Francis Turner, a Brit I have never heard of who is currently living in Japan, has a substack up titled “Pleading the Fifth when you have already received a Presidential pardon is like wearing a mask after being fully vaccinated.” It’s a good line, but untrue. There were good reason, in Fauci’s villainous mind, for not testifying honestly in a Congressional hearing. He’s a narcissist and an unapologetic former Deep State operative, and he knows the Axis of Unethical Conduct is invested in defending him forever as long as he never betrays it. To testify honestly, Fauci would have to admit he was wrong, that he lied, and that terrible damage was done to the nation because of his lies and mistakes. It would mean accepting responsibility and being accountable. People like Fauci aren’t capable of doing that.
It was this argument by Turner, however, that fascinated me.
“I’m willing to forgive people but has to be a quid pro quo that is an acknowledgement that there is something to forgive. If you can’t admit you made mistakes and that those mistakes killed people, bankrupted businesses and so on then you don’t get my forgiveness. And as I tweeted1 people who got things wrong up to about June 2020 get a pass because there was a ton of confusion and (especially from the PRC) misleading information so figuring stuff out was hard. But anyone who continued to advocate school closures, isolation of the elderly, mask safety theater and so on after that date needs to apologise. Anyone who insisted on vaccination of everyone, including the young, and wanted passports, mandates or other coercive measures needs to apologise. Anyone who mindlessly mocked recommendations for Hthe world a huge favor by admitting that they made mistakes and apologising for them.CQ, Zinc, Vitamin D, Ivermectin and so on needs to apologise […]. So does anyone who deliberately misinterpreted President Trump’s remarks about disinfectant to imply that he said people should inject bleach. In fact the mainstream media needs to do a general apology for their un-questioning slavish devotion to “the science” even when said “science” changed its mind and their related trashing of anyone who didn’t follow “the science” as it was declared to be at the time….
“In the midst of all the “under the advice of my attorneys I will invoke my right under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, to refrain from answering your questions” blather, Herr Doktor Science notably failed to apologise. Not in his opening statement, and not when explicitly asked to by Senator Bernie Moreno. He just repeated his 5th amendment spiel… The world has moved on. But I read some of the Fauci diaries. I’ve read the commentary on it by Alex Berenson and Jeff Childers and many others. And my frustration has come raging back…”I don’t require a jail term, repayment of all the moolah or even an admission of guilt. Just man up (almost everyone concerned is of the male persuasion), put on your big boy trousers and say sorry.It can be just that one word. “Sorry” No need to say why you are apologising. No need to say who to. Just say the word.This particularly applies to Herr Doktor Science because he’s got a presidential pardon so saying sorry won’t land him in jail. Unless of course he shares other people’s skepticism about the validity of the autopen pardon he received…
“Sir Elton John says ‘Sorry seems to be the hardest word’ but that’s no excuse to not say it.”
Ethics Alarms 
Any hint of an apology would bring the entire facade crumbling down on everyone involved. Will never happen. Again, this guy funded the Wuhan lab in violation of the applicable regulations. This guy started the whole thing. He’s a sociopath.
An apology of any sort from such an ethics free person would be meaningless. He did what he did for all the wrong reasons personal power and recognition at an unprecedented level.
Nothing he did from Wuhan until this day indicates any deviation from who and what he is. Again, an apology would not be credible.
I’m still trying to separate the material from the kabuki.
Once Fauci said that he was taking the 5th, all the questions became statements. You can’t take half the 5th and then continue to testify, regardless of how material or immaterial the questions were, and every one of the people in that hearing knew it. The people who continued to ask questions as if they were upset that “he wasn’t answering even the simple ones” were taking part in a theatre for low-information voters, and I resent the dumbing down of important proceedings and misinforming people of their rights. People are acting like it’s beyond the pale that he pled the 5th 111 times or whatever it was, they’re making hay out of that being the second most times in history that right was invoked… When in reality, it’s a testament to the stupidity of the questioners: They could have asked him 600 questions, and he would have had to answer them the same.
