Fauci Hearings

[Valerie]

Considering as Fauci has a blanket pardon, it seems the proper way for things to be evaluated now is for all the facts and details to simply come out, and let the public decide.

It is thus disappointing that Fauci invoked the 5th amendment over 100 times. He has no reason not to share anything. Instead, he is making it appear he has something to hide.

I suspect his lawyer is worried about a “making false statements under oath “ charge, if he gets even the slightest set of facts wrong. He can be tried for offenses he committed during this hearing , as his pardon doesn’t cover this. The only way they could actually compel him to give testimony is to grant him immunity for what he says during this hearing. Otherwise he won’t talk, and courts won’t force him to either, based on the 5th amendment. It would be especially true, in light of some already calling for his imprisonment. You want the truth or you want his head. Getting both is likely impossible.

They are asking him to testify under oath about events that happened many years ago, from memory. In the last few years, other former officials have faced criminal charges alleging false statements or perjury arising from this kind of testimony. None has ultimately been convicted on those charges.

Even if a defendant is eventually acquitted, Fauci’s lawyer has good reason to worry that one inaccurate answer at this kind of hearing could lead to years of criminal litigation.

That can involve enormous legal expenses and become a major focus of a person’s life.

Most congressional hearings are not conducted under oath. Choosing to require sworn testimony in an investigative hearing inevitably increases the legal risk for the witness. I imagine that's why Fauci's lawyer advised invoking the Fifth Amendment.

They have do much information now they didn’t in the beginning. Fauci kept records (a lot he destroyed) AND a diary.

Whether he is answering their questions or not, a lot has come out that the American people need to hear. In case there’s a “next time” and to learn to realize how so many were fooled. I didn’t watch Trump trials to know if he constantly pleaded the fifth or not- I do remember every time he was dragged into court. His popularity went up. So it was not working on the American people to keep hauling him into court because they knew the motives and sure enough even after all that he went on to win the election.

[Bootstrap]

To those who think Fauci should have testified under oath. Do you feel the same way about Trump, in the impeachment proceedings? Is the sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?

What about Trump officials who are called to testify if the House flips during the midterms?

How do you avoid the danger of McCarthy-style show trials? While still maintaining the role of Congress as an oversight body that can check the Executive branch?

What is your position on Fauci and Trump testifying under oath?

I'll answer, but not first. What is your position? I'd like to hear a few others answer before I do.

[ken_sylvania]

Considering as Fauci has a blanket pardon, it seems the proper way for things to be evaluated now is for all the facts and details to simply come out, and let the public decide.

It is thus disappointing that Fauci invoked the 5th amendment over 100 times. He has no reason not to share anything. Instead, he is making it appear he has something to hide.

I suspect his lawyer is worried about a “making false statements under oath “ charge, if he gets even the slightest set of facts wrong. He can be tried for offenses he committed during this hearing , as his pardon doesn’t cover this. The only way they could actually compel him to give testimony is to grant him immunity for what he says during this hearing. Otherwise he won’t talk, and courts won’t force him to either, based on the 5th amendment. It would be especially true, in light of some already calling for his imprisonment. You want the truth or you want his head. Getting both is likely impossible.

I was thinking about that yesterday. I think you're right that some people would dearly love to get him to trip over his words and then prosecute for perjury. I'm not so sure, though, that the 5th amendment protects him against being forced to testify about his actions for which he has received a pardon. I think that the law would generally hold that a person has the ability to answer questions truthfully (yes, no, I don't know, explanation, etc) and can be forced to do so if his truthful answers would not be used as evidence of prior crimes. The law would say that his only risk of conviction for perjury is if he lies under oath - therefore could likely be forced to testify because he isn't being forced to lie under oath.

I don't think giving him immunity for what he says during this hearing would help in getting to the truth. If (as some claim) he was a liar before, asking him to answer questions while explicitly saying there are no legal consequences if he lies.

[GaryK]

To those who think Fauci should have testified under oath. Do you feel the same way about Trump, in the impeachment proceedings? Is the sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?

What about Trump officials who are called to testify if the House flips during the midterms?

How do you avoid the danger of McCarthy-style show trials? While still maintaining the role of Congress as an oversight body that can check the Executive branch?

What is your position on Fauci and Trump testifying under oath?

I'll answer, but not first. What is your position? I'd like to hear a few others answer before I do.

