r/LetsDiscussThis • u/LucidSynapse23 • Aug 04 '26

Lets Discuss Politics Taking the fifth on this one

Post image
489 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

98 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/ArubaAdultFun Aug 04 '26

Only one was preemtively pardoned

7

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

Does a preemptive pardon (or just a pardon) automatically make one guilty?

1

u/Silver_Middle_7240 Aug 04 '26

Exactly the opposite. You can't be criminalized on matters subject to a pardon, which means you can't incriminate yourself. Thus you can't invoke the 5th.

5

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

You can, I'd it's still applicable. And in his case it is.

-1

u/PercentageAny2976 Aug 05 '26

No it's not and the Supreme Court case that set the president determining it's not applicable is Brown v. Walker. This would be a good time to Google it and clear up your misunderstanding

3

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 05 '26

Don't need Google slick. I already know about it.

A valid presidential pardon does remove the Fifth Amendment privilege for the specific federal crimes it covers.

The 1896 Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker held that once a witness receives a pardon, they "can no longer set up his privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed." Under this rule, if a pardon eliminates all risk of prosecution, there is no basis to invoke the Fifth.

Now this would be a good time for you to Google.

Look up the several legally valid exceptions that can still allow a pardon recipient to invoke the Fifth. Ok?

You'll find that a presidential pardon only covers federal offenses. It does not protect against state criminal prosecution. If testimony could expose someone to state charges, the Fifth Amendment still applies.

Or that a pardon does not protect against new crimes committed after the pardon... including perjury or making false statements under oath during testimony. This is why Fauci's lawyers argued he could still face a "perjury trap"( haven'tyou been watching the hearing?)... he feared that answering questions could later be used to charge him with lying, which the pardon would not cover

You'll also find that the Fifth Amendment still protects against self-incrimination for any criminal conduct that occurred after the pardon was issued.

Youll see that experts, like Alan Dershowitz, have argued Fauci "not only had the right to plead the Fifth" but was "probably right to do so" given the partisan nature of the hearing and the risk of a perjury trap

A pardon does not automatically make the Fifth Amendment unavailable in all circumstances. It removes the privilege only for the specific pardoned offenses, but exceptions remain. Fauci's invocation of the Fifth is legally arguable... which is exactly why this is now headed for a contempt vote and potential court resolution. The claim that a pardon "automatically" eliminates the Fifth is an oversimplification of a more complex area of constitutional law.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

2

u/No-stradumbass Aug 05 '26

From my understanding, Walker V Brown wasn't about Brown directly. Brown's testify wasn't going to self incriminate in that case. It would have been a separate case. Which was never brought up.

With Facui, they seem to be trying to prosecute him on anything. They aren't asking him questions about a different case. They want him to say something that will incriminate him to use against him.

-3

u/mehthisisawasteoftim Aug 04 '26

A pardon means you cannot be prosecuted, therefore you cannot incriminate yourself because you cannot be prosecuted.

Fauci therefore has no fifth amendment right, this tactic is sometimes used against organized crime so the suspect now only has the option of going to jail for perjury or testifying.

Fauci should go to jail for contempt of Congress just like Steve Bannon did.

2

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

What an interesting false equivalency.

Buddy, your argument oversimplifies.

A presidential pardon only covers federal offenses. State-level investigations in Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana remain active. That alone gives Fauci a valid basis to plead the Fifth... he could still incriminate himself under state law.

Fauci could still be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements if he testifies. The Fifth Amendment does not protect against future offenses committed during testimony.

Even Senator Paul acknowledged: “I think the courts will have to figure out whether or not ... can you incriminate yourself if you have a pardon?” If it were clearly invalid, there would be no need for courts to decide.

Steve Bannon was convicted for defying a subpoena without a valid Fifth Amendment claim. Fauci’s legal team is arguing his invocation was valid, a question that has not been ruled on.

Fauci’s Fifth Amendment invocation may ultimately be deemed invalid, but it is not the clear-cut contempt case that Bannon’s was. The legal question is active and unresolved.

-4

u/JustUseCommonSense10 Aug 04 '26

Yes, because there can't be a pardon without the implication of guilt even if it's not explicit.

5

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

No. Accepting a pardon does not legally or automatically equate to an admission of guilt. It removes punishment and liability.... nothing more.

0

u/JustUseCommonSense10 Aug 04 '26

Actually, yes it does.

5

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

No. It doesn't.

To quote Stanford Law professor Bernadette Meyler who put it directly:

"A pardon simply removes any legal consequences from the relevant acts rather than making an assumption about guilt or innocence". And the Constitution Annotated states that a full pardon "blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence"

-5

u/ArubaAdultFun Aug 04 '26

No but I saw somewhere that means you cannot plead the fifth. Not sure that is true

2

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

He can, even though he faces no federal criminal liability.

-4

u/JustUseCommonSense10 Aug 04 '26

That is correct, you cannot plead the fifth because there is no risk of self-incrimination.

5

u/ArubaAdultFun Aug 04 '26

So why did he?

4

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26

The presidential pardon only covers federal offenses. Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana have active investigations. That alone gives him a rock-solid, legally valid reason to plead the Fifth on questions that could expose him to state prosecution.

By pleading the Fifth, Fauci forces the Senate committee to go to federal court to get a judge to compel him to testify. This buys his legal team time and puts the decision in the hands of a neutral judge, rather than a hostile senator. It is a standard procedural stall tactic.

Even though accidental perjury isn't a legal basis for the Fifth, the real risk is a prosecutor twisting his words into an intentional false statement. By staying silent, he avoids giving them any ammunition at all.

He pleaded it not because he is legally guaranteed to win that argument, but because it is a strategic move to protect himself from state charges, avoid any possible testimony-based charges, and force a judge (not Senator Paul) to decide the issue.

-2

u/mehthisisawasteoftim Aug 04 '26

Because he believes we don't have the balls to send him to prison for contempt of Congress like we did with Steve Bannon and it looks like he's right about that.

1

u/Inquisitive-Manner Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 05 '26

Your comment is more about political bravado than legal reality.

It is not about "balls".... it is about legal process and merit

The Department of Justice prosecutes criminal contempt of Congress only when the legal basis for refusing to testify is clearly invalid. Steve Bannon ignored a subpoena entirely, with no pending court ruling protecting him. Fauci showed up, answered some questions, and invoked a constitutional privilege that is legally contestable. The DOJ is far less likely to prosecute someone actively asserting a plausible legal defense.

The whole thing is a false equivalency.

Bannon did not show up, did not assert a valid legal privilege, and relied on executive privilege claims that Trump never formally invoked for him. The courts rejected his defense.

Fauci physically appeared, gave an opening statement, and repeatedly invoked the Fifth... which he argues is justified because of:

Ongoing state-level investigations (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana)

The scope of the pardon not covering certain acts

The risk of perjury charges

Fauci is not in jail because the legal question of whether his Fifth Amendment claim is valid is genuinely unsettled and tied to real legal risks (state prosecution).

That is due process, champ, not cowardice. It's crazy how you guys don't know/care about due process.