I’m receptive to the idea that having cameras in these proceedings is a mistake. Ultimately, I think that the scales weigh in favor of the public disclosure, but a small part of me knows and wishes for a reality where they weren’t so busy trying to make political hay for the drooling masses, and that they’d stop wasting time and resources farming YouTube clips.
But there were a couple of legitimate points made.
Rand Paul made the point that you can’t both make a statement and plea the fifth (highlighting that he’s aware of this), and thought that Fauci’s opening remark might lead him vulnerable to prosecution. I don’t think that has the benefit of being true, but he’s free to try.
More germane, I think, were his points that Fauci was in fact pre-pardoned for anything Paul could possibly charge by President Autopen. He can’t take the fifth… Because he’s shielded from prosecution. What Paul was hoping for was that Fauci would lie under oath, and lying under oath would open him up to prosecution, because that would have been an act *since* his pardon, but if Fauci had just told the truth, and even if he admitted lying to congress, destroying documents, and killing a person on 5th avenue, he’d still be shielded from prosecution… Which means that the only reason to take the fifth would be if you weren’t prepared to tell the truth.
And that’s toxic to the system, pure anathema. It cannot be allowed to stand. You can’t take the fifth because you plan to lie and lying would open you up to prosecution, because if we allowed that no witness could ever be compelled to testify about anything. Everyone would just take the fifth on the theory that whatever they said might be subject to perjury. No, the expectation is that you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and if you’ve been proactively pardoned or otherwise granted immunity, you have the duty to answer questions candidly.
“When in reality, it’s a testament to the stupidity of the questioners.” You know better. That wouldn’t be allowed in court because its prejudicial, but in a public hearing. it’s effective court of public opinion theater. Most people believe that taking the Fifth suggests guilt, and most of the time, it does.
No, and shame on you.
It’s “effective” court of public opinion theatre because the public doesn’t know what’s going on. And they don’t know what’s going on, because the questioners are misleading them. They’re doing that by asking questions as though Fauci could pick and choose what questions to answer, and feigning surprise when he continues to plea, even in the face of questions about carpet color.
Defend that without saying “that’s how it’s always been”, “everyone does it” or “there are worse things”.
I’ll defend it by saying “It works,” and “Fauci deserves every bit of it” as well as “Senate rules permit it.” The repeat questioning highlights what a coward and villain Fauci is. The same technique was used during the Kefaufer hearings on the Mafia in the Fifties. It was very effective, and did as great deal to weaken organized crime. Fauci’s lawyer might have explained that once he refused to answer he couyldn’t, but he got himself thrown out of the hearing.
I thought this was especially effective:
“[Senator Bernie Moreno] requested those in the audience to stand up if they had paid a professional, legal, or personal price for dissenting from Covid orthodoxies …”
“… during the pandemic. The senator then asked Fauci to turn around and look at them. Fauci refused. Then Moreno told the story of a family in Ohio who attended a high school football game in the middle of the lockdowns. ‘They went to the stadium. They sat alone, far from anyone else. They didn’t feel they needed to wear masks because it was stupid and they were outside. Dr. Fauci, do you know what happened to . . . that family?’ Fauci responded with the line he must have repeated more than a hundred times in the hearing. ‘On the advice of counsel I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,’ he said. ‘They were dragged out of that stadium and arrested,’ [Moreno] said. ‘Those policies were put in place because you had moronic politicians that listened to the words of a megalomaniac who was more interested in having met a Kardashian than the suffering of the American people.’ Fauci just sat there, stone faced, without emotion….” Eli Lake, in “Pleading the Fifth Won’t Spare Fauci from the Truth/He claims his Senate hearing was a witch hunt designed to entrap him. But his record convicts him on its own” (Free Press).
You’re confusing police questioning with testifying under oath. Under police questioning, you invoke once and it is a violation of your civil rights if they ask more questions. It is different giving testimony under oath, each invoking the right to answer is a unique instance. You have the right to remain silent for any and all police questioning. You don’t have that right in court, in a deposition under court order, nor before congress.
