He is being investigated in FL and probably other places. So, testimony can be used as evidence. While he was pardoned for Federal Crimes, he still has state liability. In order for him to talk, he would have to be granted immunity, meaning his testimony could not be used in ANY prosecution.
I understand the desire to “string him up” but he is listening to his lawyers—and the lawyers are right in this case.
I guess it comes down to a choice: They can prosecute him or they can get him to talk. You aren’t getting both.
At this point, do they really need him to talk? The HHS and NIH are back in the hands of republicans and giving congress everything they can find.
“I guess it comes down to a choice: They can prosecute him or they can get him to talk. You aren’t getting both.”
I’m in favor of Choice #3.
“They can prosecute him or they can get him to talk. You aren’t getting both.”
The charges being brought forth by the attorney generals of the states involved are not falling under the covid scheme of the pardons. The states are trying to tie Fauci’s notoriety of his position and his determinations doing his job within the tasks assigned to him is not going to get into proximate cause but will flow over into interveining cause which is going to be impossible to prove as Fauci didn’t make the call on how each state operated their response to the federal government’s opinion of the virus. Or that he did it on purpose or for gain as notoriety at his level concerning state actions had no bearing on his malfeasance. And he didn’t profit by the work as a doctor and federal advisor that has been determined. So the states are filing for their mistakes as they didn’t have to consider his recommendations and take their actions and passing it on to him. In this case you’re right about the “string him up” attitude. But the charges are a real stretch. Misnomer
wy69