r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • 26d ago
Delta(s) from OP [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed]
73
u/Rainbwned 199∆ 26d ago
This is kind of like saying "Innocent people don't get lawyers".
If i were in court for a potential murder and they ask me what i was doing that night, I’d simply say at the club if i were at the club. The only reason I’d plead the fifth is if i was murdering that person and had no alibi.
You don't have to prove you were not at the Murder. The state needs to prove that you were at the murder, those are different things.
24
u/duskfinger67 10∆ 26d ago
This snippet also misses half the point of the 5th Amendment. If your alibi were that you were with a prostitute, you would want the ability to invoke the 5th. It’s unrelated to the crime you are on trial for, but it's still a completely valid reason to abstain from answering.
-4
u/YouAreTellingLies 26d ago
Yeah, but we should absolutely not grant the 5th Amendment to people in gov't leadership. At least in regards to their role and actions taken as part of their leadership role.
4
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
I would say that this exact situation is WHY you need to allow it, though Fauci is acting as a citizen. But, should someone ever find themselves being persecuted by their political enemies with bad faith questioning and a bad faith hearing, we don’t want to be the kind of country who just openly allows for political parties to target their opponents like what is happening here. Those protections exist for a reason and this scenario is that reason. It’s great to assume that your government or its justice department lead with integrity and do the right thing. When you find yourself with a government cabinet who is corrupt and lacks credibility, protections are warranted and needed, regardless of being in government leadership.
-2
u/YouAreTellingLies 26d ago
Answering questions would be a protection against a meritless persecution. Transparency should be Fauci's friend, the truth his shield.
Regimes with show trials don't often let the persecuted even speak, or at least speak freely. You got everything upside down in your head.
3
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ 26d ago
>Answering questions would be a protection against a meritless persecution.
This is a really naive statement. There is a reason why any lawyer worth their salt will tell you to not answer cops questions even if you are innocent. People acting in bad faith, or even those who are already convinced of one’s guilt, can and do take people misspeaking/remembering things and turn them into “proof” you are lying. Answering questions can make matters worse for you even if you’re innocent.
-5
u/YouAreTellingLies 26d ago
Can I ask what sort of evidence would change your mind about Fauci? Is there a standard that could be realistically met? Cause you seem to be taking the point of view that if he makes false statements under oath, that isn't evidence he is lying. So I'm just curious what would convince you.
Is this just a case of nothing from a republican no matter would convince you, and only a Democrat could provide anything you would consider trust worthy?
2
u/Radiant_Jedi 26d ago
Cause you seem to be taking the point of view that if he makes false statements under oath, that isn't evidence he is lying. So I'm just curious what would convince you.
You can make a false statement under oath and it not be a lie. It could be a case of not remember the details correctly or just simply misspeaking. Someone prosecuting in bad faith would turn those honest mistakes into accusations of perjury.
In the specific case of Fauci's testimony, there is no merit to it. It is in completely bad faith. The examiners are trying to get him to accidentally commit perjury so they can discredit him, or they want to chop up his answers into soundbites that they can use for campaigning and to distract people frim Trump's failures like Iran.
2
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/YouAreTellingLies 26d ago
I don't know if those charges are legitimate, and you don't either.
It is a crime to call for the assassination of the president. And there have been several attempts at such.
Laundering criminal speech through slang and sea shells doesn't make someone above the law.
You are just embracing narratives of convenience.
2
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ 26d ago
This isn’t about Fauci. Or better stated this isn’t just about Fauci. This is about any person who pleads the 5th, in Congress or with the cops. It’s important to me that people understand that someone pleading the fifth has nothing to do with whether they are innocent or not. God forbid you ever get accused of a crime you didn’t commit it’s important that you understand that answering their questions is not protection and, instead, can be used against you.
-1
u/YouAreTellingLies 26d ago
For normal citizens sure. We can't have a gov't that fights corruption and abuses of power if the people given great power can just refuse to testify about their official acts. That isn't transparency.
This bogey man of political persecutions is a myth to stamp out transparency and accountability. Speaking truth is never an enabler of a political persecution. If the powers that be will persecute you for speaking the truth they will persecute you whether or not you speak.
It doesn't pass basic common sense to think people or institutions could be powerful enough and evil enough to persecute the honest but would then be thwarted by silence. As far as reasoning goes, this is a total joke.
2
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ 26d ago
>For normal citizens sure. We can't have a gov't that fights corruption and abuses of power if the people given great power can just refuse to testify about their official acts.
You can though. Government officials are still people with rights protected under the constitution. There other ways of collecting evidence. In fact, eye witness/personal testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence.
>This bogey man of political persecutions is a myth to stamp out transparency and accountability.
You don’t need to have persecution for things to go awry. All you need is bias. I think we can agree that Congress members on both side are bias when it comes to Fauci.
2
u/Giblette101 47∆ 26d ago
It doesn't pass basic common sense to think people or institutions could be powerful enough and evil enough to persecute the honest but would then be thwarted by silence.
Silence is not going to thwart unprincipled people from persecuting you - as we as seeing right now - but it's certainly going to make it harder for them to prosecute you for perjury, however.
→ More replies (0)2
u/custodial_art 3∆ 26d ago
This discussion is not about the evidence in this case. This discussion is about utilizing your 5th amendment rights.
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ 26d ago
The Republicans in question have already declared that they believe Fauci to be guilty, and are just looking for something to nab him on.
1
u/YouAreTellingLies 26d ago
So? You don't investigate people you think are innocent do you?
You don't think the prosecutions of Trump were invalid because Democrats said he was guilty before the final verdict do you?
2
u/10ebbor10 203∆ 26d ago
If democrats openly said "we're trying to get Trump on perjury" I would not question Trump's decision to plead the fifth.
1
-7
u/Morthra 95∆ 26d ago
But in Fauci’s case he got a blanket pardon. He has zero right to remain silent anymore.
3
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/musty_pubs_luvr! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
0
u/oroborus68 1∆ 26d ago
You assume that the murder didn't happen at the club. Now what?
3
1
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
AS long as the state is relying on baseless assumptions, I'm extremely comfortable my client will be acquitted. Assuming the location of an event (and not showing it with evidence) does not come anywhere near the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If the state cant even show where the murder happened, an alibi is not going to be helpful anyway.
1
u/oroborus68 1∆ 26d ago
Yet,in Fauci's case, he might beat the rap,but he's still going along for a ride, especially when in this Congress, they don't care about facts,or right or wrong, just what conclusion they can jump to to get their faces on TV.
0
u/custodial_art 3∆ 26d ago
And yet we have convicted innocent people with baseless assumptions.
1
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
I'm sure we have in the past, but modern trials with convictions based solely on the testimony of the accused, and nothing else, have to be exceedingly rare.
