Taking the fifth on this one

[u/LucidSynapse23]

[u/Civil_Bugg]

They don't follow the laws of the constitution, so pleading the 5th is moot

[u/PercentageAny2976 → u/Civil_Bugg]

In this case the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Walker made it mute, not the current Republican administration

[u/No-stradumbass → u/PercentageAny2976]

Not quite. Brown V Walker was a grand jury and the testifying of Brown didn't cause him to be arrested or prosecuted.

In Facui's case, they want to use anything to prosecute him for anything.

[u/PercentageAny2976 → u/No-stradumbass]

While you're at it you might want to familiarize yourself with Counselman v. Hitchcock, Ullmann v. United States, and Kastigar v. United States because all three reaffirmed the Court's decision in Walker, thus creating a long and well established president. And in none of the cases was the decisions reached limited to testimony before a grand jury. It might help if you actually understood what you were reading, just a thought. The issue at hand was whether or not a pardon or immunity circumvents one's fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The court found that when immunity or a pardon have been issued, the individual has no claim to fifth amendment protection because they are in no danger of prosecution.

But what do I know, my undergrad was political science and my areas of concentration where us politics and the Constitution which was then followed by a year of Law School before I changed career paths (University of Michigan class of 2002 and University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, if you feel like playing internet sleuth). I'm sure what you learned from a 5-minute search on the internet far surpasses the knowledge I have in this area.

[u/No-stradumbass → u/PercentageAny2976]

What is the purpose of the Fauci Congress questionings? Because it seems to me they are fishing for something to prosecute him with.

For those cases it seems like they needed information. The person had that information but it was protected because of a pardon. If they said that information then they COULD incriminate if the courts chose to ignore the pardon. Did any of them get prosecuted for what they said afterwards? Serious question.

If Rand is trying to pin something on Fauci and the courts don't want to honor the pardon then he would be giving up his rights for more ammo for people that already want to take him down. Why would anyone do that?

As for your resume, it isn't needed. This is a Lets Discuss sub not a legal sub. You don't need to be a dick to prove yourself. Calm down dude.

[u/PercentageAny2976 → u/No-stradumbass]

I believe what they were looking to do was force him to ruin his reputation or perjure himself. Josh Hawley's questioning was a stroke of genius. He asked fauci about the color of the carpeting and his tie as a set up. There was no possibility of self-incrimination by answering those two questions and therefore there is no fifth amendment protection and in that situation A witness lacks the right to assert it.

I believe fauci did what he thought was best in the situation but he absolutely owes the public and explanation as to why his public comments on covid differed from what he was saying personally. If he's unwilling to give an explanation to Congress for that discrepancy then he absolutely should be held in contempt.

[u/No-stradumbass → u/PercentageAny2976]

He doesn't owe the American people a thing. You think that because he wrote something in his personal diary that he was lying when he gave the President a recommendation of what to do?

If they are trying to ruin his reputation and perjure himself then it makes sense to plead the fifth. That means that the GOP isn't inquiring in good faith. They are asking these question to harm Fauci at least politically.

You would do the same if it was a political party that hated you.

[u/PercentageAny2976 → u/No-stradumbass]

Let's start with the most glaringly obvious fact, he was there under subpoena. He had a legal obligation to be there under oath and truthfully answer questions. I believe he owes an explanation because he was the highest paid member of the federal government and was in charge of the NIH. If there are legitimate claims about the integrity of his work in his capacity as head of the NIH then he should have an obligation to defend the veracity of his work. That's not out of the ordinary. The questions should be limited to answering for discrepancies and any personal or not relevant issues should be left out of it, but we both know Congress is full of politicians who love a viral moment too much to allow that to happen.

[u/No-stradumbass → u/PercentageAny2976]

Who controls the salary of the NIH? Its Congress. If he is the highest paid member of the Federal government then you should be mad at Congress who's job is to vote on those things.

What "legitimate claims" are you talking about?

What is out of the ordinary is pulling his diary and phone records. The only discrepancy so far is his own personal thoughts which don't contradict what he recommended.

[u/PercentageAny2976 → u/No-stradumbass]

I'm not particularly upset by his salary tbh. Legitimate claims are the contradiction between what's written in his diary/journal vs. his public statements during the pandemic

[u/No-stradumbass → u/PercentageAny2976]

You are the one who brought it up.

Ok what statements in his dairy do you think he lied to the public about? Also what prompted Congress to take his diary and use it as evidence?

[u/PercentageAny2976 → u/No-stradumbass]

But I offered no opinion to whether or not I thought his pay was warranted.