tyb
vati's got spam diarrhea
Fauci can still be cited for Contempt of Congress. He's not answering any of the questions, "on advice of counsel."
That's why he was asked, "What color is your tie"?
He's not answering a simple question, which would have no bearing on truth or innocence, and that is easily demonstrating contempt.
Fauci can still be cited for Contempt of Congress. He's not answering any of the questions, "on advice of counsel."
Somebody told him that for the fifth amendment recourse he'd have to not "talk" at all.
False. Each question is separate.
Don't know who told him that? His lawyer. Who told his lawyer that?
DETAILS
No, the questions did not fully “stand alone” in a way that made selective answering risk-free; the common claim about potential waiver is grounded in Fifth Amendment doctrine, which is why a blanket assertion is the cautious strategy.
On July 29, 2026, Anthony Fauci appeared under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (chaired by Sen. Rand Paul). After an opening statement criticizing the proceedings as motivated by a desire to prosecute him, he invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to every question—reportedly more than 100 times (some counts around 111)—including highly innocuous ones such as the day of the week, the color of his tie, or the carpet. He did so on the advice of counsel, citing the risk that any answers could be used to pursue perjury or related charges despite a prior presidential pardon covering certain earlier conduct.
Under U.S. law, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not always strictly question-by-question in isolation once testimony begins on a subject.
A witness who voluntarily testifies about a subject generally waives the privilege as to the details of that subject and relevant cross-examination/follow-ups in the same proceeding. Courts have long held that a person cannot selectively disclose favorable or partial facts and then refuse further inquiry on the same topic (see, e.g., principles from Rogers v. United States and related cases). Allowing that would permit distortion.
but is the color of a tie a "favorable fact"?
Waiver is not lightly inferred, and there is a strong presumption against it. General denials of wrongdoing or opening statements often do not constitute a full waiver (as debated in the Lois Lerner IRS matter and similar congressional contexts). Selective invocation is sometimes permitted in civil or congressional settings for questions that truly lack any incriminating potential.
so professing innocence and enemies motive of persecution at the beginning could blow his whole Fifth amendment protection in this hearing?
Waived his right by answering at the start
In practice, especially in an adversarial congressional hearing with threats of contempt, perjury scrutiny, or later use of statements, lawyers frequently advise a blanket assertion. Answering even “safe” questions can open arguments that the witness has partially waived or that the answers create a “link in the chain” requiring more testimony. A former prosecutor quoted in coverage of this hearing put it directly: you cannot just pick and choose; a blanket Fifth is the safe approach.
Source, USA today. Crap source.
Under Fifth Amendment doctrine, the privilege is not an all-or-nothing right that attaches automatically to the entire proceeding. A witness may generally invoke it only when a specific answer would tend to incriminate or furnish a “link in the chain of evidence.” In theory, truly innocuous questions (day of the week, color of a tie, color of the carpet) do not trigger the privilege because they cannot possibly incriminate anyone.
In 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner did make a substantive profession of innocence (“I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws… I have not provided false information…”) before invoking the Fifth. The House Oversight Committee treated that as a waiver and held her in contempt; some members and analysts argued she had opened the door. The Justice Department later declined prosecution, finding the general assertions did not waive the privilege for criminal purposes and that the Fifth provided an absolute defense.
justthenews.com
Sen. James Lankford explicitly flagged the parallel during the Fauci hearing and asked whether the same “you can’t do both” logic applied. Chairman Paul indicated the committee would study…
https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/2082534316656206292
Seems like the massive public hate will be the engine.
This commentator
https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/2082534316656206292
contends that public anger is way to great for Fauci to be let-off.
If you look at the two vids.
Don jr.
https://rumble.com/embed/v7b5tcm/?pub=4
lawer G/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7dIZa7wQJs
it will give context
Mainstream who have been lying all along are trying to keep it under wraps. Make note of all involved with that. Great Perp list.
including among the Congress people
Rough Justice and Anthony Fauci
https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/2082534316656206292
"I really think that what we are seeing right now regarding Anthony Fauci represents a sort of tipping point in American history.