I don't have a position.

[ken_sylvania]

Considering as Fauci has a blanket pardon, it seems the proper way for things to be evaluated now is for all the facts and details to simply come out, and let the public decide.

It is thus disappointing that Fauci invoked the 5th amendment over 100 times. He has no reason not to share anything. Instead, he is making it appear he has something to hide.

I suspect his lawyer is worried about a “making false statements under oath “ charge, if he gets even the slightest set of facts wrong. He can be tried for offenses he committed during this hearing , as his pardon doesn’t cover this. The only way they could actually compel him to give testimony is to grant him immunity for what he says during this hearing. Otherwise he won’t talk, and courts won’t force him to either, based on the 5th amendment. It would be especially true, in light of some already calling for his imprisonment. You want the truth or you want his head. Getting both is likely impossible.

They are asking him to testify under oath about events that happened many years ago, from memory. In the last few years, other former officials have faced criminal charges alleging false statements or perjury arising from this kind of testimony. None has ultimately been convicted on those charges.

Even if a defendant is eventually acquitted, Fauci’s lawyer has good reason to worry that one inaccurate answer at this kind of hearing could lead to years of criminal litigation.

That can involve enormous legal expenses and become a major focus of a person’s life.

Most congressional hearings are not conducted under oath. Choosing to require sworn testimony in an investigative hearing inevitably increases the legal risk for the witness. I imagine that's why Fauci's lawyer advised invoking the Fifth Amendment.

Are they not allowing him access to his diary or any other reference materials?

I think he would be right to worry that one inaccurate answer could lead to years of criminal litigation. It's kind of hard to dredge up sympathy for government officials who find themselves in that position since government in general has no qualms against asking common people complicated questions and then threatening them with prosecution if they answer inaccurately.

I still question whether fear of making a misstatement is sufficient to raise 5th amendment protections. If it were, the government could never force anyone to testify if they didn't want to.

[ken_sylvania]

To those who think Fauci should have testified under oath. Do you feel the same way about Trump, in the impeachment proceedings? Is the sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?

What about Trump officials who are called to testify if the House flips during the midterms?

How do you avoid the danger of McCarthy-style show trials? While still maintaining the role of Congress as an oversight body that can check the Executive branch?

I'll answer even though I'm not who this question was directed toward.

It doesn't seem reasonable to compare Fauci's position with Trump's. Fauci was being asked to testify facts and circumstances and conduct for which he was issued a presidential pardon. Fauci was not on trial. Trump was being questioned about conduct for which he was on trial. So comparing the two is maybe like comparing, I don't know, maybe ganders and bovines?

[JohnH]

To those who think Fauci should have testified under oath. Do you feel the same way about Trump, in the impeachment proceedings? Is the sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?

What about Trump officials who are called to testify if the House flips during the midterms?

How do you avoid the danger of McCarthy-style show trials? While still maintaining the role of Congress as an oversight body that can check the Executive branch?

If Trump had been given a blanket pardon for absolutely anything he did from 2014 - 2024, then yes, I would expect him to answer questions honestly and truthfully about his activities during that time period, and not to hide behind the 5th amendment.

This isn't a "show trial" when the person in question is under a blanket pardon. All such a person has to do is tell the truth.

One's answers can certainly say "I can't remember to that level of detail; here is what I can remember" and be less specific. And yes, I think a show trial for prosecuting someone for a very minor detail is not good, but that's different from outright lying. People should not intentionally lie in court or in front of congress.

In my own denomination we make a distinction between unintentional lying (which isn't really lying; it's just having a bad memory or not being good at expressing yourself, or having faulty opinions); intentional, premeditated lying, and then telling a lie in the heat of the moment without laying plans to do so ahead of time, and then quickly correcting yourself.

[nett]

I'm not really sure what's going on, I haven't kept up with this story. I'm not sure why they released his diary, but he appears to be very self-centered, and more concerned about his fame while everyone was suffering under his inane policies.

In retrospect, no one should have listened to anything he said. Hard to have known at the time I guess.

[Szdfan]

Even before this hearing, Rand Paul has said that Fauci is guilty of crimes and should go to prison. What crime is Fauci guilty of?

[ken_sylvania]

Even before this hearing, Rand Paul has said that Fauci is guilty of crimes and should go to prison. What crime is Fauci guilty of?

The pardon didn't specify.