Fauci faces contempt vote after refusing to answer COVID-19 questions in Congress

Former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 100 times during a contentious U.S. Senate hearing, leading to warnings that he could face contempt of Congress charges.

Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Wednesday. He stated he was invoking the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his attorneys. Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a legal right and not a crime in itself, commonly used in U.S. legal proceedings.

“

I think there is a very real chance that he could be prosecuted for that.

Senator Rand Paul, the committee's chairman and a vocal critic of Fauci, expressed his belief that Fauci could be prosecuted. Paul has long alleged that Fauci was involved in a cover-up regarding the origins of the coronavirus and supported research at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, a theory that suggests the pandemic may have originated there. Fauci has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

“

He told the panel he was invoking the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution under the advice of his attorneys.

The committee plans to vote next week on a resolution to hold Fauci in criminal contempt. If passed by the Senate, the resolution would require 60 votes, a challenging threshold that would necessitate bipartisan support. Should it pass, the matter would be referred to the District of Columbia's top prosecutor for potential charges.

Adding a layer of complexity, President Joe Biden issued a pre-emptive pardon to Fauci covering actions between 2014 and 2025. However, this pardon might not shield him from potential charges for actions occurring after that date or from state-level investigations, such as one Florida's attorney general has indicated he will pursue. Senator Paul acknowledged that the scope of the pardon and its potential immunity implications may require judicial clarification.

“

Paul, who is chairman of the panel, acknowledged the issue of Fauci's pardon, and whether it imparted him immunity, was 'another legal question that the courts may have to decide upon'.