Anthony Fauci’s latest appearance before the US Senate was extraordinary, although perhaps not for the reason suggested by the clips circulating online.
On 29 July, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases appeared under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Asked about the origins of Covid, research funded in Wuhan and his previous statements to Congress, Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment. More than 100 times, by some counts.
Senators soon tested the limits of this strategy. Josh Hawley asked Fauci what day it was and the colour of his tie; Rand Paul asked whether the red folder sitting in front of him was, indeed, red. Fauci declined to answer; it made for irresistible television, but the colour of Fauci’s tie is not the story.
The Fifth Amendment privilege exists precisely because witnesses should not be compelled to provide evidence that could be used against them. Fauci’s lawyers maintain that he faced potential legal jeopardy despite Joe Biden’s pre-emptive pardon; the committee chairman disputed that interpretation, an argument that may now be fought out elsewhere.
The more interesting question, though, is why congressional investigators wanted Fauci answering questions under oath in the first place.
Consider how much has emerged since the early months of 2020.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.