As a microbiologist and infectious disease clinician, it has been tough to watch the recent devolution of public discourse on Covid-19 origins. It has been especially difficult for me to read the comments of Anthony Fauci about the origins debate in his now-public diary. And it has been painful to watch the televised spectacle hosted by the US senator Rand Paul on 29 July involving a hostile interrogation of Fauci.

Despite many early pleas, including my own, for a dispassionate, objective assessment of what we know, don’t know and need to know about Covid-19 origins, we seem to be even further from this goal now than we have ever been – plagued by politicization, polarization and illogical thinking.

David Relman is a professor of medicine and microbiology at Stanford University. He was an inaugural member of the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Continue reading…

An attorney for Fauci rejected the request from Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, arguing that compelling Fauci to testify again after his contentious July 29 Senate hearing would “impermissibly harass or degrade Dr. Fauci for political purposes.”

Johnson has been conducting a parallel investigation into Fauci and the federal government’s response to COVID-19, including the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

SEN RON JOHNSON TALKS FAUCI EMAILS, NEW SENATE FILIBUSTER STRATEGY ON ‘RUTHLESS’

The refusal comes after Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted along party lines last week to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times during the July hearing.

Committee chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., has sought to send the contempt referral directly to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, bypassing a full Senate vote.

“It’s a good legal discussion, and we will make those legal points to DOJ in sending the referral over,” Paul told Fox News Digital ahead of last week’s contempt vote.

At issue is whether Fauci can invoke the Fifth Amendment after former President Joe Biden issued him a preemptive pardon before leaving office.

CAN FAUCI HIDE BEHIND THE FIFTH? GAME-CHANGING BIDEN PARDON MAY NOT PROVIDE COMPLETE COVER, EXPERTS SAY

Paul has argued that Biden’s pardon removed Fauci’s risk of federal prosecution and therefore undermined his basis for refusing to answer lawmakers’ questions. Fauci and his attorneys have disputed that position.

Paul has spent years investigating Fauci’s role in the government’s response to COVID-19 and has accused the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director of funding “risky” research that led to an alleged lab leak of the COVID-19 virus in China. Paul has repeatedly called for Fauci to be prosecuted.

Johnson’s subcommittee has separately obtained records related to Fauci and the government’s pandemic response. Fox News Digital previously confirmed that the Department of Health and Human Services sent the subcommittee a copy of Fauci’s pandemic-era cellphone.

The broader Homeland Security panel also received more than 1,000 pages of Fauci’s personal diary before his July hearing.

Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson’s office to ask whether he intends to subpoena Fauci following the refusal. Fox News Digital also sought reaction from Paul’s office and asked Fauci attorney David Schertler whether Fauci would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

Source: YouTube

Summary

'SICKENING': Fauci BLASTED over released texts

Why It Matters

This video provides visual context for the story and helps readers quickly understand the key development from the original source.

Watch Original Video

Uthmeier said Florida investigators plan to use “every tool under Florida law” as they examine whether Fauci engaged in any self-dealing or profited from COVID-era policies.

FAUCI HELD IN CONTEMPT AS COVID CELLPHONE LANDS IN HANDS OF SENATE INVESTIGATORS

Asked whether he believes Fauci committed a crime, the attorney general said, “I can’t say that right now.”

“We follow rules of procedure and evidence. I mean, I could say generally, I think what he did to the American people was horrific. People died because of him. People got hurt because of him. People couldn’t be there for the birth of their first child or the loss of a loved one because of him,” he added.

“If he is making money on the side while perpetrating this fraud, there could very well be criminal liability,” he said. “But we’re going to start with civil, criminal, everything from public nuisance to deceptive trade, to fraud. We’re going to look at every aspect of Florida law and do everything in our power to seek truth and accountability.”

Uthmeier’s investigation is ongoing. Criminal wrongdoing has not been established at this time.

Former President Joe Biden issued Fauci, who served as the principal architect for the government’s COVID-19 guidelines, a full and unconditional pardon for all actions taken between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 19, 2025. This pardon does not protect Fauci from prosecution under state law, however.

Uthmeier’s comments follow Fauci’s congressional hearing, during which he declined to answer questions, instead invoking the Fifth Amendment, more than 100 times.

CAN FAUCI HIDE BEHIND THE FIFTH? GAME-CHANGING BIDEN PARDON MAY NOT PROVIDE COMPLETE COVER, EXPERTS SAY

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted on sharp party lines to charge the former chief medical advisor to the president with contempt after he refused to answer questions from both sides of the aisle over fear of self-incrimination.

“I don’t know why you need a pardon if you didn’t do anything wrong,” Uthmeier said.

“Dr. Fauci clearly doesn’t want to answer questions, but the American people still have a lot of questions, especially Floridians.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Dr. Fauci but did not immediately receive a response. 

Source: YouTube

Summary

Fauci hit with MULTIPLE subpoenas

Why It Matters

This video provides visual context for the story and helps readers quickly understand the key development from the original source.

Watch Original Video

It sounds bad. And it usually is.

But what does it mean?

