Testimony of Anthony Fauci

United States Senate ^ | July 29 | Sen. Rand Paul

[RandFan]

LINK TO WATCH: [8:30am]

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: mailinvoting; nuremberg2; stolenelection

[neverevergiveup]

Being pardoned implies you are immune to prosecution. If you have immunity you can't plead the 5th.

[V_TWIN]

I don’t think so.

If he gets caught lying to congress now his pardon doesn’t protect him so he’s taking the 5th so they can’t trip him up and catch him lying.

Best to come of this is to embarrass him and damage his legacy....outside of that, my opinion is nothing else will come of it.

This SOB is literally a weasel.

[V_TWIN]

“Being pardoned implies you are immune to prosecution. If you have immunity you can’t plead the 5th.”

All due respect, I’m not sure that’s acc.

Can you provide a source for that? Id be interested to know if they can catch his lying azz using that.

[Merrick]

Yeah - I don’t think that is correct, either. I’d like to see a source for that claim.

But it’s important to understand the many things that are likely going on here. Let me dispense with the doomer positions first. Perhaps Paul is just grandstanding for his glory and satisfaction of forcing Fauci to sit through this. And after the Kabuki theater that will be it. I don’t think that’s the case.

But, an important point everyone seems to be overlooking is that Fauci’s diary is radically incriminating. And Fauci is immune to federal criminal prosecution (assuming the pardon can’t be challenged, but I think Paul is moving on that), but he is not immune to prosecution in the States nor is he immune to civil prosecution.

And, more importantly, Fauci’s radically incriminating diary not only incriminates him,. but many coconspirators. And none of them has a pardon. So they are getting Fauci on the record here, even if it’s just appeals to his 5th amendment rights, as a warning shot across the bow for his coconspirators. Unless Paul and the DoJ have no balls or are just playing Kabuki theater, we’re going to see follow up with them. Criminally. Then, when there is discoverable information from those trials and hopefully convictions, the States can build on that and civil lawsuits can also build off of that. And Fauci is fair game in those cases.

But we’ll see. Maybe it is Kabuki theater. RandFan - want to defend Paul against that claim?

[neverevergiveup]

Because the communication must be self-incriminating, an individual who has received immunity cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment as a basis for refusing to answer questions; any statements would not be incriminating because the immunity prevents the government from using those statements (or any evidence derived from them) in a criminal prosecution against the individual. Likewise, an individual who has received a pardon may not have any basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Finally, an individual who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.

[Merrick]

This looks like an AI response without the prompt for us to see what the actual question is that AI is answering. That it’s AI doesn’t make it a bad answer, but all AI answers should be checked. But if we don’t know how it was prompted to give that response it’s hard to know how much weight to give the answer.

[Merrick]

Here is the prompt I used with Brave AI and the response:

Anthony Fauci is invoking his 5th amendment rights before the senate investigatory committee. Does the fact that Anthony has blanket immunity on the actions being invetigated mean that he cannot invoke the 5th amendment to decline in answering questions put to him?

No, a preemptive pardon does not automatically strip an individual of the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment. While former President Joe Biden issued a preemptive pardon to Anthony Fauci in January 2025 for actions taken through January 19, 2025, legal experts and Fauci’s counsel argue that this does not eliminate all risks of self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony that could lead to criminal liability. Fauci’s legal team contends that despite the pardon, Rand Paul’s stated intent to pursue prosecution creates a credible fear that any testimony could be twisted or used to construct new charges, such as perjury, if his answers are deemed inconsistent with previous statements or the diary entries released by the Senator.

So, dueling AIs. I've given you my prompt, which I think anyone would argue is neutral, the AI I used, and it's response. Can you help us with similar information?

[V_TWIN]

I’m not trying to be difficult my friend but don’t think immunity and a pardon are the same thing.

[neverevergiveup]

Not an AI response. Not an answer to a query.

[Merrick]

So, is there a source or is that your self-written opinion?

[Merrick]

A pardon gives immunity from prosecution. The Brave AI obviously understood my intent because when I asked it regarding Fauci’s existing immunity it self-connected that to Biden’s pardon. So I think it’s clear Brave AI understood the prompt. If you think the prompt is not correct and didn’t illicit a response to the intended question, reword my prompt the way you think it should be worded and feed into the AI of your choice.

Now, in fairness, I went to an AI because I thought the original comment was from AI. Apparently not. I am supremely interested in learning the actual source.

[V_TWIN]

Josh Hawley just told fauci he has no rights under the 5th amendment.....so good call neverevergiveup. 👍

Rand paul threatened legal action for invoking the 5th but we’ll see.

[thinden]

He threw the one out. The rest of the vast bank of lawyers he brought are still there.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

how many lawyers are there to protect pfizer or moderna’s interests?

[dynachrome]

oops

[neverevergiveup]

There are multiple sources.

To invoke the 5th amendment there must be a reasonable risk of prosecution. For example:
Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 (1917), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must show a reasonable, real danger of criminal liability rather than a mere speculative possibility.