For the past 20 years or so our country has become so badly polarized that crimes are ignored if they are done for the “correct” way of thinking. For example, the "Trump/Russia Collusion” hoax was one of the greatest crimes in US history, yet half of America sees it as justified "because Trump.”
That same polarization was evident during COVID, where wearing or not wearing a mask became a political statement and Anthony Fauci was lionized by the political left and the national media as a hero of science and wisdom.
Further, COVID and Fauci represented the culmination of “trust the science” as a political football. For most of our lives we have been subjected to dire warnings of a “population bomb
,” or “a new Ice Age
,” or “global warming
,” or “rampant heterosexual AIDS transmission
,” or “climate change
,” all as hysterical bugaboos designed to use science as camouflage for seizures of power
away from the people into the hands of diabolical government bureaucrats.
Fauci was peak bugaboo.
(Just as an aside, the people I know who hate Fauci the MOST are medical professionals—people whose professional reputations were tarnished by proxy through Fauci’s lies and manipulation of public health policy.)
And Fauci was and is a TANGIBLE peak bugaboo that directly impacted all of our lives in so many profound and horrific ways. Kids locked down and terrified? Grandaddy dying alone and friendless in a plastic bubble? Not being able to attend your mother’s funeral? Being fired from your job because you would not inject some unknown substance into your veins? Losing your business? Not getting a timely cancer diagnosis? Loneliness, depression and fear? Bank account drained?
WE ALL EXPERIENCED SOME VARIATION OF THE ABOVE.
What makes this moment so rare in American history, however, is that all this pain has crystallized into the smirking specter of one very vain, very malicious, very megalomaniacal, very narcissistic, very tangible sort of “Doctor Evil
” in the form of one Anthony Fauci.
He has become a LIVING SYMBOL of all that is wrong with the unelected federal bureaucracy and the blind, unquestioning allegiance to faulty “science” that have plagued our lives these many decades.
In other societies or in another age, Fauci would be reaching a public demise like that of Mussolini
or Ceaușescu
. We are too “civilized" for that of course, yet the public anger remains on par with the anger that ended the reign of those megalomaniacal tyrants.
That anger is extreme. I’m not sure I’ve ever before seen public anger directed at one American in such a palpable way.
Which brings me back to my original idea that what we saw in the Senate today was a tipping point.
I don’t expect to see the Left and the media say “We were wrong.” However, I do expect them to stop defending Fauci. I do expect them to stand aside and let the public anger consume him. Why? Because like Ceaușescu’s guards stepping away at the last minute, they do not want to share in his fate.
And that fate will now rest in the courts. Per SCOTUS precedent
, Fauci arguably had no legal right to invoke the Fifth Amendment today. The Senate MUST therefore recommend contempt charges, the DOJ must indict him and bring him to trial, and he must be imprisoned as some small level of public satisfaction for the crimes against humanity this evil man committed.
I know, I know. I can hear it now. “He’ll never be convicted. No DC jury will convict him or even indict him.”
I disagree.
It’s why I say we have hit a tipping point. Jurors sometimes act out of fear for their own well being based on how they act as jurors. Even the most extreme, science-denying, Fauci-worshiping Leftist in the DC juror pool will know the public ANGER that lurks out there, and they will vote in favor of a slam-dunk contempt case if for no other reason than they do not want to risk the public outcry and personal ruin that will take place if their name becomes public (and it will) after an acquittal.
I know this sounds like the rough justice of the Old West.
Well….
Maybe a little rough justice is in order here so we can return to a place where genuine science and actual justice matter again.
Widespread public anger sometimes has a place. Today is that sometime, and Anthony Fauci’s impending prison cell is the place."
The reason all the lawyers laugh when the chief lawyer is thrown out?
None of them have skin in the game.
They are getting paid massively per the hour.