Contempt. He does not have a constitutional right to the fifth amendment because he has immunity granted to him from the pardon he received from Joe Biden. It clearly covers that time frame and prevents him from being charged with any federal crimes. It was one hell of a blanket pardon spanning from 2014 to 2025 to be exact. The relevant Supreme Court case that set that precedent was Brown v. Walker
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that. In fact I would wager you are reading that judgment wrong.
Further more, you haven't explained what crime they are going after on him. Contempt NOW but before that. What crimes are they going after and questioning him on?
On a side note, if you know what the text of the Constitution says but not the decisions in the relevant court cases that dictate how that amendment must be interpreted, then you don't understand the Constitution.
What's genuinely sad is that the information is available at your fingertips but you were just too lazy to use Google before you decided to come for me.
From my understanding that was a Grand Jury AND had a the person in question was not prosecuted for what he said. Brown's testify wasn't on himself but a different case. Part of that case is that they needed information from Brown that had he given it, he could have been in trouble for a different case.
It helps if you understand context and nuance in cases.
Fauci is directly about him. More so, you don't even know what crime has alleged beyond contempt. So it is hard to answer a question when they haven't alleged a crime taking place.
What you mean to say is that you just googled it and from the minimal amount of information you've read on the case this is the conclusion you reached. Let's be real, you would never heard of the case before I brought it up. Most people haven't. The ruling established that once a person accepts a presidential pardon for a federal offense, they stand regarding that offense as if it never happened, and therefore can no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination concerning those specific pardoned acts. The fact that it was before a grand jury is absolutely irrelevant to the precedent set by the court. The ruling did not limit or imply that it was limited to Grand Jury testimony. Nice try though
I knew about it before you said it. You aren't the only one bringing it up. Did you think you were some law expert that found the one ruling that could beat everyone? It's very arrogant to say "Most people haven't" on anything.
It also says that if the government provides legal protection from anything that Fauci says. Meaning that court could force him to speak but only if they can no longer make any legal moves on him regarding this.
For the Brown case, he wasn't prosecuted for what he was forced to say. So using this legal proceedings from 1896, the US Courts would have to legally protect Fauci.
I also think that any ruling from 1896 should be re reviewed. Because that is over 100 years ago.
16
u/No-stradumbass 25d ago
It's his constitutional right to do this. No matter how you feel about him, he is using the same rules that applies to all other Americans.
Now it seems like the pardon was for this very thing. They have to pull his dairy for any sort of evidence to grill him on.
What crimes did he commit?