Holding someone in contempt of Congress usually stems from them refusing to testify before a House or Senate committee or declining to provide documents and information requested by lawmakers. Especially if someone rejects an inquest by subpoena. 

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: WHY FAUCI’S 111 FIFTH AMENDMENT PLEAS COULD END UP BEFORE THE COURTS

You refuse to cough up the goods, and Congress may try to hold you in contempt.

And if you’re held in contempt, lawmakers may send a referral to the Justice Department. That’s kind of a parliamentary suggestion box, informing the feds that House Members or senators believe you’ve earned prosecution. 

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted recently to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at a hearing. The panel issued a subpoena to compel Fauci’s compliance. Republican senators say that’s all the more reason why Fauci should testify. They point to his pardon by then-President Joe Biden. That’s why they believe Fauci was obligated to answer their inquiries. Instead, he invoked the Fifth Amendment.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” said Fauci.

Twenty-one words. Uttered an astounding 111 times. That’s a grand total of 2,331 words. Fauci never deviated from the script.

WATCH: GOP SPLIT OVER RAND PAUL’S DOJ STRATEGY IN FAUCI CONTEMPT PUSH

Democrats say it was a Republican ruse.

“The goal was to wait for Dr. Fauci to make any kind of misstatement and then have a weaponized Department of Justice file criminal charges for that new statement that would not have been covered by the pardon,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.

So the panel took action. It voted 8-5 to hold Fauci in contempt. A party line vote.

“I’ve never voted to hold somebody in contempt. But if there’s one person that should be held in contempt, it is Anthony Fauci,” said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

He warned that the GOP gambit is dangerous.

“Criminal contempt is punitive. It does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we’d all like to see. What we’ll do is create a damaging precedent that future witnesses will use to resist legitimate Congressional oversight and weaken this committee’s ability to compel testimony.”

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., was unbowed.

“We will hand carry this over to the Attorney General. We will hand carry this to the district court here in (the District of) Columbia,” said Paul.

Even though at the time, the DOJ only had an acting Attorney General.

FAUCI’S NEWLY RELEASED COVID DIARIES REVEAL BIZARRE FIXATION ON FAME AS PANDEMIC DEATHS MOUNTED

However, Paul was freelancing. He ignored the custom of the entire Senate voting to refer someone to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Kentucky Republican himself previously sent other, unilateral referrals to the DoJ asking for Fauci’s prosecution. But those efforts never even went through committee. Fox can’t locate any precedent for such an independent maneuver. Especially circumventing the Senate floor.

Republicans control the Senate. It’s unclear whether there would be 51 votes to hold Fauci in contempt. But there is almost no scenario where the Senate could find 60 votes to break a filibuster on a contempt of Congress resolution of this nature. 

This is why Democrats argued that Paul is out of line.

“No individual center senator and no committee speaks for the entire Senate as a whole,” fumed Peters. “The chairman has also suggested he may attempt to refer this matter to the Department of Justice without approval of the full Senate. That would be even more dangerous and widely unprecedented.”

The DOJ says it “seriously reviews all Congressional referrals.” But Democrats believe the GOP’s disregard for Fauci invoking the Fifth could undermine any prosecution.

“It is almost certainly never going to be approved by a court because it violates basic constitutional rights,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

In a statement, Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, accused Paul of trying to “weaponize the Justice Department” against his client. Democrats asserted that before Fauci’s hearing, Republicans cut them out of their inquiry.

“We have been excluded from witness interviews,” said Peters.

FAUCI HELD IN CONTEMPT AS COVID CELLPHONE LANDS IN HANDS OF SENATE INVESTIGATORS

But Republicans say Democrats showed no interest in their findings and revelations.

“They have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join,” said Paul. “You never even asked for the password.”

However, the Republican inquiry is just starting. Another Senate panel has now obtained a copy of the Health and Human Services phone Fauci used during the pandemic.

“It’s frustrating we haven’t gotten these devices until now. But now we have them,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on Fox.

Johnson says decrypting that phone could answer questions which Fauci refused to address during the hearing.

Two interesting developments emerged since Fauci testified in late July. First, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeannine Pirro dropped her prosecution of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly vandalizing the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. President Donald Trump then upbraided Pirro.

Does this mean that Pirro is doing things by the book? Would that diminish chances for prosecution of Fauci? Or, since Pirro enraged the president, could she redeem herself by prosecuting Fauci? After all, Trump said he wanted Fauci prosecuted.

However, the ultimate decision to prosecute is up to the new Attorney General, Todd Blanche. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, vowed to oppose Fauci. With former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., out, the GOP couldn’t lose any more votes without tanking the nomination. It boiled down to Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. – who was undecided. Cassidy announced Friday morning he would vote yea on Blanche.

“I am particularly concerned about episodes of apparent lawfare. DoJ bringing suits against political enemies. Presidents of both parties have been guilty of this. It must stop. It should stop now. A never-ending cycle of prosecuting political enemies undermines the rule of law,” said Cassidy. “I’m not entirely satisfied where where this is.”

But Cassidy said he was comfortable enough to confirm Blanche.

