(A)Political - August 1st

Good morning everyone,

D.C. is still not sleeping! Let’s dive in!

One of the leading medical figures in the Covid era now faces a contempt vote from lawmakers in Washington. The U.S. president has claimed a breakthrough on Hamas disarming. The Wall Street Journal was first to publish that Trump has authorized additional strikes against Iran, including energy infrastructure.

• Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment Over 100 Times, Faces Contempt Vote

• Trump Hails Victory On Hamas Disarming

• Reports Of Trump Authorizing Additional Strikes Against Iran

Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment Over 100 Times, Faces Contempt Vote

_{By: Atlas}

Dr. Anthony Fauci will face a contempt of Congress vote next week after he invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer more than 100 questions at a Senate hearing on the origins of COVID-19 and the government's handling of the pandemic.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, will consider a contempt resolution on August 5. If the panel approves it, the measure would be sent to the Justice Department with a recommendation to prosecute, Paul said.

"Because you refuse to answer, citing a privilege that is unsupported, because of your pardon, and after being denied to do so, this committee has scheduled a vote next week on a resolution certifying your contempt," Paul told Fauci as Wednesday's hearing closed.

Fauci, 85, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022, advising seven presidents and serving as the public face of the US response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Paul subpoenaed him to appear as part of the senator's yearslong accusations that Fauci lied about the pandemic — allegations Fauci has called "preposterous."

A Hearing With No Answers

After a brief opening statement, Fauci answered every question, regardless of topic, with the same line: "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."

In his opening remarks, Fauci said Paul's conduct left him no choice. Citing what he characterized as Paul's "obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me," and the senator's decision to publicly release his personal journal, Fauci said: "The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something — anything — that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, 'behind bars.'"

"Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion," he continued. "Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decadeslong record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions."

The roughly three-hour hearing produced tense moments. Republican senators repeatedly tried to draw Fauci into responding, with Senator Josh Hawley at one point asking him to identify the colors of his tie and the carpet. Paul pressed Fauci on research he says the government funded in China and on "gain-of-function" work he says was conducted on monkeypox at Fort Detrick in Maryland. Fauci declined to answer each time.

When Paul concluded his questioning, Fauci's lawyer, David Schertler, tried to address the senators but was repeatedly cut off, and Paul ultimately ordered security to remove him from the committee room. "This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers," Paul said. Schertler later called Paul's actions "outrageous," saying they prove "the baseless and vindictive nature of this proceeding and Rand Paul's personal vendetta against Dr. Fauci." He added that Fauci "has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege, and he has the right to assert it."

The Pardon at the Center of the Dispute

The legal fight turns on the preemptive pardon former President Joe Biden issued to Fauci on January 19, 2025, covering any federal offenses he may have committed from January 1, 2014, through the end of Biden's term. Biden said the move aimed to protect Fauci from "politically motivated prosecutions."

Republicans argue that because the pardon shields Fauci from criminal liability for past actions, he cannot claim that testimony about those actions would incriminate him — and therefore cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment. "Dr. Fauci isn't liable for anything as long as he tells the truth," Paul said, adding that Fauci would be protected "even if he admits that he destroyed records on a routine basis."

Fauci's lawyers advised the opposite, reasoning that anything he said under oath could expose him to new legal risks, since the pardon does not cover conduct after it was issued — including any alleged perjury at the hearing itself. Paul acknowledged the pardon question is a novel "legal question that the courts may have to decide."

Republicans also argued Fauci effectively waived his Fifth Amendment rights by delivering an opening statement before refusing questions. Senator James Lankford pointed to former IRS official Lois Lerner, who gave an opening statement before invoking the Fifth in 2013 and was subsequently held in contempt by the House. "You can't both testify and say, 'I'm not going to answer questions,'" Lankford said, framing it as a parliamentary question the committee must resolve.

Not all legal observers agree the contempt push will succeed. Fox News legal contributor Solomon Wisenberg said the Senate "is going to lose in court" if it pursues the matter. "You may not like it, but it's a valid implication" of the Fifth Amendment, he said.

Democrats Call It a Show Trial

Democrats on the committee defended Fauci and criticized the proceedings. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, called the hearing "a partisan exercise" that "does real damage," warning it would deter scientific experts from public service. "It's tempting to turn one person into the scapegoat for a crisis that hundreds of officials across both the Trump and the Biden administration were responsible for handling," he said.

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut declined to question Fauci at all, calling the hearing a "show trial" and comparing it to Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communism hearings of the 1950s. "This attempt to rebrand one of the most challenging times in our nation's history is a shortsighted act of desperation that will leave us less prepared for the next pandemic," he said, describing the proceedings as part of a "campaign against science."

Before the hearing, Paul released more than 1,100 pages of Fauci's typewritten pandemic-era diary, which Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said constituted government records because they were written by a federal employee on a government computer during a public health emergency. Paul said the diary showed gaps between Fauci's private discussions and public statements; Fauci's supporters say the entries reflect the uncertainty scientists faced with a new virus.

What Happens Next

If the committee approves the contempt resolution, the matter could be referred to the full Senate and then to the Justice Department, which would decide whether to bring charges. Democrats could block a floor vote via filibuster, and federal prosecutors have declined Paul's previous requests to charge Fauci. People convicted of contempt of Congress face a fine of up to $100,000 and a prison term of up to 12 months; Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were both convicted of contempt and served time in prison.

Paul closed the hearing by asking rhetorically whether Fauci's actions "lead to the largest man-made plague in history" — a reference to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19's origins. Most scientists believe the virus likely spread naturally from animals to humans, pointing to a Wuhan wildlife market, while the US intelligence community remains divided: the FBI and CIA have assessed a laboratory-related incident as the most likely origin, the latter with low confidence, while other agencies favor a natural origin or remain undecided. Fauci has consistently said the scientific evidence points to a natural origin while remaining open to other possibilities.

Subscribe to (A)Political to read the rest.