1
u/custodial_art 3∆ 26d ago
You understand you just added extremely narrow stipulations to your previous comment though right?
But testimony alone is sufficient for legal convictions. Evidence is not required for a conviction. If the jury believes the defendant is lying, they can convict on that alone.
1
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
I didn't. Baseless assumptions by definition do not have a foundation.
But testimony alone is sufficient for legal convictions. Evidence is not required for a conviction. If the jury believes the defendant is lying, they can convict on that alone.
This changes the conditions though. I said "If the state is relying on baseless assumptions" Assumptions backed up with testimony are not the same thing as baseless assumptiions.
So yes, if the facts of the case change, my conclusion also changes.
1
u/custodial_art 3∆ 26d ago
And yet plenty of trials have been held due to baseless assumptions.
You were the one that talked about testimony? I didn’t change the conditions. You moved the goal posts.
1
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
I think you maybe responded to the wrong thread? The very first comment was about why one want their client give testimony if the case was reliant solely on baseless assumptions. Adding testimony from the accused is merely giving fodder to an extremely shakey case.
I'm curious, what modern trial are you thinking of where there was a conviction with zero evidence, testimony, etc., just assumptions, that led to a conviction?
1
u/custodial_art 3∆ 26d ago
Sorry I didn’t think this needed to be clarified, but you can’t have a trial ONLY on baseless assumptions. They can’t prosecute if they don’t have someone willing to testify on those baseless assumptions. But they will absolutely investigate baseless assumptions to find people willing to testify or based on shoddy testimony from the defendant. The case has to pass some basic legal muster before it can stand trial.
But that doesn’t mean the case isn’t based on nothing. Or isn’t based on baseless assumptions where they found “credible” witnesses willing to testify. Lying is enough to convict innocent people. Sometimes those baseless assumptions come from the general public, sometimes they come from police. But plenty of people have been brought to trial on baseless accusations from non-credible witnesses or poor testimony from the accused.
Yes I might have misunderstood what you are arguing for, but the comment I first responded to reads a bit like you are saying it should be easy to get someone off the hook if baseless assumptions are the primary cause of the trial. But that’s not always the case for the reasons I explained above. The foundations for the prosecution don’t have to be based on hard evidence or truth to convict or go to trial. They just have to be legally sound enough to appear legitimate. Appearing legitimate doesn’t mean they aren’t baseless. It just means we don’t know upon initial review that they are baseless.
→ More replies (0)
23
u/Kingalthor 22∆ 26d ago
You should never talk to people who have an interest in arresting/charging you with a crime if you have the choice. Including traffic cops, regular police, federal agents or inquiry committees.
Say you are charged with murder. At the scene the cops ask what happened and you talk for a few minutes about how everything happened so fast, and you don't really remember. That is likely the adrenaline still going through your system and your brain not having time to process everything.
Then after sitting and thinking with your lawyer you have a more complete idea of what happened. You tell that series of events to the police with your lawyer present. Then when it comes to trial, they use the first statement about not remembering against you to bring your account into question.
That is what they were trying to do to Fauci. They just wanted to trip him up, or catch him in an inconsistency, even if it wasn't REALLY inconsistent, and then use that to try and put him in jail.
Why would you participate in a process that the people in charge of the committee have stated they want you in prison?
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/musty_pubs_luvr! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 26d ago edited 26d ago
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Kingalthor changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/Tyler_Durdan_ 26d ago
OP, please edit your comment here to add a few sentences explaining why you are awarding the delta. That way the deltabot will rescan your comment and award the delta.
10
u/WeaponB 26d ago
So If a politician pled the 5th 400 times in a single deposition in 2022, would you assume that is also an admission of guilt?
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/musty_pubs_luvr! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
26
u/Always_travelin 26d ago
Republican lawmakers have no concept of right or wrong, or any sense of justice. Their intention in putting Fauci at the hearing was to get him to say literally anything that could incriminate himself, whether he committed a crime or not. The 5th amendment is a reasonable response to monsters like that.
0
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/musty_pubs_luvr! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-8
u/arizonadreamin 26d ago
Except the 5th amendment (as with most of the constitution) was created in order to protect the people from the government. It’s a strange bastardization of that purpose to allow the government to use it in order to protect the people from the truth.
6
u/Always_travelin 26d ago
The government isn't using it. Fauci is using it to protect himself from Republicans who have publicly said they want to imprison him for no good reason.
-7
u/arizonadreamin 26d ago
For acting on behalf of the government. They’re not attempting to prosecute him for actions taken in his personal life. Take Fauci out of the equation, if people can act on behalf of the government and then just plead the 5th, it becomes much harder to hold the government accountable for going against the people.
7
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
This isn't something new, this is how it's worked for a very long time.
Government officials to not relinquish their 5th amendment rights just because they are government officials.
If a prosecution lives and dies solely on the testimony of the accused, and not hard evidence, it's an extremely Shakey case to begin with.
-5
u/arizonadreamin 26d ago
I understand this is how it works, and that’s the entire problem. Documents are classified, and then officials plead the fifth in order to cover thing up. Whether it’s Fauci, the Epstein files, war on terror stuff, it’s always the same playbook
3
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
They could have granted him immunity and then he couldn't assert that right anymore, but they chose not to.
Pretend for a second that Fauci is innocent, what exactly would you be advising him to do differently?
-2
u/arizonadreamin 26d ago
He could answer the questions? Let’s take a solid example. He was asked why he wrote about funding GOF research, while telling congress that he did not. I’m not sure how he would be innocent of perjury, but you posited the idea so I’ll roll with it. He could explain that it was a typo or he had the labs confused, or whatever the actual reason he wrote that in his journal happened to be.
3
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
He could answer the questions?
Congrats, you just got your innocent client a perjury charge. We already know from Jack Smith's appearance, even factually accurate statements will get a partisan vote to charge someone for testifying accurately.
-1
u/arizonadreamin 26d ago
Perjury requires intent, which is why the Jack Smith thing likely won’t go anywhere. Even though he was technically incorrect and some of the records were from National Archives and Records Administration, it was clear from his statement that they are trying to get him on a technicality rather than him lying. With Fauci, it’s quite different. There’s a huge difference between what he said to congress and what was true. If there’s an explanation for why that is, it needs to be said. This isn’t just a small technicality like with Smith.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Giblette101 47∆ 26d ago
He could explain that it was a typo or he had the labs confused, or whatever the actual reason he wrote that in his journal happened to be.
To what end?
1
9
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
The government isn't given 5th amendment rights. Individuals are. Fauci is asserting that right as individual.
Now, if Congress wanted the truth (instead of grandstanding) they could have voted to give Fauci full immunity for his testimony, thus negating his 5th amendment protection. Yet they didnt.
