Fauci took the 5th to everything at the Covid congressional hearing, but under a pardon that’s not something you can do to avoid contempt of Congress charges. Legal details on his situation below, which don’t look good for him.
1 Like
What I dont understand is that he could’ve admitted to pretty much anything and he’s already been pardoned for it. The only consequence would be the hit to his public reputation, which is happening anyways.
Fauci wasnt protecting himself by taking the 5th, he was protecting someone or something else.
I’ll just repeat that the whole pardon thing is a farce - you should be pardoned for specific things, not a blanket pardon to cover things you hope to keep secret but might happen to get dug up anyways.
2 Likes
Saw this plausible explanation on reddit:
I cannot read theFP article because it’s paywalled, but I did find that the Congressional Research Office published a relevant article (3 days ago) if anyone really wants to know the legal details: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11466
Important to note, and mentioned in the CRS doc, that the pardon is only for federal crimes, not state. Any testimony could find state law violations, so pleading the 5th makes sense. It is also my understanding that you can’t “admit pretty much anything” because you can’t admit to one thing and then plead the 5th to another if the thing you admitted leads to the question you’re now trying to plead the 5th on. Basically you have to plead the 5th to all the questions.
Doesnt it do the opposite, by intentionally not putting the GOP in the position to affirm or dispute the pardon? Invoking the 5th makes the pardon irrelevant, if anything it implies Fauci questions the validity of the pardon.
That sounds like a better explanation.
2 Likes
Here are the relevant parts of the TFP article
his lawyers believed the hearing was a “perjury trap”—an attempt by Senator Paul and other Republicans to coax Fauci into lying under oath about his record as the top federal virologist during the Covid pandemic. Perjury is a live risk for Fauci because his famous pardon, issued in January 2025 by President Joe Biden, does not absolve him of any crimes committed after that date.
As a federal appellate court stated 40 years ago, “A witness may not claim the privilege of the Fifth Amendment out of fear that he will be prosecuted for perjury for what he is about to say.” Or as the Supreme Court put it when dealing with a related issue in 1980, “anticipatory perjury” does not permit “invocation of the Fifth Amendment.” So if Fauci’s best defense is the perjury trap, he’s out of luck—and is therefore guilty of contempt of Congress.
Because a presidential pardon does not cover state crimes, pardon recipients retain a Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions subjecting them to state prosecution… But unlike a criminal defendant, a witness before Congress is not allowed to engage in a blanket refusal to testify. As numerous courts have held, a witness does not have a carte blanche right to refuse to answer all questions put to him. Instead, a witness’s right to plead the Fifth is question-specific. He can invoke the Fifth Amendment only when a truthful answer to a particular question could subject him to criminal liability.
Fauci did not do that. He refused to say what color tie he was wearing. He refused to say what color the floor was. As far back as 1971, federal appellate courts have upheld contempt convictions (with prison sentences) when a witness simply refused to answer all questions… He had no right to refuse to answer every question—only those that could have incriminated him under state law. Thus his “carte blanche” refusal to answer all questions very likely makes him guilty of contempt; however, real his fears of state prosecution may have been.
the contempt statute does not say anything about a full vote of the Senate. Under the statute, the relevant committee must first issue a report that a witness was in contempt. Although the standard congressional practice is to hold a vote of the entire chamber, the statute is clear—and courts have held—that if the Senate is not in session, the president of the Senate can on his own refer charges if he believes the committee report shows that the witness was indeed in contempt.
The Senate may begin its August recess on Friday, and under the Constitution the Senate’s president is Vice President J.D. Vance. That means that once Paul’s committee issues its report, Vance (or perhaps Republican senator Chuck Grassley, acting as the Senate’s president pro tempore) would have the power to refer contempt charges against the doctor next week.
4 Likes
Maybe he is colorblind? The Senate wont be issuing a contempt charge, the Senate will be issued an ADA violation. 
1 Like
One could argue that his knowledge of the tie or floor color places him at the scene of the crime and compels him to answer other questions. Based on everything I’ve seen I’ve just always had this idea that if you invoke the 5th, you do it for every single question, otherwise you lose the ability to invoke the 5th.
Well, a simple google query says:
A person can only legally invoke the Fifth Amendment when a truthful answer could genuinely expose them to a criminal charge. Using a “blanket” refusal for every single question without a valid reason is generally not allowed by courts.
Legal Rules for the Fifth Amendment
- Only for Crimes: The right protects people from being forced to give evidence that could lead to their own criminal prosecution.
- No Blanket Refusals: A person cannot just say they plead the fifth to avoid all questions. They must show a real risk of self-incrimination for the specific topic.
- Not Needed for Safe Facts: If a question has zero risk of criminal trouble (like asking your name or the color of the sky), you cannot plead the fifth.
Also
Taking the 5th for every single question is called a “blanket invocation”. Courts and legal bodies generally do not accept a blanket refusal. You cannot use the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering harmless or non-incriminating questions, and doing so can result in severe legal consequences like contempt charges, lost cases, or court orders to answer.
Criminal and Civil Court
- Adverse Inferences: In a civil trial, if you refuse to answer questions, the judge or jury can legally assume that your truthful answers would have shown you were at fault or guilty.
- Compelled Answers: A judge will review questions individually. If a question clearly cannot incriminate you (such as asking your name or what day it is), the judge will order you to answer.
- Contempt of Court: If you keep refusing a direct order from a judge to answer safe questions, the court can hold you in contempt, leading to fines or jail time.
Congressional and Official Hearings
- No Blanket Cover: You cannot just say you plead the 5th to every topic before a congressional committee without a valid, specific risk of criminal exposure for each distinct subject.
- Contempt Charges: Refusing to cooperate or hiding behind a blanket refusal can cause the committee to vote to hold you in contempt of Congress, risking criminal referral to the Department of Justice.
Daily Life and Police Interaction
- Outside the Law: The Fifth Amendment only protects you from being forced to give self-incriminating testimony in a legal, official, or custodial setting.
- No Protection at Work or School: If your boss or a teacher asks you a question and you “plead the 5th,” you have no constitutional protection. Your boss can legally fire you, and your school can discipline you for refusing to talk.
Which directly opposes what you claim. It says invoking the 5th is only for when your answer to that question would implicate you in a crime.
But you do not know if my answer implicates me in a crime, only I do. If I tell you my tie was red, and you have a video of a suspect wearing a red tie, you’ll use it as evidence against me. Ask me today’s date and my name and I’ll answer, as those are just plain facts. Ask me anything about the past and my answer could implicate me.
I don’t think your AI answer is complete and nuanced. I’ve seen cases where if you answer one question, you can be compelled to answer the next question. You can’t be compelled if you keep pleading the 5th. IANAL so I could be wrong, but also I have to give him and his legal team the benefit of the doubt on this. Perhaps they decided that doing this and being found in contempt is better.
Not was. Is. As in the tie you are wearing in front of the person asking the question. It’s a plain fact like your name or today’s date.That’s the issue, Fauci took the 5th when asked what color of tie he was wearing during his testimony. It showed there was no good faith intention to testify at all.
You cant decide to invoke the 5th after you start talking about a distinct topic. As in, you cant be answering a line of questions and suddenly realize you are digging yourself a hole then refuse to continue. As in your attempted example - if asked what color tie you were wearing the night of the murder, and you answer red, you cant then take the 5th after realizing they have a picture of the murderer wearing a red tie.
The only reason the tie you are wearing while testifying would be a factor is if you deny owning a red tie, and are then asked about the red tie you are currently wearing.
2 Likes