From Justia: Prosecution may be precluded by tender of immunity, or by pardon, Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598–99 (1896).

[Merrick]

So I put and pasted your reply in post #4x into Google AI and it initially indicated your comment seemed to have merit. But then I asked about the simple caveat it gave in it's first answer and it basically gave the answer I expected. Here's your input and Google AIs response:

Because the communication must be self-incriminating, an individual who has received immunity cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment as a basis for refusing to answer questions; any statements would not be incriminating because the immunity prevents the government from using those statements (or any evidence derived from them) in a criminal prosecution against the individual. Likewise, an individual who has received a pardon may not have any basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Finally, an individual who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.

An individual cannot use the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions if they have legal immunity, a valid pardon, or a final criminal conviction and sentence. Because the right only protects against self-incrimination, removing legal jeopardy removes the right to stay silent.Why the Fifth Amendment Does Not ApplyImmunity: The government promises not to use your words against you in a new case. Without a risk of criminal use, the talk is no longer self-incriminating.Pardon: A pardon wipes away the legal guilt or punishment for a crime. A person cannot face new prosecution for that pardoned offense, so answers cannot incriminate them.Conviction and Sentence: Once a judge sentences a person for a crime, that specific case is done. They cannot incriminate themselves further for the crime they already stand convicted of, though this exception does not apply if potential new charges still exist.Key Rules of Self-IncriminationThe threat of trouble must be real and direct.It does not apply if a court order completely blocks future use of the statements.It only protects natural people, not groups like businesses or corporations.If you'd like, I can explain:The difference between use immunity and transactional immunityHow the Fifth Amendment works during a civil trialAI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more11 sitesWhat Does It Really Mean To “Take the Fifth”?“Taking the Fifth” is when someone invokes their right to remain silent and refuses to answer questions or provide information tha...MoloLamkenFIRST PRINCIPLES: Constitutional Matters: ConfessionsUnited States v. Castillo, 74 M.J. 160 (in pertinent part, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any c...U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (.gov)General Protections Against Self-Incrimination Doctrine and ...The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal one and cannot be used by or on behalf of any organization, such as a corpo...Library of Congress – Constitution Annotated (.gov)Show all

But your answer includes the following caveat: "It does not apply if a court order completely blocks future use of the statements." Is it impossible for a pardoned individual to be prosecuted for perjury if testimony after a pardon is issued disagrees with testimony given before the pardon was issued?

No, it is not impossible; a pardoned individual can absolutely be prosecuted for perjury if they lie under oath after receiving a pardon.A pardon only excuses past offenses. It provides no protection or legal immunity for crimes committed after the pardon is issued, such as committing perjury during subsequent testimony.The Legal FrameworkNo Free Pass for Future Lies: When a pardoned person is subpoenaed to testify, they are under a new, separate legal obligation to tell the truth. If they give false testimony, that act constitutes a brand-new crime (perjury) that occurred after the pardon. The prior pardon cannot immunize a future crime.The "Perjury Trap" Paradox: If an individual's new testimony contradicts what they said before the pardon, prosecutors can use the old testimony to prove they are lying now.The Catch-22 for the Witness: Because the pardon removed their criminal exposure for the underlying past crime, they can no longer use the Fifth Amendment to stay silent about it. They are legally forced to answer. If they tell the truth and contradict past statements, they might expose that they lied in the past; if they lie to match past statements, they commit fresh perjury.Remaining Fifth Amendment ExceptionsWhile they cannot plead the Fifth to avoid talking about the pardoned crime itself, a pardoned individual can still invoke the Fifth Amendment if:State vs. Federal Crimes: A presidential pardon only covers federal crimes. If answering a question would expose them to state-level prosecution, they retain their Fifth Amendment rights.Unrelated Crimes: The questions touch upon other, separate criminal activities not covered by the scope of the specific pardon.Would you like to explore how prosecutors prove perjury using conflicting statements, or look into the difference between federal and state pardons?

I didn't reformat Google AI's answer. Oh well. Too much work. I can find no support for the opinion you posted and would still like to know if it is a personal opinion or you have an authoritative source it came from.

[Merrick]

Yeah - this is among other things a perjury trap. Sorry - self-incrimination is ABSOLUTELY on the table if Fauci doesn’t take the 5th. It’s just true.

[Merrick]

That also isn’t the source you used before which at this point I have to believe was self-written opinion. That’s fine, but your own actually authoritative source says right there that if there is a reasonable danger of criminal liability (perjury if he testifies TODAY post-pardon in any way that either disagrees with his previous testimony or his diary entries). Since his diary entries clearly conflict with his previous testimony, there is no way he can answer questions and not commit perjury.

[Churchillspirit]

Senator asked him to confirm his name.......invoke over one, invoke over all.

[Merrick]

Did you miss the, “what color is your tie? what color is the carpet in front of you?,” stretch of questions?