It's Not Over: Now Another State Is Coming for Fauci After His Disastrous Senate 5th Amendment Fest [#3!]

Like Joe Biden’s infamous June 2024 debate performance, where he exposed himself to the world as incapable of continuing his presidency, former Chief Medical Advisor to the President Dr. Anthony Fauci’s non-testimony at Wednesday’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing may go down as one of the quickest and harshest falls from grace in recent memory.

Although people with brains knew long ago that the fibbin’ doctor was a fraud who severely mismanaged the pandemic, made a mockery of the Constitution while chasing ever-more fawning news coverage, and ruined countless lives, the mainstream media and gullible leftists have continued to treat him as some sort of God-like, infallible creature.

The mask was ripped off, however, when he pleaded the Fifth Amendment over 100 times and flat-out refused to answer any substantive questions. This despite having received a sweeping pardon from Joe Biden on his last full day in office.

But that doesn’t mean The Fouch is out of the woods — Florida and Alabama are investigating him on the state level, and now Louisiana is jumping aboard too. Your pardon won’t help you, Doctor:

Fauci lied. Louisiana and Missouri deposed Dr. Fauci. At the time, he claimed to not recall many key details of his own actions and now we are discovering contemporaneous records he kept. Louisiana will join Alabama & Florida in investigating Fauci and whether he committed any other offenses that could be pursued in our State courts.

Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry is onboard with state Attorney General Liz Murrill's effort to hold Fauci to account:

As my colleague Ward Clark reported on Wednesday, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is also coming after Fauci.

“Fauci's lack of candor to Congress is unbelievable,” Uthmeier wrote on social media. “My office is launching an investigation into Dr. Fauci. It's past time we get the truth of what happened during COVID.”

On the last day of his presidential term, former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon for any offenses he may have “committed or taken part in” related to his governmental roles from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 19, 2025, the day the pardon was signed.

The pardon protects Fauci from being prosecuted for any federal crimes he may have committed during that time period, but it does not protect him from state prosecutors.

Go get 'em, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama. It’s far past time that this menace of a doctor pays the price for what he did to our country.

Meanwhile, the whole fiasco reminds us of one thing: Joe Biden proved with his blanket pardon that he was an ethics-free president. Unfortunately, there’s no sign that he will be accountable — except perhaps in the history books.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

The mask was ripped off, however, when he pleaded the Fifth Amendment over 100 times and flat-out refused to answer any substantive questions. This despite having received a sweeping pardon from Joe Biden on his last full day in office.

Congress chose to stage a clown show, and was not interested in getting Fauci to answer questions. The Biden pardon does not provide protection from all possible prosecutions, nor from any prosecution for acts committed after the issuance of the pardon. Therefore the 5A invocation by Fauci was legally justified. (Note: I did not just express a belief in Fauci's innocence.)

Congress has provided a way to force a witness to testify, but it chose not to issue a grant of "use" immunity.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6002

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 927; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)

Use immunity differs from transactional immunity in that it only bars a prosecution which relies on the compelled testimony received. Transactional immunity would protect a person from prosecution for any criminal act divulged, even if independent evidence exists.

Compelling testimony by a grant of use immunity was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court 54 years ago.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep406441/

KASTIGAR ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 70-117. Argued January 11, 1972-Decided May 22, 1972 The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U. S. C. § 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege, and is not constitutionally required. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving affirmatively that evidence proposed to be used is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony. Pp. 443-462. 440 F. 2d 954, affirmed.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. Douglas, J., post, p. 462, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 467, filed dissenting opinions. BRENNAN and REHNQUIST, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Better safe than sorry.

Also, he could easily commit perjury.

The new statute does not explicitly undertake to give the witness immunity from prosecu-
tion under state laws. The report of the House judiciary Committee indicates, however, that
the prohibition is intended to embrace state prosecutions “if it be determined that the Con-
gress has the constitutional power to do so.” H.R. Rep. No. 2606, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. 7 (1954).
Recently, the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to prohibit a state from using
testimony previously given by the defendant before a congressional committee as evidence in a
criminal prosecution. Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179 (1954). The Supreme Court has held
that the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to possible prosecution under
state laws. United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141 (1931). But the question may not be finally
settled, particularly where the statute is limited to security matters and a federal pre-emption
argument is available.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2892&context=uclrev

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.