Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

ASEAN NOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Become a member

Become a member

Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment at Tense Senate Hearing

Anthony Fauci refused to answer questions at a tense US Senate hearing on the origins of Covid-19, saying he feared Republicans would use his testimony to pursue allegations of perjury.

Speaking on Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) invoked the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from being compelled to give evidence against themselves in criminal cases.

Fifth Amendment Refusal

Fauci, 85, told senators: “Under the advice of my attorneys,” he would invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment to refrain from responding. He said the decision followed concern that contradicting himself under oath could create legal exposure, noting he had previously testified about Covid and its origin at several congressional hearings.

He added that taking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt and is meant to guard against coercion and mistakes, as well as shifting the burden of proof onto an individual.

Fauci also acknowledged that former President Joe Biden granted him a pre-emptive pardon, protecting him from federal prosecution for actions taken between 2014 and 2025. He said the protection would not necessarily extend beyond that period, leaving open the possibility of charges after the date of the pardon, including under state or local law.

Contempt Vote and Possible Probe

Senator Rand Paul, a Republican and chairman of the hearing, continued questioning Fauci after his refusal. Paul invited Fauci to “apologise” and said the committee would vote next week on a resolution holding Fauci in contempt of Congress.

Republicans have repeatedly accused Fauci of withholding information about the pandemic from the public and of misstating the risks during the crisis. Fauci has denied wrongdoing and previously described the allegations as “simply preposterous”.

One of Paul’s lines of questioning focused on guidance that changed during the pandemic as officials learned more about the virus. Fauci had defended his earlier positions.

Fauci’s lawyer, David Schertler, attempted to interject during Paul’s questioning and was removed from the room. After the hearing, Schertler called it “outrageous” for Paul to exclude counsel when making what he described as a legitimate legal point, saying it reflected “the baseless and vindictive nature of this proceeding”.

Following the hearing, Florida’s Republican attorney general said he would open an investigation into Fauci. Senator Ron Johnson, also a Republican, said he would seek to subpoena Fauci in an effort to require him to answer senators’ questions.

Democrats defended Fauci, including Senator Maggie Hassan, who said the hearing was “designed to entrap” him.

Paul, Trump Trade Accusations

During the hearing, President Donald Trump posted on social media calling Fauci “crazy”. Trump said he had insisted from the start that the virus came from the Wuhan laboratory in China and that Fauci had “strongly disagreed”, portraying it as an attempt to protect China.

The origins of Covid-19 have been a longstanding point of contention in the US, with Trump, who was in office when the outbreak emerged in 2020, clashing with public health officials including Fauci.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Paul suggested that although Fauci had publicly said the virus originated naturally, Paul believed Fauci privately thought it began in a medical laboratory. Paul has promoted what is often called the lab-leak theory, linking the virus to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The World Health Organization said in 2025 that the natural-origins theory—spillover from animals to people—was the “best supported” explanation based on available evidence, but that until more information emerges, determining the origin remains “inconclusive”.

Diary Entries Revisit Origins Debate

Earlier this week, Paul released diary entries from Fauci’s pandemic era. In the entries, Fauci reflected on fame and discussed Covid origins, indicating that early on he considered both natural origins and a lab leak, before appearing to become more convinced the virus had a natural origin.

In one note from February 2020 about a call between Covid scientists, Fauci said doctors did not have “total agreement” on where the virus came from. He later wrote he was “almost certain” the virus evolved through a species jump while still keeping an open mind about a possible lab leak, and that two alternatives being possible did not mean they were equally probable.

Fauci has received death threats during and after the pandemic and Trump removed his security protection last year. He was also one of the most trusted figures in the US response during the crisis, and in 2021 Trump awarded him a presidential commendation for his work on the Covid vaccine project known as Operation Warp Speed.

