The Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman said Anthony Fauci’s acceptance of a presidential pardon does not shield him from a potential contempt charge arising from his refusal to answer lawmakers’ questions.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul said he intends to send a contempt of Congress referral involving Anthony Fauci directly to the Justice Department if the measure wins committee approval Thursday.
The Kentucky Republican is seeking Fauci’s prosecution after the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during Senate testimony last week concerning his management of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although Fauci received and accepted a presidential pardon covering federal offenses committed between 2014 and January 2025, Paul argued that the pardon does not extend to a new offense allegedly committed through his refusal to assist the Senate investigation.
“We have a law in Congress that if you will not testify and help an investigation, it’s called contempt of Congress. It’s a felony,” Paul said during an appearance on the “Just The News, No Noise” television program. “Now, the prosecution has to be through the Department of Justice. People get confused sometimes, and online people will criticize me sometimes and say, ‘why won’t you prosecute him?’ And it’s like, ‘Well, I don’t have prosecutorial power.’”
Paul said he believes the committee may send the referral to the Justice Department without securing approval from the full Senate because the recommendation would not constitute legislation.
The referral could place several unresolved constitutional and legal questions before federal prosecutors and, potentially, the courts. The central dispute concerns whether a witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about conduct already covered by an accepted presidential pardon.
“The legal question is: Can someone plead the fifth? Can they plead their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves when they’ve already been given immunity through a pardon?” Paul asked. “There are arguments for this, and there are some precedents.”
The Fifth Amendment protects a witness from being forced to provide testimony that could reasonably be used in a criminal prosecution. That protection generally depends on the existence of a genuine risk that truthful answers could expose the witness to criminal liability.
Paul’s argument relies in part on a Supreme Court decision from the late 1800s holding that a person who has received a pardon may no longer invoke the privilege against self-incrimination for the pardoned conduct.
The court held that once a witness has “received a pardon, he can no longer set up his privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed.”
A later Supreme Court ruling in 1915 added that a pardon does not become effective unless the intended recipient accepts it. A person may reject a pardon and preserve the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment, but Fauci accepted the pardon he received.
Fauci’s attorneys dispute Paul’s interpretation and maintain that their client continues to face potential criminal exposure arising from any new testimony.
They argue that statements delivered under oath could lead to allegations of perjury or false statements if prosecutors later concluded that his answers were untruthful. Those offenses would occur after the period covered by the pardon and therefore would not be protected by it.
Fauci’s legal team also contends that he could face state-level criminal investigations. A presidential pardon applies only to federal offenses and cannot prevent state authorities from pursuing charges within their jurisdictions.
Those arguments create a distinction between questions about Fauci’s past conduct and the possibility that his answers during a current hearing could create new legal exposure.
Paul nevertheless maintains that Fauci cannot use the pardon to avoid liability for earlier conduct while simultaneously invoking the possibility of prosecution for that same conduct as a basis for refusing to testify.
Beyond the contempt dispute, Paul said Congress should prevent future federal health officials from accumulating the level of institutional authority Fauci held during his decades at NIAID.
“He had too much power and for too long,” Paul said. “I think term limits for his position is a good idea too. His reign was so long that he accumulated so much power that people feared him, and they knew that their grants were dependent upon him and upon pleasing him.”
Paul has sought committee approval for an amendment that would divide Fauci’s former position into three separate offices. Each official would require Senate confirmation under the proposal.
Fauci was never confirmed by the Senate to lead NIAID. The agency’s director is a career civil service official within the National Institutes of Health and is selected by NIH leadership rather than nominated by the president.
Paul has argued that requiring Senate confirmation and distributing authority among multiple officials would create greater accountability and prevent one individual from exercising extensive control over research funding and federal infectious-disease policy for decades.
The immediate question will be whether Paul’s contempt resolution advances from the Homeland Security Committee on Thursday. If it does, he said he will forward the matter to the Justice Department and leave federal prosecutors to determine whether Fauci’s refusal to answer questions supports a criminal contempt case.
Original article
Comments