Senate Republicans vote to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress

Aug. 6 (UPI) — Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress on Thursday.

The vote was held after Fauci exercised his Fifth Amendment right during a Senate committee hearing last week. With the vote, the committee can refer its resolution to the Justice Department or to a vote from the full Senate.

“We are voting on whether a witness who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon can be ordered by this committee to answer questions and then defy that order without consequence,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., chairman of the committee, said in his opening statement Thursday.

Fauci pleaded the Fifth, citing Paul’s longtime desire to see him prosecuted for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week, Paul released a series of journal entries Fauci wrote while serving as chief medical adviser to President Donald Trump during the pandemic in 2020.

“Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long 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,” Fauci said during last week’s hearing.

Fauci expressed concern that Paul and other Republicans on the panel sought

Paul has contended that Fauci misled the public about COVID-19.

Fauci was pardoned by President Joe Biden for any conduct committed between 2014 and January 2025.

While Republicans voted in step to hold Fauci in contempt, Democrats unanimously voted against it. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said in his opening statement that holding Fauci in contempt could create a “damaging precedent.”

“If this committee now seeks to punish a witness for blockerting their constitutional protected Fifth Amendment rights, future witnesses will argue that appearing before Congress exposes them to punishment, regardless of whether they comply with the subpoena and invoke a constitutional protection,” Peters said. “They will point directly to this vote, this vote, as justification for refusing to appear at all.”