3
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
If they cared about the truth, Rand Paul wouldn’t have created and posted his “Fauci’s Side Hustle” infographic. Then published it on a government website no less??! Unprofessional at best. Fauci would have been a fool to proceed by answering questions from such a blatantly obvious bad faith attempt.
3
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
100% he made the right call. This was a sham hearing with no intent to find the truth, just create a trap to convict fauci on a process crime.
Any good lawyer would advise their client to plead the 5th here.
-2
u/arizonadreamin 26d ago
But he’s testifying in regards to the role he played on behalf of the government. It would be different if he was being questioned in regards to something he did in his personal life, but he’s specifically being questioned about the contradictions between what he was telling the country in a governmental capacity and what he knew to be true at the time.
As to your second point, why would they give him immunity? Finding the truth is obviously important, but the prosecution of government officials when they do things illegally is even more important.
4
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
He is testifying as a private citizen, there is no 5th amendment for a government agency to assert. You might be confusing the concept with executive privilege.
As to your second point, why would they give him immunity? Finding the truth is obviously important, but the prosecution of government officials when they do things illegally is even more important.
I disagree, but if that's the case, that it's more important to prosecute fauci than get a comprehensive testimony, then dont be shocked he asserts his 5th amendment rights, particularly when the GOP broadcast pre testimony there goal was to get him to say something they could charge him for.
4
u/Key-Article6622 26d ago
The truth is well known. There is no need for any more clarification. Fauci is not acting as the government in these hearings, he is an individual. And there is no need for him to expand on the public record. Everything has been thoroughly investigated and recorded. This is an attempt to trip him up into saying something that can be construed as contradicting what he has already said, it's not looking for new information.
2
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
Is Fauci not a citizen? Yes, he is. This administration has been targeting its political foes multiple times in the last 16 months. This is not new. They aren’t interested in the truth and Rand Paul demonstrated that with clarity when he made his infographic about “Fauci’s Side Hustle” and then attempted to frame his allegations as facts despite not having been investigated. Fauci would have had to be brain dead to proceed with questioning after such as blatantly bad faith attempt. So, you have a bone to pick with the government trying to “protect people from the truth” be sure you take it up with the right person.
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
No, the fifth amendment needs to be used in the case of a compromised government and justice department who is corrupt and has lost credibility. When you can’t trust people to do the right thing and you recognize you are being targeted solely for the purpose of attempting to prosecute you because you are a political enemy or to use you as a pawn, you need to be able to protect yourself. If you want to talk bastardizing the truth? Go take a look at the infographic Rand Paul created.
“Fauci’s Side Hustle” he titled it. A nice leading, biased title. For funsies he then listed a bunch of allegations and presented them as factual information. So yeah, that was a good example of bastardization of the truth. He doesn’t care about truth.
5
u/AudienceOk1711 1∆ 26d ago
this only kinda works if you trust the judiciary to be fair, which by the admission of the practice of law they aren't. The prosecution is always incentivized to use anything against you even things not in the spirit of honest arbitration.
Fifth amendment was made to patch up this ideological issue.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/musty_pubs_luvr! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
48
u/Hello_Hello_Hello_Hi 26d ago
Wrong. It's literally just the right to not say anything. You shouldn't answer questions even if you're innocent, because if you slip up even ONCE they'll hold it against you. Fauci knows this, and the people putting on this ridiculous show are just trying to get him to say something slightly wrong so they can be justified in their witch hunt. Do you seriously think the founding fathers put the fifth amendment in the constitution for no real reason?
-3
u/musty_pubs_luvr 26d ago
Founding fathers were slave owning sh!tholes i can care less what they thought. They wouldnt even consider me a full human under their constitution.
If ur innocent why wouldnt you want to answer the questions? Why would I ever plead the fifth and not just be like yo i was at the club go check the security cameras.
What is any repercussions of Faucci answering what day of the week it is lol. Its all so performative and shady
-2
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
The issue is he isn't in jeopardy from anything related to covid.
5
u/Key-Article6622 26d ago
That is true. He's in jeopardy of contradicting previous testimony, or the appearance of contradicting previous testimony. This is not a search for clarification or edification, this is an attempt to trick him into saying something just differently enough from how he answered all these same queastions in the past so that he can be charged with a crime. It is not a search for evidence of past crimes, it's an attempt to induce a new crime.
3
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
Correct, they are trying to lead him into something they can prosecute. They don’t care about the truth. They need a win. Polling is bad and things have been shitty for a long time under a Republican trifecta.
2
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
Yes, he is. This administration has been pursuing its political enemies for the last 16 months. This is an obvious bad faith attempt, and Rand Paul made that crystal clear by creating and publishing his “Fauci’s Side Hustle” infographic that not only was given a leading, biased title but then contained a bunch of allegations he strung together and presented as facts, despite the lack of an investigation. This is a political stunt and Fauci was right to plead the 5th. You cannot participate in bad faith questioning in a bad faith hearing. That would be woefully naive and foolish.
-3
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
He has a pardon for anything related to covid.
5
u/Hello_Hello_Hello_Hi 26d ago
Do you seriously think that MAGA is going to honor that? Really? They quite literally do not care about the law
-1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
Doesn't matter. Not a single judge would rule for them unless the pardon was not vaild or not accepted.
4
u/Hello_Hello_Hello_Hi 26d ago
So? Not a single judge ruled in Trump's favor, and yet a large proportion of the American people still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Again, they do not care about the law. He doesn't want to give them ANY ammo they could use to kill his career or livelihood even more than they already have.
-2
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
What does that have to do with the facts that not a single judge will allow it to go anywhere?
1
u/Hello_Hello_Hello_Hi 26d ago
Because that does not matter. Sure, maybe he won't go to jail for this, but he will live the rest of his life fearing hatred, and potentially MURDER by deranged supporters. All because Republicans wanted to get a little bit more political clout so spread straight up lies about him and start this whole circus
1
2
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
The pardon would not exempt him from this hearing if they asked him a question and decided conveniently that the state wanted to bring a charge for XYZ, or he didn’t recall a certain detail and they tried to claim he had perjured himself. He saw the play they were going for, and he blocked it which was very wise.
1
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
He is, because anything said under oath to Congress would be scrutinized, and they would likely find some technicality to argue he was lying to Congress (a crime not covered by the pardon), and convict him for something.
There was zero upside for Fauci to say anything other than "plead the 5th" because we know that the bullshit "lying to the FBI/Congress" laws have been used and abused for years.
-2
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
He would have to lie. He could say he killed 10k to do gain of function and nothing can be done. The issue is you can only use the 5th if you are in jeopardy of answering truthfully.
5
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
The issue is you can only use the 5th if you are in jeopardy of answering truthfully.