Each time he takes the 5th when he has no reason to take the 5th he’s committing a separate crime. You don’t get to plead the 5th if your answer won’t incriminate him in any way. Each question compels an appropriate answer when you’re under oath. If your truthful answer doesn’t incriminate you, your spouse, your client if you’re a lawyer, or your parishioner if clergy, you need to answer. Whether you get privilege to not answer or not changes with each question.
That’s… Not entirely wrong, but there’s nuance. I think what you’re missing is the difference between parties and non-parties in criminal litigation. You can’t, as an example, take the stand in your own defense and then plead the 5th on cross examination, even if the answers would incriminate you, because you’ve waived that right in choosing to testify. This is related to that, but a little difference, because as opposed to proactively choosing to testify in his own defense, Fauci was subpoenaed to testify, but the same principle applies: He can’t choose a la carte to testify or not, he had to assert that right up front and stick with it.
It’s why Paul said this at the end:
“But he was subpoenaed here to testify, and he refused to answer any questions, even after being directed by the chair and being advise of the law requiring him to do so. He has cited a privilege that is unsupported because of his blanket pardon and because he waived the privilege by testifying at the start. I’m going to give you one more opportunity to comply with the law: Limited to the period of your pardon, at any point between January 1st 2014 and January 19th 2025, did you destroy any federal record or tell anybody else to?”
I’m much more in agreement with “He has cited a privilege that is unsupported because of his blanket pardon” than the point about testifying, because he didn’t really testify in his own defense so much as he just called Paul a jerk, but if he had answered any question, he’d have had to answer all of them.
And I’m just saying… This is exactly what I was talking about up top: This is complicated enough, and important enough, that we shouldn’t be so shit hot on politicians misinforming people about the process. I know everyone here has some big feelings about Fauci, but eventually someone you like is going to be up there.
June 2020 was when this happened.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534
not an expert in law so i havea question. What would the legal sitation have been if after the first time he pleaded the fifth he just stod up and exited the room? Does that constitute contempt of Congress?
Legally speaking, not if he first makes a fist with his thumb tucked between his index and middle fingers and then twists his hand from side to side, which is the universal sign for needing to go to the toilet.
It would definitely be contempt. Witnesses don’t get to pick and choose when or how they appear, even if they invoke their rights. Ideally, once the right is invoked, the judge or the chair (depending on where the hearing is) would stickhandle the proceeding weighing the right to ask questions against the right that no negative inference be taken from pleading the 5th…. Judges generally do it right, if for no reason other than that they don’t like things that could lead to reversible error. Politicians don’t, the incentive structures are different, and we’re worse off for it.
There is one more big difference between a judge at a trial, civil or criminal, and what happens before congress.
If a judge is thinking you’re pleading the fifth amendment right to avoid answering a question because you don’t want to, the judge can hold you in contempt right there. He can toss you in a jail cell until you’re ready to talk.
We all know Fauci is doing this to avoid answering a question he doesn’t want to. He is covered by a pardon. That pardon includes lying to congress. If he goes there and says “Hey, I lied before but this is the truth now” then he’s fine. He’s saying he is afraid of a perjury trap, but the way to avoid that is to tell the truth. Now he’s falling for the contempt trap. Whether he’s going to be convicted all depends on if a judge in the most leftist district in the country will allow an impartial jury to be seated.
Based on my observations and my understanding of the law…
Dr. Fauci’s opening remarks (23:35-26:09 in this video timeline) at the hearing were very carefully crafted not to include any justification whatsoever of any of his actions or refuted any of the recent claims against him, there wasn’t a word. So by rights he honestly didn’t “testify” at the hearing in his opening statement regarding anything he’s done; therefore, it’s my opinion that his pleading the 5th to 100% of the questions asked of him will hold up in court and any possible Contempt of Congress action will be struck down by the courts as violating Fauci’s individual constitutional rights. Republican members better watch out, if they intentionally violate Fauci’s constitutional 5th amendment rights there will be hell to pay.
That’s my understanding of the law as it regards to Fauci’s testimony. Please correct me if I’m legally incorrect.
