The United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a resolution to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt, after the former official refused to answer more than 100 questions during a hearing on his actions in the COVID-19 pandemic.
The decision marks a new episode in the political confrontation between the renowned epidemiologist and Republican legislators, who are seeking that the Department of Justice determine whether there are elements to initiate a criminal process for contempt of Congress.
Rand Paul maintains that Fauci should respond
According to AP, the resolution was approved by a Republican majority, a week after Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects people from testifying against him.
The chairman of the committee, Republican Senator Rand Paul, argued that that protection did not apply because Joe Biden granted him a federal pardon before leaving the White House.
"Dr. Fauci was not at risk of being prosecuted at the federal level. All he had to do was tell the truth," Paul said during the session.
The lawmaker insisted that the vote was not intended to judge decisions made during the pandemic, but rather to determine whether a previously pardoned witness can refuse to answer without facing consequences.
Fauci defends his decision
For his part, Anthony Fauci maintained that there was a risk of self-incrimination, since the presidential pardon does not protect him against possible state investigations or against possible accusations related to false statements.
In a statement cited by the aforementioned agency, the doctor assured that Senator Rand Paul has publicly expressed his intention to prosecute him.
“I had reason to believe that they were looking for any statements that could be used against me,” Fauci explained.
Now, the resolution will be sent to the United States Attorney's Office in Washington, which will decide whether to open an investigation. Although the case still faces political obstacles to advance on the Senate floor, specialists believe that it could set a precedent on the scope of the Fifth Amendment for witnesses who have already received a presidential pardon.