Join the discussion? Create account. orange.png


image.png

30 July 2026

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
Just now, Smokey and the Bandit said:

If Dr. Fauci answered questions under oath on Wednesday, any perceived discrepancy, misstatement, or contradiction with past testimony, emails, or personal diary entries could be used by opponents to file perjury or false statement charges against him today.

So, Dr. Fauci didn't take the Fifth because the pardon "didn't work," but rather because the pardon only covers the past, not the present. To avoid giving his critics new statements under oath that could be prosecuted as fresh perjury, his legal team advised him to decline answering questions altogether.

Right the pardon covers the past(like perjury or giving false statements under oath). So if he had actually answered truthfully on July 29 then he would have to admit he perjured himself during the years of 2014 to 2024 then he would be "Scott free". These past crimes if they were committed furring the pardon period would be immune from prosecution. So he had two options: 1) Invoke the 5th 2) Tell the truth as long it is covered under the pardon. He chose the former. This is completely within his legal rights.

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Tug said:

Naa not even close old donald did over 200 times.odd to me that every trumper is trying to crucify a scientist for trying to save lives during a pandemic that for a time was killing 4,000 AMERICANS an effin day but won’t call out a New York City trustfund baby for exposing thousands of Americans during his let’s lie and rip-off America rallies…some folks are pathetic in my view.

It was over 440 times during the deposition with Leta James our brave prosecutor trying to hold the felon to account for trying to steal the election…..big difference between a scientist trying to save lives ehh?and I beg to differ with you,you are at the very least complicit in your views with the felon.

Again not a DJT supporter but one was giving a deposition for a civil trial and the other was during a Senate hearing and the witness had a presidential pardon. Yes, a POTUS can give himself a pardon as well and only timewill tell if DJT does it before he leaves office. The other option would be to pull a Nixon/Spiro Agnew dance: Resign and then have the VP now POTUS grant a pardon. This maneuver was pulled off in 1974.

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Really, I have seen it invoked in criminal court during trials. Have you?

Since you already acknowledged you're not a lawyer it must have been during your criminal trial, because I can't fathom you would waste your valuable time in jury duty when you could be posting here about legal issues you don't understand.

So....tell us more!

Did you get away with it? 😏

gamb00ler Ruby Member

gamb00ler

Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

What did he have to lose by speaking. Even he if admits to perjury from 2014 to 2024 he has a presidential pardon that gives him a "get out of jail card".

Given MAGAn's will understood difficulty with separating truth from propaganda.... best to say nothing!

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Since you already acknowledged you're not a lawyer it must have been during your criminal trial, because I can't fathom you would waste your valuable time in jury duty when you could be posting here about legal issues you don't understand.

So....tell us more!

Did you get away with it? 😏

No I was a police officer who was part of the investigation. Have never been arrested in my life? What about you? Parolee or probationer?

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Given MAGAn's will understood difficulty with separating truth from propaganda.... best to say nothing!

1) Never MAGA 2) Never a supporter of this POTUS 3) Did the virus come from a wet market or a lab? That questions seems to be the crux of the issue. What did this esteemed scientist answer to this question? Don't know because he invoked the 5th. Now that's propaganda. Right?

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
(edited)
5 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

No I was a police officer who was part of the investigation. Have never been arrested in my life? What about you? Parolee or probationer?

A police officer who does not understand basic fundamental Constitutional law.

Checks out.

I have served on jury duty before because I felt it was my civic duty.

I wasn't in court making money, like you were.

In fact, I lost money that day, 555.

I've also seen "Cop Memory" where cops lie in court and pretty much get away with it.

Except it causes the case to be dismissed.

But hey I digress.

Edited by SiSePuede419
Jury duty is less profitable than OT for cops

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
Just now, AustinRacing said:

There you have it. Wrongdoers rely on the Fifth to minimize damage. Right doers don’t need the Fifth.

That's not what Americas Founding fathers said and they must be right because they were Rich White Men. 🪶

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, SiSePuede419 said:

A police officer who does not understand basic fundamental Constitutional law.