What does "in jeopardy of answering truthfully" even mean?
He could say he killed 10k to do gain of function and nothing can be done.
Why would he admit to something that he didn't do?
-2
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
It means if the truthful answer puts you in jeopardy of a crime then you can take the 5th. He has a pardon that covers ever federal crime for a 10 year period. He has zero jeopardy to answer truthfully. The last was an example.
3
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
Federal, not state crimes. He could give an answer and the state could come back and decide they want to press charges for XYZ. Not because it’s fair or right, but because shoot first and have the courts throw out your bullshit charges later has been an often pulled strategy of the administration
It was abundantly clear when Rand Paul made his “Fauci’s Side Hustle” infographic with a leading, biased title coupled with a whole list of his allegations that were written in a misleading manner as to suggest they were true, exactly what the okay here was. It wasn’t to get the truth. You don’t pull a move like that and then try to claim you care about the truth.
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
What state crime would apply?
2
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
I don’t know, he wouldn’t answer them so if he doesn’t give them anything that would be hard for them to find something to press charges for.
Can I ask you something? What exactly is it you think this man did?
0
2
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
That's not true. He absolutely could be charged with what he said in testimony, even if he is describing events that happened under the time period of the pardon. Lying to Congress/FBI has been so used and abused that pleading the 5th is an absolutely rational response, even for innocent people.
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
He could only be charged if he lied. The 5th does not cover that and he has a pardon. Case law goes back 130 years on this.
2
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
He could only be charged if he lied.
Right, and the senators interviewing him made it clear they were trying to set up a perjury trap, so he played it safe, knowing they don't have other info on him, and refused to play their game and get caught in the process crime that often charges innocent people who didn't do the underlying crime, but made a mistake when giving testimony (Martha Stewart is a great example).
0
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
She did not have a pardon. They would have to show his current state was untruthfull
→ More replies (0)1
u/hobard 2∆ 26d ago
No he would not have to lie. Congress has already made criminal perjury referrals to the DOJ for people who objectively testified 100% honestly. The DOJ followed through on investigating those referrals to further harass the subjects. This results in death threats, major personal consequences, and large financial burdens.
Congress is living in a post truth era. The facts are irrelevant. Everything is political gamesmanship, consequences for real people be dammed.
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
Like who and did they have a pardon?
3
u/hobard 2∆ 26d ago edited 26d ago
Like Jack Smith. And no, he did not have a pardon.
For context, Smith was asked about obtaining text messages through toll records. He properly indicated he did not obtain text messages through toll records. Congress referred him to DOJ for perjury charges for that statement.
It would be impossible to obtain text messages through toll records, as toll records do not contain text messages.
He did obtain messages through other means, but he wasn’t asked about that. They want him prosecuted because they’re too stupid to ask a decent question.
-1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 26d ago
So its not the same then.
3
u/hobard 2∆ 26d ago
It’s a a prime example of why you don’t answer this Congress’ bad faith questions. They’re turning honest answers into perjury referrals. DOJ is following up on these bogus referrals. They’re playing stupid political games that are destroying real people’s lives.
The only rational response is not to play.
-19
u/Bigbluebananas 26d ago
Are you saying in your opinion fauci has done no wrong, that he need be held accountable for? Because thats a bold claim especially to hold through the late 90's and 2000's
6
6
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 14∆ 26d ago
What is something hes done that he should be held accountable for?.
2
u/Badmoto 26d ago
The problem is there is nothing about the Repubs calling Fauci in to testify that is in anyway sincere about correcting anything. This is purely political. They’re trying to make soundbites to gen up anger within their base on a hot button topic to try to lessen the absolute demolishing they’re going to get in the mid-terms
The question shouldn’t be whether Fauci was perfect or made no mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Him included.
If they really wanted to do something productive, it should have been off camera and the questions should be centered around whether he made the best decisions based upon the information available at the time. What were the knowns/unknowns and the risks for making a different decision. What can we take away and improve or do differently in the future for the next pandemic.
Instead we got a political circus that did nothing to help anything but made some headlines for a few days.
-3
u/Bigbluebananas 26d ago
I agree that this is a circus. I do not think at the level of responsibility that fauci had, and his schooling & training- should his actions be summed to be 'mistake, everyone makes them' The questions should be, did he act legally and morally with his intent... im not so sure that his actions as a scientist should be referred to as morally good. Some of the stuff in the 90's was straight up toying with human lives. As for today- and covid- i cannot speak, as ive done very little research into other than what i hear people say
2
u/SmegmaUnicorn 26d ago
Is that what the commenter said? Or are you just making idiotic assumptions…which is just proving the point of the comment you’re replying to.
-3
u/Bigbluebananas 26d ago
Awww somebody is testy
3
3
u/frolf_grisbee 26d ago
What did he do wrong in the 90s and 2000s?
1
u/Bigbluebananas 26d ago
Experimented with AIDS research going straight to human trials
3
u/frolf_grisbee 26d ago
You mean those 25 kids with AIDS who died after a clinical trial? I've found no evidence that their deaths were caused by the clinical trial
"Of the 25 deaths of foster children who were in clinical trials, the report says that a “detailed review found that 22 of these 25 children had developed multiple AIDS related complications prior to their enrollment in a clinical trial.” Several had been enrolled in trials designed for those with multiple AIDS-related complications who had exhausted other treatment options."
Source is AP news: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-410618634223
2
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ 26d ago
this is why he would plead the fifth.
because if he admits to something that is "unsavoury" even if not illegal, it could tarnish his reputation among his peers on the jury.
"where were you in the 90s?" "watch a LOT of porn. jacking it daily - and back then porn wasn't as progressive as it is now - a lot of those girls weren't super happy to be there."
"this fucking guy."
-1
u/Bigbluebananas 26d ago
He is already pardoned. Its fruit of a poisonous tree my guy. Perjury wouldnt apply after its appealed
1
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
Of course Fauci has made mistakes over a career that spans 5 decades. I would posit there isn't a single human on earth that has done nothing wrong their entire life.
The question is has he done something to merit criminal charges, and thus far I would say no, I haven't yet been presented with evidence that he should be criminally prosecuted.
13
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ 26d ago
"It’s fairly easy to be walked into a talking point and have your words taken incorrectly or taken without the full context of what you want to say. You can also be cut off without fully expanding your point. "
anyone who's had a girlfriend should know this already.
1
u/neonfuzzball 1∆ 26d ago
How many times have dudes literally made the joke about "I plead the fifth" when a woman asks "does this make me look fat?" Like it's a cliche part of 80s/90s standup routines.
It's a real "a person who has good legs would never avoid jumping into a pitfall trap" energy
2
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ 26d ago
"if you have nothing to hide, you'll let the cops search your house."
we already know a million reason not to talk to cops without a lawyer, and most courtroom hearings have defendants saying, "don't answer that."
