—only those that could have incriminated him under state law. Thus his “carte blanche” refusal to answer all questions very likely makes him guilty of contempt; however, real his fears of state prosecution may have been.

Finally, some have argued that Fauci is in the clear because the full Senate would have to hold him in contempt, and due to the filibuster rule, that would take a vote of 60 Senators, the odds of which are zero.

But the contempt statute does not say anything about a full vote of the Senate. Under the statute, the relevant committee must first issue a report that a witness was in contempt. Although the standard congressional practice is to hold a vote of the entire chamber, the statute is clear—and courts have held—that if the Senate is not in session, the president of the Senate can on his own refer charges if he believes the committee report shows that the witness was indeed in contempt.

The Senate may begin its August recess on Friday, and under the Constitution the Senate’s president is Vice President J.D. Vance. That means that once Paul’s committee issues its report, Vance (or perhaps Republican senator Chuck Grassley, acting as the Senate’s president pro tempore) would have the power to refer contempt charges against the doctor next week.

https://www.thefp.com/p/fauci-fifth-amendment-legal-defense?utm_campaign=realclearpolitics

 

Edited August 7 by Offthemat

[mspart]

That was an interesting read. 

mspart

 

[Offthemat]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

That was an interesting read. 

mspart

 

I guess there’s what’s right, wrong, and what the court says.  It just doesn’t seem right that he could legally escape all accountability for his actions.  That he can’t be prosecuted for creating the virus and can’t be forced to answer for what he did, either. 

[1032004]

Just now, Offthemat said:

I guess there’s what’s right, wrong, and what the court says.  It just doesn’t seem right that he could legally escape all accountability for his actions.  That he can’t be prosecuted for creating the virus and can’t be forced to answer for what he did, either. 

You think he created the virus lolololol

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You think he created the virus lolololol

Just paid for it from afar.  Lied where it came from.  Covered it up with 6 feet and all that nonsense.  Got people fired for no mask / no jab.   Ruined funerals for people.  Ruined schools and learning for kids.    Ran small businesses out of town etc.  

 

he’s a saint though.  Maybe 

[1032004]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Just paid for it from afar.  Lied where it came from.  Covered it up with 6 feet and all that nonsense.  Got people fired for no mask / no jab.   Ruined funerals for people.  Ruined schools and learning for kids.    Ran small businesses out of town etc.  

 

he’s a saint though.  Maybe 

He never said it didn’t leak from the lab.    In the grand scheme of things, the funding from the NIH that made it to the WIV probably wasn’t a huge portion of their budget, they were still going to be doing the same stuff regardless.   And of course just because funding from the NIH made it to the WIV doesn’t mean that specific research is what resulted in Covid.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

He never said it didn’t leak from the lab.    In the grand scheme of things, the funding from the NIH that made it to the WIV probably wasn’t a huge portion of their budget, they were still going to be doing the same stuff regardless.   And of course just because funding from the NIH made it to the WIV doesn’t mean that specific research is what resulted in Covid.

Aaaah.  I probably only paid for a little  of this horrible / bad idea so I’m less culpable lol.  

[Caveira]

…… so he knew there were problems with the  vaccine but had people get 40 jabs anyhow because freedom…  and they said there are lots more to come.   But they don’t want the truth 103fauci2024

In January 2021, Fauci privately text-messaged, "Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose. this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester." 

[1032004]

16 hours ago, Caveira said:

…… so he knew there were problems with the  vaccine but had people get 40 jabs anyhow because freedom…  and they said there are lots more to come.   But they don’t want the truth 103fauci2024

In January 2021, Fauci privately text-messaged, "Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose. this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester." 

You might want to look up the definition of the word “theoretically.”

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You might want to look up the definition of the word “theoretically.”

So faucci admitted in private that people could have strong adverse reactions to the vaccine.

did he warn us about that or nah?   Or did he gave us get 50 boosters and lose our jobs if we didn’t ?

Edited August 11 by Caveira

[1032004]

15 minutes ago, Caveira said:

So faucci admitted in private that people could have strong adverse reactions to the vaccine.

did he warn us about that or nah?  

Yes, he did.  Publicly.   

[Offthemat]

Fauci downplayed it.  He tried to say miscarriages happened to 124 out of over 800 women, which, in itself, would be an alarming rate, when in fact it was 124 out of 127 women who were in their first trimester who had miscarriages.  That’s criminal. 

[1032004]

17 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Fauci downplayed it.  He tried to say miscarriages happened to 124 out of over 800 women, which, in itself, would be an alarming rate, when in fact it was 124 out of 127 women who were in their first trimester who had miscarriages.  That’s criminal. 

Another lie from you, what a surprise.  Numerous data sources found no link between the vax and increased risk of miscarriage.

[Offthemat]

Something about you indicates your family tree resembles a topped pine. 

[1032004]

17 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Something about you indicates your family tree resembles a topped pine. 

The numbers you cited were blatantly misrepresented, hopefully you’re aware of that.

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Something about you indicates your family tree resembles a topped pine. 

He’s only 21 years old and it definitely shows. 

[Offthemat]

14 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

He’s only 21 years old and it definitely shows. 

Too stoopid to realize the information is coming from Fauci’s own phone, not from deep state approved public releases. 

[1032004]

13 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Too stoopid to realize the information is coming from Fauci’s own phone, not from deep state approved public releases. 

I’m talking about your claim about 124/127 miscarriages, liar.  Guess we should chalk you up as another one that might want to look up the definition of “theoretical.”

[Offthemat]

That information came from the investigation by the Homeland Security Committee,  based on Fauci's phone,  reported by Sen. Ron Johnson.