Checks out.

I have served on jury duty before because I felt it was my civic duty.

I wasn't in court making money.

In fact, I lost money that day, 555.

I've also seen "Cop Memory" where cops lie in court and pretty much get away with it.

Except it causes the case to be dismissed.

But hey I digress.

Great points. You know virtually nothing about my past and I know nothing about yours so I do not comment about it. But you seem to be qualified to label me as a liar who only went to court for $$$. Great analysis. Now maybe you can demonstrate knowledge about Constitutional law? Nah, on second thought disregard because you will just resort to your go to move: Name calling.

LosLobo Platinum Member

LosLobo

Advanced Member
(edited)
31 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

If Dr. Fauci answered questions under oath on Wednesday, any perceived discrepancy, misstatement, or contradiction with past testimony, emails, or personal diary entries could be used by opponents to file perjury or false statement charges against him today.

So, Dr. Fauci didn't take the Fifth because the pardon "didn't work," but rather because the pardon only covers the past, not the present. To avoid giving his critics new statements under oath that could be prosecuted as fresh perjury, his legal team advised him to decline answering questions altogether.


Fauci’s pardon covered past federal conduct, but it did not create immunity for everything.
The ‘present’ issue is obvious — a pardon does not protect someone from new statements made under oath.
The key point is that the pardon did not cover state prosecution, so the Fifth Amendment is still relevant.
Therefore, Rand Paul’s argument that Fauci should be held in contempt for invoking the Fifth assumes the pardon eliminated all possible legal risk, which it did not.

Edited by LosLobo

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Great points. You know virtually nothing about my past and I know nothing about yours so I do not comment about it. But you seem to be qualified to label me as a liar who only went to court for $$$. Great analysis. Now maybe you can demonstrate knowledge about Constitutional law? Nah, on second thought disregard because you will just resort to your go to move: Name calling.

What name calling?!?!? You're having a Cop Hallucination.

Like where you see "meth crystal" on the dashboard and run to the camera to smear the defendant and it's just electrolytes.

Sad, weak. 😄

Sir Dude Gold Member

Sir Dude

Advanced Member

Not going to be political here, but Fauci is as sinister and dodgy as they come and I doubt he is being straight about any of this, so as protect himself from a "car accident" and also the big pharma narrative on it all.

Palatus Advanced Member

Palatus

Member
1 hour ago, 300sd said:

"Man of science," yes, his own science! Scum always comes to the surface. https://restoration-news.com/the-fauci-cult-1-000-pages-of-ego-awards-and-alleged-cover-ups

Doesn't it seem a bit daft to criticize science with a link to a conspiracy news site? I guess not if one is daft, for the rest of us we move on.

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
(edited)
5 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

What name calling?!?!? You're having a Cop Hallucination.

Like where you see "meth crystal" on the dashboard and run to the camera to smear the defendant and it's just electrolytes.

Sad, weak. 😄

"Liar"??? Yes, I am hallucinating. Never did anything like what you stated. Again you know virtually nothing about me but I do know two things about you: 1) You hate anyone and everyone who was a police officer 2) Anyone who was or is a police officer lies.

Edited by sqwakvfr

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

But you seem to be qualified to label me as a liar who only went to court for $$$. Great analysis.

Again with the Cop Memory recalling events that never happened.

I said I saw cops lie under oath, not you personally lie under oath.

Wow, this topic really bothers you, huh?

Have you ever lied under oath?

Feel free to plead the fifth and not answer this question 😁

riclag Star Member

riclag

Advanced Member

Ya gotta love those Dem Dairy's,especially Fauci's. Watching the left twist, turn and spin while the GOP cast Eff bombs on him was inspiring. I don't see much happening to Fauci his Dem friends in the Biden admin made sure of that.

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
(edited)
2 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Again with the Cop Memory recalling events that never happened.