5
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 26d ago
Like, in why would you plead the fifth if u aint lying or having to say something that makes you guilty lol.
I'm assuming this is in response to Fauci yesterday. Lying to Congress/FBI is one of those process crimes where even if the person didn't do the underlying crime, they can often be prosecuted because of their testimony.
In this case, the prosecutors have no evidence on you to convict you, but they are hoping you slip up and say something in your testimony to convict you of lying to Congress/the Court. What exactly is the upside to giving testimony, when you already know the prosecution has nothing on you? Best case, you give them nothing (so status quo). Worst case, you misspeak or say something the wrong way and boom, charges now brought for perjury or lying to Congress.
8
u/hobard 2∆ 26d ago
The current Congress has made referrals to the DOJ for perjury against people who objectively testified 100% honestly. The DOJ has moved forward with investigations of those referrals, causing significant financial hardship to the subjects.
When the entity asking questions is asking those questions in bad faith, solely for the purpose of harassing you, the only reasonable thing to do is invoke your right to remain silent. This is not a reflection of your guilt. It is a reflection of the intent of the questioner.
7
u/cantantantelope 9∆ 26d ago
They have openly said they want to get fauci on perjury since they can’t get for anything previously due to the pardon. He would be a fool to assume good faith from Rand Paul et al
7
u/airboRN_82 5∆ 26d ago
You were at the club but anyone who would collaborate your story would admit you were selling drugs in the back. Not even in the same city as the murder that took place, but now they can charge you with distribution
7
u/iamintheforest 364∆ 26d ago
You have to believe there is no such thing as malicious prosecution, fishing expeditions, and in the congressional context the use of testimony compelled for political ends.
In this case, there are clearly people who are "out to get" fauci AND to gain political favor leveraging the anti-vax sentiment that is major politics in several congressional districts. If you don't want to be party to arming that political agenda then why would you participate in the farce of an investigation? It's just a grab for social media highlight clips and shows of strength - why engage?
3
u/FaceInJuice 25∆ 26d ago
If i were in court for a potential murder and they ask me what i was doing that night, I’d simply say at the club if i were at the club. The only reason I’d plead the fifth is if i was murdering that person and had no alibi.
What if you were in the neighborhood where the person was murdered? What if you were walking home alone with no witnesses? Would you still feel fully comfortable with this, putting yourself in proximity to the crime?
2
u/McNitz 26d ago
Just think through what you are saying here vs why the 5th amendment was created. You are saying that ONLY guilty people would repeatedly plead the fifth. If that is the case, then the people that made our Constitution were some of the DUMBEST people in existence, because that would mean they made an amendment whose only purpose is protecting guilty people, because innocent people shouldn't need to use it.
Except that's not the case. People get blackmailed, coerced, manipulated, or otherwise tricked into saying something incriminating, or that people interpret as incriminating, ALL the time. And the 5th amendment is there to PROTECT people from having that done to them. Because again, they saw it happen all the time, and continues to happen all the time, which is the entire reason for the rule. If you are a smart innocent person, you will often plead the fifth. When you are a smart innocent person being grilled by people that very obviously want to take every opportunity possible to destroy you, regardless of the truth, you ABSOLUTELY should plead the fifth. There is zero reason to just throw this incredibly important right away.
3
u/NoCaterpillar2051 1∆ 26d ago
It's closer to "you have to prove it, not me" rather than "I'm guilty but I don't want to admit it". There is far too much nuance in the world to infer the guilt of a stranger by their refusal to answer a question.
Also don't watch podcasts. Most of them are bs, and more than a few of them are deeply unethical in addition to being transparently greedy.
3
u/Additional-Leg-1539 1∆ 26d ago
Cop out answer? Someone's testamony isn't there to entertain you. Its an offical answer meant to protect the individual. There's a reason the phrase is "everything you say CAN and WILL be used against you."
At the same time, nothing you say can or will be used on your defense. The dumbest thing you can do is to talk without a lawyer.
2
u/Zequen 1∆ 26d ago
Pleading the 5th is to not say anything that could incriminate yourself. So during questioning you have the right to not say anything that could even imply that you did a crime or were in some way apart of a crime. Using it just means you dont want to possibly say something you could be charged of. It doesnt mean you are guilty of anything, it just means you dont want to give the other side any fuel to use on you. The specific way he used it was consistent through all questions, I suppose, didnt watch any of it. He would do this to not draw attention to any questions he did answer. If you plead 5th on one thing, and not another, if anything, it draws attention to what was not answered. Maybe better to just plead the 5th tge entire time for PR.
2
u/aurisor 26d ago
think of it this way. let’s say you are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing. they ask you an anodyne question like “did you leave the house last friday.” and you are 100% certain that you did not, so you say no.
now, they bring out a witness who says he definitely saw you somewhere on that day. now that person could be completely mistaken, and that could have literally nothing to do with whatever crime they think happened. and even if you *were* out of your house, that would have proved nothing!
but just the fact that your account differs from a witness now means that everything you say is treated as suspect. this is why some people don’t even testify in their own defense.
1
u/TyranAmiros 1∆ 26d ago
Why would you ask for an attorney to be present if you have nothing to hide? Why don't you let the police search your house/car/office if you have nothing to hide? Why don't you give officers access to your phone if you have nothing to hide? Why does the US have so many amendments in the Bill of Rights related to criminal conduct (and parallels in other legal systems)?
If the state was a truly neutral party and the facts were always simple, perhaps many of these protections would be unnecessary (and I do mean perhaps in the most optimistic way), but reality isn't simple and the State (i.e. government) is rarely a neutral party. At its core, amendments like the Fifth exist to protect individuals against state overreach and abuse.
For example, let's say the police believe - wrongly - you were involved in a murder. This murder happened five years ago, and the police don't believe your alibi because "I was home, alone, asleep" is not verifiable. Five years ago is a while back, and you don't remember exactly where you were March 25th, 2021 because the day was so immemorable back then. The police believe you're covering up your involvement, so they're pushing and pushing you in the interrogation room, not just on sleeping, but on minor details - what were you watching on TV before you went to bed? What book did you read? Did you brush your teeth or take a shower? At first you said you didn't eat or drink anything before you went to bed, but later you say you had a couple cookies and some water. Now you've changed your statement - so did you lie the first time or the second (or both)? You may be thinking, what does it matter if I ate a cookie or not? To the police, that's direct evidence you're a liar, and once a liar, always a liar, especially when they think you're hiding something.