Dr. Fauci’s public actions and intentional lack of actions, during and post the COVID pandemic are reprehensible. His actions and intentional lack of actions directly and indirectly caused the death of people across the USA, literally destroyed the lives of scientists and physicians across the USA, caused major educational and psychological setbacks in the development of children across the USA, caused psychological problems for some across the USA due to the forced isolation that he supported, in some cases forced people across the USA to take an experimental vaccine that admittedly did not stop the spread of the virus, wiped out businesses across the USA, and helped to destroy the economy in the USA. Dr. Fauci’s own narcissistic arrogance, actions, and intention al inaction have directly and indirectly contributed to undermining the trust our society once has had in professional scientists across the USA. Everything that has come out of Dr. Fauci’s mouth related to COVID proves to me that Dr. Fauci is one of those brazen narcissistically arrogant progressives that doesn’t care one bit about the lives he destroys as long as he is “right”, he’s morally bankrupt.
Dr. Fauci’s words and actions have shown me that his thinking seem to be directly inline with other progressives…
For the progressive left, there are four tenets of “truth” that are widely accepted (but not spoken aloud);
That is the dead end of the 21st century progressive left’s ability to think critically.
I challenge anyone reading this to present evidence, if you can, that these four tenets are not a correct representation of Dr. Fauci’s words and actions throughout and after the COVID pandemic. For that matter, show me these are not the core tenets of 21st century progressives and the left’s Pravda-USA media over the last 10+ years.
Based on my personal observation over the last 26+ years, all 21st century progressives (yes all of them) and a vast and growing majority (not all) of the 21st century Democratic Party members and supporters are irretrievably broken from reality, intentionally morally bankrupt, and they have done this willingly and with conscious intent. The perceived intent of these brazen narcissistically arrogant people is to gain either a socialist and/or communist political foothold in our society that pushing a genuine anti-USA agenda on every imaginable (sociommunist) political, social, and cultural front. Everything I’ve seen and heard from these groups of people over the last 26+ years leads me to believe that they actually despise (to hate something deeply, loathe it, or look down on it with strong disrespect and no respect) the USA and want it to politically, socially, and culturally fail, yes fail. The vast majority of the outspoken political left have made their sociommunist choice and most (not all) of the rest of the unspoken political left seem to be falling into place like sheep to slaughter.
Dr. Fauci is morally bankrupt.
I don’t think Fauci is as overtly partisan as you make him out to be, unless you consider him a party of one. Everything he does makes a whole lot more sense when viewed through the lens of ego and narcissism. His self-importance during Covid coupled with an autistically retarded understanding of reality dovetailed with a lot of progressive priorities and so they became natural allies, but make no mistake: If the democrats hadn’t been flattening their dicks applauding him on like seals, he would have turned on them too.
Humble Talent wrote, “I don’t think Fauci is as overtly partisan as you make him out to be…”
Maybe not; however, Dr. Fauci pigeonholes himself with his words and actions.
When a progressive, even a closet progressive, shows you who they are with their signature significant words and actions, believe them.
“I don’t think Fauci is as overtly partisan as you make him out to be, unless you consider him a party of one.”
I think that’s fair. But the overwhelming beneficiaries of his actions were Democrats and progressives, those who seized on his pronouncements to grab power and remove civil freedoms were on the Left, the news media that aided and abetted him was the Axis media, and those in denial now even after his perfidy and destruction are undeniable are from the Left as well.
Jack asked, “Is an apology by Fauci ethically necessary, or even ethical?”
“Ethically necessary” or “ethical” on this point is completely irrelevant to me. Dr. Fauci has proven to me that he is a brazen liar; therefore, I’d be a damn fool to believe any word of any apology that comes out of his mouth.
The children’s story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” immediately comes to mind.
Dr. Fauci made his bed.
Good point, Steve. Why even parse the question? It’s fuzzy anyway. Is the question whether Fauci thinks he owes an apology, whether he really owes one, or whether we think he owes one? Whether apologizing would even be ethical depends on his beliefs and motives. Your point cuts through all that: “The guy isn’t credible, so f— the apology.”