1 Trending: Trump Is Running Out Of Time To End Refugee Asylum Abuse For Good

2 Trending: Woke WNBA Attacks Sophie Cunningham And Her Fans For Supporting Women’s Rights

3 Trending: Indiana AG Sues Chicago Suburb For Trying To Stop ICE Detention Center

4 Trending: The Lawless Zone In Madison Is A Preview Of America Under Socialism

Peter Navarro Went To Prison For Less Than Fauci’s Contemptuous Refusal To Talk To Congress

The witness who appears and stonewalls needs an objectively valid excuse; Fauci’s blanket Fifth is not one.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

One hundred and eleven. That is how many times Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee this week, reading the same canned sentence no matter what he was asked.

Four. That is how many months Peter Navarro spent in federal prison under the very same statute, after telling Congress exactly why he believed he could not comply: President Trump had invoked executive privilege, and the privilege was not Navarro’s to waive.

The two contempt-of-Congress cases could not be more different, and the difference is not politics. It is written into the text of the statute on contempt of Congress, which Congress split into two distinct crimes with two distinct standards. Understanding that difference tells you two things at once: why a contempt charge against Fauci might actually stick — and why Navarro’s conviction should not survive the appeal now.

If Fauci is charged with contempt of Congress, it will be under 2 U.S.C. § 192 — the same statute the Biden Department of Justice charged Navarro with. After someone receives a subpoena from Congress compelling his testimony, Section 192 prohibits two different actions: (1) “willfully” defaulting (that is, neither producing requested documents nor showing up for the hearing); and (2) refusing to answer relevant questions without a justifiable excuse.

Fauci would be charged under the second clause, refusal to answer relevant questions. While the prosecution would have to prove that this refusal was deliberate rather than accidental, that would be easy here. Fauci deliberately and intentionally refused to answer nearly every question put to him on matters big or small.

The only defense available to Fauci under the second clause would be if he had a justifiable excuse for refusing to answer questions. The Supreme Court has said that the Fifth........

© The Federalist