I said I saw cops lie under oath, not you personally lie under oath.

Wow, this topic really bothers you, huh?

Have you ever lied under oath?

Feel free to plead the fifth and not answer this question 😁

No. If I had I would have been prosecuted and be working as a security guard or a limo driver in LA. In that case I would have never made it to the 'Land of Smiles". Have you ever been prosecuted and/or convicted? Feel free to invoke the 5th.

Edited by sqwakvfr

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, sqwakvfr said:

No. If I had I would have been prosecuted and be working as a security guard somewhere in LA. Have you ever been prosecuted and/or convicted? Feel free to invoke the 5th.

That claim is false.

Police officers can be charged with perjury if they knowingly lie under oath, but in practice:

It’s rarely prosecuted

It’s hard to prove intent (must show deliberate falsehood, not mistake)

Cases are often handled with internal discipline instead of criminal charges

Some officers with credibility issues are placed on “Brady/Giglio lists,” limiting their testimony rather than leading to conviction

Bottom line: Officers are not automatically charged or convicted—far from it.

Your ignorance of the law is hilarious 😂

sqwakvfr Platinum Member

sqwakvfr

Advanced Member
(edited)
Just now, SiSePuede419 said:

That claim is false.

Police officers can be charged with perjury if they knowingly lie under oath, but in practice:

It’s rarely prosecuted

It’s hard to prove intent (must show deliberate falsehood, not mistake)

Cases are often handled with internal discipline instead of criminal charges

Some officers with credibility issues are placed on “Brady/Giglio lists,” limiting their testimony rather than leading to conviction

Bottom line: Officers are not automatically charged or convicted—far from it.

Your ignorance of the law is hilarious 😂

1) I never said it was an automatic prosecution. 2) I knew a guy who was prosecuted for perjury. 3) Yes he did county time, terminated and worked as a limo driver. 3) I know the complete definition of perjury. AKA: the false testimony material to the case at hand. An honest mistake or not accurately recalling an event will not result in a perjury prosecution. 4)Your assumption of what I did or did not do in the past is equally hilarious.

Edited by sqwakvfr

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, sqwakvfr said:

1) I never said it was an automatic prosecution.

False.

More Cop Memory.

You can't even remember what you said a few minutes ago

Let me refresh your memory

If I had [lied under oath] I would have been prosecuted

SOMEB0DY Explorer Member

SOMEB0DY

Member
1 hour ago, 300sd said:

"Man of science," yes, his own science! Scum always comes to the surface. https://restoration-news.com/the-fauci-cult-1-000-pages-of-ego-awards-and-alleged-cover-ups

That little lying weasel puss needs to go through the grinder.

Smokey and the Bandit Gold Member

Smokey and the Bandit

Advanced Member

Interesting take on the hearing by Josh Hawley, who is in fact a lawyer..

300sd Gold Member

300sd

Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, Palatus said:

Doesn't it seem a bit daft to criticize science with a link to a conspiracy news site? I guess not if one is daft, for the rest of us we move on.

Try and understand the post! I've moved on, you should too.

SiSePuede419 Ruby Member

SiSePuede419

Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Interesting take on the hearing by Josh Hawley, who is in fact a lawyer..

Well, so is Todd Blanche but he has no idea why lawyers like things in writing, not just verbally. 😭

Republican Lawyers seem to not understand some very basic things.

So, no way am I listening to that moron Hawley who likes to runs away from danger like a little girl 👍

Blanche stated orally that the Department of Justice is dropping the payout plan, but declined to sign formal documents or memos fully rescinding the original settlement agreement.

Hamus Yaigh Gold Member

Hamus Yaigh

Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, riclag said:

Ya gotta love those Dem Dairy's,especially Fauci's. Watching the left twist, turn and spin while the GOP cast Eff bombs on him was inspiring. I don't see much happening to Fauci his Dem friends in the Biden admin made sure of that.

McCarthyism in 2026.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.