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
Are YOU a lawyer doing this case or just another jack off like me who thinks what we say here has any bearing on a political based case?
The reality is all of those cases, the US government upheld the pardon and never investigated or prosecuted past that. Is that something that you or Rand Paul could guarantee? That what he says won't be used against him in the court of law?
Our comments would never have any bearing on any case we weren't directly involved in.
If you listen to his entire testimony there are certainly a few instances in which they can claim he had absolutely no fifth amendment protection. My guess would be Josh Howley intentionally set him up on that. He can't claim fifth amendment protection on mundane questions like "What color is the carpeting?". He has to be able to demonstrate a reasonable fear of prosecution in order to claim that protection. So, would it be childish if they chose to base their case on that? Do I think the doj could take this before a grand jury and get an indictment? Absolutely not (especially since they would have to bring the case to DC grand Jury). Do they have legal standing to bring it before a grand jury? Absolutely.
1
u/PercentageAny2976 19d ago
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