Jay Town writes for the Federalist about potential consequences of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s refusal to answer questions from Congress.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s appearance before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week quickly stalled when, in his opening statement, Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He was noticeably nervous, visibly shaking, and devoid of the arrogance he previously brought to congressional hearings.
The smug expression that accompanied Fauci in his public appearances was supplanted by a trembling stare. Earlier in the week, Fauci’s diary was released to the public, having inexplicably been found on a federal government server. …
… Ultimately, we learned nothing new at the hearing. But what persists is whether Fauci’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment was proper, especially given his pardon from President Biden. …
… This pardon covers all federal crimes related to his government service that may have been committed between January 1, 2014, and January 19, 2025 — the date of the auto-penned signature. This 11-year period spans nearly all federal statutes of limitations, to include false testimony to Congress (five years). So, was the Fauci Fifth contempt of Congress?
In Mason v. United States, the Supreme Court made it clear that pleading the Fifth is “confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” In Brown v. Walker, the high court further resolves that “the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable … not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it.”
With pardon in hand, is there a reasonable danger of federal prosecution for answering questions solely confined to his previous testimony?
The Supreme Court also cautions that self-incrimination refers to past activities only, not impending perjury or false statements resulting from the questions. Also, the Fauci Fifth is not legally appropriate just because truthful answers would “have the tendency to disgrace” him. In other words, even if Fauci’s answers might be embarrassing, he still must answer.