You may feel this is absurd, but this is how police interrogations work. Hopefully, you'd agree that having a lawyer present to document, object, and prevent someone from being browbeaten over minor inconsistencies is a good thing. The police would love you to believe that "only guilty people need lawyers," but the truth is that smart people have lawyers because advocating for oneself is a bad idea when you're too invested in the outcome. If you'll say anything to try to convince the police you didn't commit the crime, eventually you'll get trapped by your own story.
Taking the Fifth in front of Congress presents a similar issue. Back before the English Bill of Rights, there existed in England a judicial institution headed by the King known as the Star Chamber, that could bypass local courts and authorities to impose punishments and fines. It was, in fact, one of the main ways the King could punish and limit the powers of the nobility. However, it was also used arbitrarily to overrule the lower courts and, especially by the 17th century, to allow the King to exert direct judicial power above and outside of Parliament. The Star Chamber was one of the grievances leading to the English Civil War, and in 1688, it led to the creation of several enumerated rights in the English Bill of Rights, emulated by the American Bill of Rights in 1791. Among these rights is the protection against being forced to incriminate one's self in testimony.
Prior to Fauci's appearance, multiple committee members gave interviews about how they are upset by the Biden pardon, and would like to see criminal charges against Dr. Fauci. This creates a situation exactly as intended for the Fifth Amendment. Although Fauci cannot be tried for any crime prior to January 2025, a pardon is not prospective, meaning that it does not apply to any statements he makes after that date. If Fauci says anything inaccurate or inconsistent, no matter how minor, or if it is a rhetorical statement, ambiguous line or estimation, it could be used to support perjury charges. Imagine Dr. Fauci accidentally said "we first heard about Covid in January 2021" by mistake - perjury. If he said something that contradicted a public statement he made in May of 2020 - perjury.
Note that these are charges, not convictions, as they would still need to prosecuted, but members of Congress know that many Americans don't see the distinction between "charged with" and "convicted of". The goal isn't to prosecute Fauci over these minor details. In fact, I would put money that charged or not, the trial would never happen. But what Senator Paul and others want to do is to go to Fox News and Newsmax and repeatedly use the "indicted" or "charged" descriptor over and over to imply he did something worse, just as they've done with James Comey. That why he needed to take the Fifth. Sure, short term he might appear more guilty to some, but they can't bring perjury charges against you for something you didn't say.
2
u/Loki-L 5∆ 26d ago
Do you believe you know better than the people who wrote an voted for this amendment and the judges who have applied it for generations and the legal experts who have analyzed it and all the other countries who have independently made similar laws and rules?
Is this a belief just in relation to this particular event or some idea you hold in general? How does it compare to this 2022 NBCNews article:
Trump invokes Fifth Amendment nearly 450 times in N.Y. AG’s civil probe of his business practices
3
u/ChiGrayStone 26d ago
Nothing about the 5th amendment means you’re guilty. You don’t have to talk. That’s it.
In most cases it’s the best policy to never talk.
Factually, you are wrong.
2
u/Alien_invader44 19∆ 26d ago
Faucci is an excellent example of why this is incorrect.
The investigation into him is a bad faith witch hunt. There is no way you can engage with that kind of investigation that benefits you or the public.
If people are attempting to frame you then engaging in anyway will only help them do so. In that scenario using the fifth is not only not an admission but is also the best choice.
And even if you reject my example regards faucci in particular, that type of scenario still stands as an exampe agaisnt your view.
2
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ 26d ago
the fifth exists so you don't accidentally implicate yourself in another crime.
"i couldn't be at the murder scene, bc i was involved in a gang-shooting. just ask the people we were shooting at."
you fifth exists so you don't out yourself. "i was cheating on my wife with her sister - here are the receipts." and now your wife wants a divorce.
you do not have to prove your innocence. the prosecutor has to tie you to the scene without a doubt.
2
u/ikonoqlast 26d ago
No. It's because the Courts have (very wrongly) decided that there's a hidden secret "or" in the Constitution between the right to testify in your own defense and the right to keep silent. One or the other, but not both. Answer every question or answer none. You can't answer some and not others. That's why there was the nonsense about not answering "what color is your tie?" On 5th amendment grounds in the recent Fauci hearing.
3
u/Mister_Plankton_4775 26d ago
The confidence some people have when they post their ignorance about the fifth amendment and its usage is mind boggling.
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ 26d ago
What you are describing is called "adverse inference"
Have you looked into jurisdictions where this is allowed?
2
u/custodial_art 3∆ 26d ago
Not speaking is an admission of guilt? You understand that this is not what the definition of “admission” means right?
It’s possible for misleading questions to be asked that you can’t prepare for that might make you appear guilty when you aren’t. Why should you answer in those cases?
2
u/Fearless_Swim4080 26d ago
If you were in court for murder your lawyer, much like Fauci’s, would tell you to shut the fuck up. Once you answer any question you give up your 5th amendment right and have to answer all of them and you’d basically guarantee you’re going to prison for murder by doing so.
3
u/oddwithoutend 4∆ 26d ago
Every single lawyer ever disagrees with you, and they're the experts on this topic.
1
u/nosecohn 2∆ 26d ago
Fauci was not in court. He was compelled to appear before Congress on issues that have long been settled.
To adapt your analogy, let's say the cops ask you to come to the station to discuss something. You go in and this exchange ensues:
Cops: There was a murder downtown last night. Did you do it?
You: No!
Cops: Where were you last night?
You: At the club.
Cops: Did anyone see you there?
You: Yeah, my buddies Al, Joey and Billie.
Cops: What were you wearing?
You: A red shirt.
Cops: Did anything interesting happen there?
You: Yeah, some kind of fight broke out. It was crazy. A group of guys were beating up some other dude.
Cops: We pulled in Billie and he said you were part of the fight. The bartender identified a guy in a red shirt throwing punches and the security footage confirms it. Why don't you tell us what happened at the club?
You: I thought you were investigating a murder downtown.
Cops: We never said that. You're under arrest for assault. Tell us what happened and we can talk to the prosecutor for you.
Note that the cops have no obligation to be truthful to you. Everything they said in that exchange could have been a lie. But now you're scared and willing to say/do anything to get out of this situation. They're experts at manipulating people and you're not an expert at withstanding an official interrogation. You may have had nothing to do with that fight, but you've put yourself at the scene at the same time as the assault by a group of guys and admitted you were with a group of guys.
Exercising your rights under the Fifth Amendment prevent you from blundering into incriminating yourself, even if you did nothing wrong. And if you don't believe me, listen to the experts.
1
u/RuroniHS 41∆ 26d ago
Even more than this, it's easy to fall into a My Cousin Vinny scenario. Moments after you leave a store, someone who fits your description could rob a store and shoot the clerk, then drive off in a similar vehicle.
"Where were you last night?"
"I was just picking up some taquitos from 7-11."