Democrats will say any prosecution of Fauci is emblematic of the very weaponization which Cassidy fretted about. And this could be a special test case for the new Attorney General.

Several factors suggest Fauci’s invocation was improper. Two are critical.

The first is Fauci’s pardon. Prior to leaving office, Joe Biden issued a blanket pardon to Fauci for any federal crimes he might have committed “from January 1, 2014, through [January 19, 2025] arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”

CAN FAUCI HIDE BEHIND THE FIFTH? GAME-CHANGING BIDEN PARDON MAY NOT PROVIDE COMPLETE COVER, EXPERTS SAY

The second is time: Fauci retired in 2022, making it unlikely that any state crime he might have committed would fall within the applicable statute of limitations, assuming any state could credibly claim that he committed a crime or that venue was proper in that state. In Hoffman v. United States (1951), the Supreme Court said the privilege against self-incrimination protects against real dangers, not remote or speculative possibilities.

Two other things are clear. First, a witness can refuse to answer questions that might implicate him in a crime, not to avoid embarrassment. The Fifth Amendment is available only to avoid criminal exposure, not public ridicule. Prior to the hearing, Sen. Paul released over 1,000 pages from Fauci’s diary in which he chronicled fawning media stories about him as well as conversations with politicians, media personalities, and celebrities who heaped praise on him. They also suggest that he directed staff members to nominate him for various awards that netted him around $900,000. There are also entries suggesting he did not believe several of the public statements he made at the time about the virus’s origin or the efficacy of the measures he implemented to prevent the spread of the disease. Second, a witness cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment because he thinks he will be charged with perjury even if he provides truthful testimony.

On the other hand, there are factors in Fauci’s favor. First, President Trump and several Republican Congressmen are arguing that Biden’s last-minute pardons, which would include Fauci’s, are null and void because, they claim, Biden’s staff used his auto-pen to sign those pardons without Biden’s knowledge or approval. If Fauci’s pardon is invalidated, he could be prosecuted by the Justice Department for federal crimes he might have committed during the period covered by the Biden pardon. Second, several state attorneys general have now said they are initiating investigations to see whether Fauci committed any state crimes related to his government service. Perhaps they envision a perjury charge for deposition testimony Fauci provided in Covid-related litigation. That effort might end up going nowhere, but Fauci is certainly entitled to take them at their word that he still faces legal jeopardy. These statements alone make it far more likely that a judge would ultimately determine that Fauci’s invocation of the Fifth was proper.

Now that Fauci has invoked the Fifth and refused to answer the Senators’ questions, what can Congress do about it? Well, it has several options.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: WHY FAUCI’S 111 FIFTH AMENDMENT PLEAS COULD END UP BEFORE THE COURTS

The one they are currently contemplating is voting to hold him in contempt of Congress. This would require a majority vote by the Committee and by the full Senate. Since Republicans are in the majority, it is possible, if not likely, they have the votes to do that. If so, the matter would be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (currently, Jeanine Pirro) to decide whether to seek charges against Fauci. If that happens, a judge will decide whether Fauci properly invoked the Fifth, using the standard established by the D.C. Circuit in Ellis v. United States (1969).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Another alternative would be to grant Fauci use and derivative use immunity, in which case Fauci would have to testify, but if he was subsequently charged by either a state or the federal government, the prosecutor would have to prove that none of the evidence introduced against him was derived directly or indirectly from his compelled testimony. It was the prosecution’s failure to establish this that resulted in Oliver North’s conviction being overturned.

Congress could vote to give Fauci transactional immunity, meaning he could not be prosecuted for any of the conduct that is the subject of his testimony, full stop. Of course, if he were to lie after receiving immunity and being compelled to testify, he could still be prosecuted for perjury.

In short, this saga still has a few more episodes to go.

John G. Malcolm is a former federal prosecutor and is Vice President of the Meese Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom.

You should keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and Stephen and Katie Miller as far away from your general vicinity as humanly possible. Many people will not need to be told this. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, is famous for masterminding the first Trump administration’s family separation policy and Muslim ban. His wife, Katie, is similarly enthusiastic about mass deportation and has reportedly said she didn’t feel compassion for families separated at the border. Stephen met Katie when they were both working in government, but she has since left politics to start a podcast. Now she asks guests such as JD Vance important questions such as: is a hotdog a sandwich?

While I may not need to inform you that the Millers are bad news, it seems Dr Anthony Fauci is only just getting the memo. The former top US government science adviser, who helped guide the country’s Covid-19 response, was forced to appear at a US Senate committee hearing last week. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky framed the hearing as an investigation into the origins of the pandemic. Really, however, it was an opportunity for Republicans to harass Fauci, who is widely loathed among the Maga base. He has become such a target of vitriol that Biden preemptively pardoned Fauci before leaving office in case he was prosecuted by the Trump administration.

Continue reading…

Source: YouTube

Summary

Republicans FAST-TRACK Fauci criminal referral after explosive hearing

Why It Matters

This video provides visual context for the story and helps readers quickly understand the key development from the original source.

Watch Original Video