Following testimony before Congress in which Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden’s key activist to push social distancing, masks and dangerous shots on the American public during the COVID-19 pandemic, refused to answer questions more than 100 times, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is following up on his promise to pursue contempt charges.
He’s scheduled a vote on Thursday.
HSGAC is voting on Thursday to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt.
Despite having a pardon from President Biden spanning more than a decade, Fauci refused to answer a single question, even though he knew he couldn’t be charged for crimes during that period. https://t.co/YbxZuCb7Ls
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 4, 2026
He said, “Despite having a pardon from President Biden spanning more than a decade, Fauci refused to answer a single question, even though he knew he couldn’t be charged for crimes during that period.”
A Fox News report said the charges are that Fauci refused to answer questions despite being under subpoena.
The senator explains Fauci’s Fifth Amendment protections no longer applied because of his presidential pardon and that Fauci also waived any remaining privilege by delivering opening testimony. Fauci refused to answer anyway, which Paul says amounts to obstruction of a congressional investigation.
It was Jay Town, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, who explained in a analysis at the Federalist that nothing new was learned at the hearing, but the Supreme Court has made it clear “that pleading the Fifth is ‘confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.’”
He added, ‘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.”
He wrote, “Relevant here is that in Fauci’s opening statement he mentioned his ‘decades-long cooperation with Congress’ before invoking the Fifth Amendment, which is an oblique defense of his previous testimony. Courts have held that such an invocation may have waived or forfeited Fauci’s right to assert the Fifth Amendment altogether.”
Actually, the analysis contends, Fauci “had a legal obligation to answer those questions covering his activities at NIAID during the covered pardon period. When Fauci refused, this could constitute criminal contempt. We saw former Trump administration officials prosecuted successfully under the same legal theory during the Biden administration.”
It may even have gone further, the analysis confirmed: “The Supreme Court in Wilson v. United States opined there is no authority for any person or body to force the acceptance of a pardon by anyone but the recipient, and it must be affirmatively asserted. The Supreme Court case of Burdick v. United States had very similar facts to Fauci’s predicament. There, George Burdick was an editor at the New York Tribune. He was issued a pardon by President Woodrow Wilson for any federal offenses he may have committed in connection with the publication of an article regarding alleged fraud. Burdick had not been charged with a crime and no criminal investigation into Burdick had begun. Despite the preemptive pardon, Burdick refused to testify before a grand jury, instead asserting his Fifth Amendment right not to provide testimony that would tend to incriminate him. Burdick never affirmatively asserted or declared his pardon. The Supreme Court concluded that ‘it was Burdick’s right to refuse [the pardon]’ and stand on his Fifth Amendment objection. In other words, if you plead the Fifth, you abandon or otherwise refuse your pardon.”
He said, “If Fauci refused or abandoned his pardon by invoking his right against self-incrimination, then activities covered in the pardon period may again be ripe for prosecution. His diary will be Exhibit A. The legal reality is that Fauci cannot have both the prophylaxis of a pardon and the Fifth Amendment for questioning specifically related to his prior congressional testimony during the covered period.”