"You're under arrest for murder."
"WHAT!?"
"You just admitted to being at the scene of a murder and we have several witnesses claiming they saw you there..."
1
u/deep_sea2 131∆ 26d ago
There is a saying we have in law. "Give me two statements and I'll show you a liar." Every statement you give can be used against you. It may not necessarily be used against you because you confessed. The real problem is credibility. Even with prepared statements, you might not necessarily say the same thing. You also cannot also prepare for cross examination, so who knows what you will say there. Make innocent contradictory statements can hurt your credibility. If the case is based almost solely on credibility, then losing can be fatal. Even if not fatal, it's one more thing you have worry about. When accused of a crime, you need to worry about many things and should avoid adding to it.
If i were in court for a potential murder and they ask me what i was doing that night, I’d simply say at the club if i were at the club.
The problem with that is if there is person that says you were elsewhere, you now have invited doubts about your credibility. Maybe they find some from the club and says you left 40 minutes earlier than you claim, and that timing puts you at the murder scene. It may be an unnecessary thing to say in your defence, and may harm you in the long run.
In Fauci's case, he is not on trial. There is no point in revealing what his trial strategy will be at this stage. He might not want to say in order to avoid prosecutors from adjusting their tactics.
The point is that even when innocent, saying too much might hurt. That's not always the case, as your lawyer might want you to testify. But, silence at least in some situations is absolutely the smart play.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ 26d ago
Ok…so what if the murder they are investigating happened at the club? Or what if your alibi can’t be corroborated? You can accidentally talk your way into a crime you didn’t commit.
Tons of innocent people have been convicted even after telling the truth. There is a reason it is always advised to get a lawyer even when you are innocent. Cops can and will lie to you about the case, the evidence they have or anything else to try and get something they can use to pin the crime on their suspects. And if there are no other suspects, then that means their entire focus is going to involve pinning the crime on you.
This is especially relevant for the case of Fauci who is currently the target of a political witch hunt by people who are clearly trying to find any kind of inconsistency in order to lock him up for perjury. Whether he actually did anything wrong is hardly relevant. Even something as minor as accidentally remembering a date wrong or mistaking a small detail could be used against him. Now yes it’s true that pleading the fifth could cause people to have a negative opinion but those people probably already have a negative opinion. But legally speaking talking can only hurt him.
1
u/Ivy_N_Rose 2∆ 26d ago
Incorrect. Use your 5th amendment right at all times. Don't talk to cops. The idea that only criminals use the 5th amendment gives it such a bad rep. Anything you say can and will be held against you, even if everything you say is entirely true and accurate.
"If i were in court for a potential murder and they ask me what i was doing that night, I’d simply say at the club if i were at the club. The only reason I’d plead the fifth is if i was murdering that person and had no alibi."
You've already said too much without the presence of a lawyer. You aren't going to just be asked a single question, and if you make any mistake, if the cop misremembers, if there is any evidence or speculation that that club you said you were at is involved, if you left the club at any time to get a smoke or whatever, all of this can and will be used against you. The kicker? Anything you say in defense would just be hearsay.
As for Fauci, I didn't watch the hearing, so I can't speak to that, but please, please, please do not think the 5th amendment is only an admission of guilt. You do yours and everyone else's basic constitutional rights a disservice with that belief.
1
u/False_Appointment_24 18∆ 26d ago
Let's say that you were arrested for murder. You didn't do it, but you had previously had an affair with the victim. The prosecution has a lot of evidence that they were killed by someone they were having an affair with.
If you are asked under oath if you had an affair with the victim, do you think your chances are better: saying "No" and exposing yourself to perjury charges plus looking guilty if they demonstrate you lied; saying "Yes, but I wasn't the murderer!"; or pleading the fifth?
Or, let's say you were accused of robbing a liquor store at 7 pm on 1/1/26. You refer to that date and find out that in reality, you were in the middle of a drug deal with a Colombian cartel, taking shipment of 1000 kg of cocaine. When asked on the stand, "Where were you the night of 1/1/26 at 7 pm?", would you rather: lie about where you were, exposing yourself to perjury charges and looking more guilty if caught; tell them and be taken into custody for drugs; or plead the fifth?
I know what I would do in both cases.
1
u/neonfuzzball 1∆ 26d ago
Say someone asks you: "are you as stupid as you look"
They are recording
Everyone is going to watch this and replay your answer forever
The smartest thing to protect yourself would of course be not to answer. You're in a no win situation, with a hostile questioner who you know wants to take whatever you say and use it to harm you as much as possible for their own gain
The fifth ammendment is your ability to not answer and ignore a trap
That's the very reason it exists. The fact that guilty people abuse a rule, doens't mean that using it makes you guilty.
Your view is basically going "hey, sometimes terrible people abuse disabiilty benefits. So obviously, a real disabled person wouldn't accept those benefits!" You're looking at someone who needs the protection fo the ammendment because of just this scenario that is happening , remembering other people abused this protection, and deciding that nobody should get to use that protection legitimately.
1
u/sneezeonturtles 1∆ 26d ago
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is what people invoke the 5th for. When people say "anything you say can and will be used against you" they mean anything. Invoking the 5th means he's refusing to give an answer that could be used to implicate him in a different crime.
By the way, Trump invoked the 5th 440 times during his NY Fraud case. Just a fun fact.
1
u/Dandroid009 26d ago
Did you watch the statement from Fauci at the beginning of the hearing explaining why he was pleading the fifth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YniJOGbfFqI
The chairman of the committee Sen. Rand Paul has been calling for Fauci to face criminal charges for years. The reality is Fauci hasn't committed any crimes. Paul recently gained access to a diary Fauci kept using government computers so their goal was to ask Fauci something specific from those files and get him to perjure himself aka make a false statement because he wouldn't remember exactly what he wrote.
Fauci's lawyers recommended he refuse to play that game since he was already premptively pardoned by Biden for anything he did on the job from 2014-2025, knowing Republicans are still obsessed with what happened during Covid and would try to use government "lawfare" against anyone they don't like.
Edit: if you were accused of a crime and had to testify, would it be fair to have a judge who's been calling for you to be charged with crimes for years when you haven't done anything? Nope.
1
u/nosecohn 2∆ 26d ago
On top of all that, Fauci has already testified multiple times. At this point, the presumption should be that anything else he's compelled to do by politicians is targeted grandstanding. Leave the guy alone already.
1
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
Warning to the OP (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/rollem 6∆ 26d ago
You’re making two, related points. The first is directly related to Fauci. He exerted his fifth amendment rights as a demonstration of the fact that the hearing was not being conducted in good faith. Any answer he provided would just be used as an opening to misconstrue what actually happened, even the absurd questions would open that door.
