A Senate committee voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress and refer him to the Justice Department for potential prosecution over his refusal to answer questions at a hearing last week focused on his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The problem is double jeopardy doesn’t apply if you’ve never been to trial…
If Fauci had went to federal trial, gotten convicted, and then gotten a pardon; he wouldn’t have to worry about state charges.
He’s never been to federal trial, and he can’t go to federal trial for anything during that decade.
So if he pleads the fifth with a pardon, he should be able to be compelled to testify, and held in contempt if he won’t.
But if he doesn’t plead the fifth, Texas can prosecute him under Texas state law and the pardon means nothing.
It’s a weird “grey area” because it’s not a real area.
Nixon demanded it to resign, and since no one made a big deal because it was easier to let Nixon walk away, it’s become normalized to the point where if you say a president shouldn’t be able to give one to his clearly guilty son for drugs and guns charges…
People accuse you of supporting the other party which is clearly worse.
Which makes no logical sense, and just shows how bad political discourse has gotten.
Hell, Nixon shouldn’t’ve been encouraged to resign. He should’ve been impeached, tried, and removed setting a precedent that nobody is above the law and that politicians can be held to standards
If Fauci had went to federal trial, gotten convicted, and then gotten a pardon; he wouldn’t have to worry about state charges.
That’s wrong, as @archer correctly explained.
He’s never been to federal trial, and he can’t go to federal trial for anything during that decade.
That’s correct, as long as “anything” falls within the scope of the pardon during that time period.
So if he pleads the fifth with a pardon, he should be able to be compelled to testify, and held in contempt if he won’t.
Only if pleading the Fifth gives him no protection from other potential federal charges not covered by the pardon. If the committee had really wanted to compel testimony, they could have offered Fauci immunity for anything disclosed during his testimony. They didn’t. So a trap was probably being set. It’s unlikely Fauci’s legal counsel are all idiots, so they wouldn’t have advised him to take the Fifth for no reason.
But if he doesn’t plead the fifth, Texas can prosecute him under Texas state law and the pardon means nothing.
Texas can prosecute him under Texas state law whether he pleads the Fifth before Congress or not.
It’s a weird “grey area” because it’s not a real area.
That looks like it’s intended to mean something, but is so vague that it’s impossible to know what.
Incorrect. Dual sovereigns concept means if the Feds charge you with a violation of federal law and don’t convict then if that was a violation of state law the state AG can charge you also. State and Feds don’t get multiple gos each though - that’s double jeopardy protection
The problem is double jeopardy doesn’t apply if you’ve never been to trial…
If Fauci had went to federal trial, gotten convicted, and then gotten a pardon; he wouldn’t have to worry about state charges.
He’s never been to federal trial, and he can’t go to federal trial for anything during that decade.
So if he pleads the fifth with a pardon, he should be able to be compelled to testify, and held in contempt if he won’t.
But if he doesn’t plead the fifth, Texas can prosecute him under Texas state law and the pardon means nothing.
It’s a weird “grey area” because it’s not a real area.
Nixon demanded it to resign, and since no one made a big deal because it was easier to let Nixon walk away, it’s become normalized to the point where if you say a president shouldn’t be able to give one to his clearly guilty son for drugs and guns charges…
People accuse you of supporting the other party which is clearly worse.
Which makes no logical sense, and just shows how bad political discourse has gotten.
Hell, Nixon shouldn’t’ve been encouraged to resign. He should’ve been impeached, tried, and removed setting a precedent that nobody is above the law and that politicians can be held to standards
That’s wrong, as @archer correctly explained.
That’s correct, as long as “anything” falls within the scope of the pardon during that time period.
Only if pleading the Fifth gives him no protection from other potential federal charges not covered by the pardon. If the committee had really wanted to compel testimony, they could have offered Fauci immunity for anything disclosed during his testimony. They didn’t. So a trap was probably being set. It’s unlikely Fauci’s legal counsel are all idiots, so they wouldn’t have advised him to take the Fifth for no reason.
Texas can prosecute him under Texas state law whether he pleads the Fifth before Congress or not.
That looks like it’s intended to mean something, but is so vague that it’s impossible to know what.
Incorrect. Dual sovereigns concept means if the Feds charge you with a violation of federal law and don’t convict then if that was a violation of state law the state AG can charge you also. State and Feds don’t get multiple gos each though - that’s double jeopardy protection
If you don’t understand, ask a question
If you had, I’d have explained further in the hopes you understand.
As it is, I don’t honestly care what you understand. So ask someone else for assistance