Sen. Rand Paul’s effort to pursue a contempt of Congress prosecution against Dr. Anthony Fauci has stalled as Trump administration officials question whether a committee-only referral, without approval from the full Senate, would withstand a legal challenge.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Sen. Rand Paul’s effort to seek a contempt of Congress prosecution against Dr. Anthony Fauci has run into legal uncertainty inside the Trump administration, where officials are questioning whether the Senate process being used is sufficient to support a criminal case.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that administration officials are examining whether Paul can successfully refer Fauci to the Justice Department without first securing approval from the full Senate.
Paul, R-Ky., has pushed for years to hold Fauci accountable over his handling of issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic and has said the former federal health official should face prison.
The Senate committee led by Paul voted along party lines Aug. 6 to hold Fauci in contempt after he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions concerning his pandemic-era conduct.
Paul is seeking to avoid a full Senate vote by asking Vice President JD Vance, in his constitutional role as president of the Senate, to certify the committee’s contempt resolution and send it directly to the Justice Department.
That approach has generated concerns within the administration.
People familiar with the discussions told the Journal that some officials question whether a contempt prosecution based on that procedure could survive a legal challenge if the entire Senate has not approved the resolution.
Historically, congressional contempt resolutions have been voted on by the full House or Senate before being formally referred to federal prosecutors.
Paul’s resolution would likely face substantial difficulty if brought before the full Senate because it would need to overcome the chamber’s 60-vote threshold.
That political obstacle prompted the Kentucky senator to pursue the alternative route involving Vance.
According to people familiar with the process, Paul’s office sent the contempt report to Vance late Tuesday following repeated inquiries from the Journal about its status.
The Justice Department previously received a letter from Paul on Aug. 6 laying out the committee’s case against Fauci, but the department had not received a formal contempt referral as of the Journal’s report.
President Donald Trump has also not decided whether he wants federal prosecutors to pursue the case, according to people familiar with the administration’s deliberations.
Trump has repeatedly criticized Fauci but said earlier this month that he had not personally discussed possible criminal charges against him with Attorney General Todd Blanche or U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
Vance has publicly supported efforts to hold Fauci accountable but has not said whether he will certify Paul’s contempt referral.
“Dr. Fauci caused incalculable harm to the American people,” Vance spokeswoman Taylor Van Kirk told the Journal. “The Vice President applauds Senator Paul’s efforts to hold Fauci accountable and supports any valid paths to achieving justice.”
The central problem confronting Paul is whether Senate rules and federal contempt law permit a prosecution to proceed when only a committee — rather than the full chamber — has approved a contempt finding.
Stanley Brand, an attorney who represented former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro in their congressional contempt cases, said he believes Paul’s strategy could create a serious vulnerability for prosecutors.
“There’s just a bevy of cases that say you can’t just go around the Senate rules or the House rules when you put somebody in contempt,” Brand told the Journal. “That referral is null and void.”
Bannon and Navarro were both prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department after refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach.
In each of those cases, however, the full House voted to approve a contempt resolution before the matter was sent to the Justice Department.
That precedent is among the issues now complicating Paul’s effort.
Fauci, 85, invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during testimony before Paul’s committee last month.
Fauci suggested during the proceeding that the hearing had been structured as a potential perjury trap.
His attorneys have denied that he engaged in wrongdoing.
The legal situation is further complicated by a preemptive pardon issued by former President Joe Biden before he left office.
Biden’s pardon covered potential federal offenses related to Fauci’s government service from January 2014 through Jan. 19, 2025.
That pardon would not necessarily cover conduct occurring later, including testimony given before Congress in 2026, leaving the current contempt dispute legally distinct from potential allegations arising from Fauci’s earlier government service.
A conviction for contempt of Congress can carry a sentence of as much as one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
For now, however, no prosecution has begun.
The Justice Department has received Paul’s written presentation of the committee’s case but has not received the formal referral that would ordinarily precede consideration of criminal contempt charges.
Whether that referral ultimately reaches prosecutors may depend on Vance’s willingness to certify it and whether administration lawyers conclude that doing so without a full Senate vote would create an insurmountable procedural problem.
Paul’s effort therefore remains unresolved: the committee has voted to hold Fauci in contempt, but the administration has yet to determine whether the path chosen to turn that finding into a criminal prosecution is legally viable.
Original article
Comments