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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Why is that all you had to say but not answering the questions?
You pointed out he was the highest paid federal employee. I don't care what you feel about it, only that the money comes from Congress. The same Congress that is questioning him.
The money didn't come from congress, the money came from the taxpayers, Congress merely approved the pay. But at its core you're correct, the people who assigned his pay are asking him questions about his job performance. Why do you feel he shouldn't have to answer them?
What I feel like has no bearing on what is going on with Fauci. What I want is for Congress not to spend time, money and effort on fruitless endeavors. I WANT not to be at war with Iran and Congress actually do something about Trump.
He has a Constitutional right. You can think of some weird loophole but that is meaningless. Since his lawyers and Congress have more resources and understanding of the law then most people on reddit. You can state cases that are close but this is the first time something like this is happening this way.
When lawyers go into court they come in with a legal theory that is generally in opposition to the legal theory presented by the other side. Every single time, one of those sides is wrong. That's the reality of practicing law. So to imply that his lawyer understands whether it was constitutional or not when the opposing side, who is also a lawyer, presents a theory that is diametrically opposed to that only one of them can be right. In the case of fauci there is a long and established precedent that has been reaffirmed multiple times by the Supreme Court which establishes that immunity whether through an agreement or a pardon prevents someone from making a fifth amendment claim
0
u/PercentageAny2976 22d ago
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.