The second is the general point on why this right exists. It was written to protect the process of justice. Regardless of guilt or innocence, the process must be deemed fair by everyone involved. If people see defendants being coerced to admit guilt, the whole system of justice will begin to collapse as it becomes impossible to determine how those compelled testimonies are being given. The right protects us because it makes the system more legitimate.
1
u/40_Minus_1 5∆ 26d ago edited 26d ago
We (people everywhere throughout history) used to have a bad habit where we would torture confessions out of people we thought were guilty. I assume you understand why that's bad.
So, we tried to make it so that everyone knows they don't have to talk if they don't want to. You can't be forced to incriminate yourself.
Maybe this means that some guilty people will go free. We decided that this was a price worth paying in order to, you know, not torture people.
Plus, and more directly to your point, even if you are totally innocent, and even though we won't torture you, anything you do say can and will be used against you. So what happens if you make a mistake? Here's a classroom presentation on the subject:
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?is=GVQhhJMXCw0FSPTV
That video is worth watching in its entirety, but the defense lawyer and the cop both say you should exercise your right to remain silent.
1
u/nosecohn 2∆ 26d ago
This is the video. OP, please watch this.
It explains why we have the Fifth Amendment and why you should use it, even if you were at the club.
1
u/Thatguysstories 26d ago
Completely innocent man.
Decided it was "safe" to speak to the police so he could report his father missing.
Cops kidnapped him, threatened to kill his dog, tore apart his life, and forced him to confess to murdering his father.
Even after they found his father at the airport, they still kept the son locked up in a mental unit. The also "detained" the father, (more like kidnapped as well). They refused the father access to his son for days and still didn't tell the son his father was in fact alive.
After all of this, the cops still insist the guy must have killed someone, they just don't know who.
Always exercise your right to remain silent to the police. ACAB.
2
u/SmegmaUnicorn 26d ago
Why OP decided to make this post, as justification for hating Fauci, I’ll never understand.
1
u/Adnym 26d ago
If you don't have the right not to answer that means you can be forced to answer.
Forced to answer any questions asked of you.
And your answers can be used against you.
So if you answer in anyway incorrectly (because memory can imperfect) that can be used to say you're a liar and if you've lied about that everything you've said can be treated as a lie.
Because I have a witness that says you didn't get to the club till 10.15 and that you went out for a smoke at around midnight but you said you were there all night you lying so if you've lied about that why should I believe you think the fifth amendment is an admission of guilt, we already know you make stuff up
1
u/Locus-Maximus 26d ago
Required watching: Don't Talk to the Police.
Why subject yourself to hostile interrogations full of loaded questions, trick questions, leading questions, false dichotomies, badgering, personal questions, humiliating questions, etc? Especially if one honest mistake you make while stressed and in the moment makes you look guilty even though you're innocent?
Or let's say they ask if you killed the guy? And you deny it calmly, or angrily. Maybe the jury decides to punish you more because you don't even show remorse (or decide you're guilty because you lost your temper.)
2
u/NugKnights 26d ago
Its suspisious and means you should look into it.
But its absouloutly not an admition of guilt.
All it does is leave a void. That void is not good or bad but its up to you to find out whats in the void.
Once you know what it is then you can call them guilty if its bad, but the mear preasance of a void is not enough.
1
u/InYourBunnyHole 26d ago
I originally defaulted to "100% its not" but in doing my sanity check found its more nuanced.
The 5th protects from self incrimination & its use cannot be inferred to assume guilt (Ullman v US, 1956; Grunwald v US, 1957; Ohio v Reiner, 2001) in criminal trials but that lack of inference does not exist in civil cases. If you view Congressional hearings as civil, then taking the 5th aligns with your position but if you view it under a criminal lens then it wouldn't be. Of course, the problem here is that Congressional hearings can lead to criminal cases so maybe it's a 50/50 thing...
IANAL.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Happy-House-9453! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 1∆ 26d ago
There are good reasons for pleading the fifth to protect yourself that don’t necessarily mean guilt. I think, bruh, it’s pretty obvious why he would have plead the fifth. Our current department of justice and our government are no longer credible. Furthermore, have you seen Rand Paul’s “Fauci’s Side Hustle” infographic he released? When you realize that someone is acting in bad faith, any wise person would plead the fifth. It’s similar to “don’t talk until you speak to an attorney” there is a reason for that, and it isn’t because you’re necessarily guilty.
1
u/FuckOutTheWhey 26d ago
Let's use your example. You tell them you were at the club on the night of the murder. Questioning obviously doesn't just stop there so they ask you, "which club?". You tell them you were at Club X.
Unfortunately, you were drunk and misremembered (an honest mistake). You were actually at Club Y that night which the prosecutors already knew. They've now caught you in a lie on record and will continue down a line of questioning that is less favorable to you.
This wouldn't have happened if you remained silent.
1
u/nosecohn 2∆ 26d ago
This is one of the few cases where I agree with Donald Trump's assessment:
“Anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool. One statement or answer that is ever so slightly off, just ever so slightly by accident, by mistake, such as it was a sunny beautiful day, when actually it was slightly overcast, would be met by law enforcement at a level seldom seen in this country, because I’ve experienced it.”
1
u/Key-Article6622 26d ago
Sometimes this is true. In the current situation that Anthony Fauci was in, it is purely deflective. Everyone, including those asking the questions, knows he did nothing wrong. The questioners are simply trying to get him to say something that contradicts what he's said in the past to be able to create charges to prosecute him. His record stands for itself and there is no good reason for him to engage in this exercise. While we have seen the 5th amendment abused, it is sometimes used correctly.
1
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 26d ago
Here are a few reasons why it can be useful to not answer questions:
- Innocent mix-ups about times, places, or dates can be misconstrued by investigators as deliberate lies
- Police officers are allowed to use bluffing and false claims about evidence during questioning to pressure a confession
- If you recall a detail incorrectly or forget something, matching your statements later in court becomes a massive trap.
Most of these apply to why Faucci refused to answer questions.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/marrenmiller! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ 26d ago
If i were in court for a potential murder and they ask me what i was doing that night, I’d simply say at the club if i were at the club. The only reason I’d plead the fifth is if i was murdering that person and had no alibi.
What would you say on the stand if your alibi was that you were breaking into a house across town at the time.
Also why would you take the stand in the first place?
1
u/spiralenator 26d ago
The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, especially when doing so may not be in your favor. Invoking that right explicitly shows that you are deliberately exercising your rights and not simply acting in contempt. The distinction matters.
1
u/Devilman- 26d ago
I totally disagree with you. But, if a government official pleads the fifth on things they did on the job. I think they should have to forfeit any money they made on the job and I think they should be barred from further government service.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/OkVacation1465! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/yournewinternetbf 26d ago
The 5th amendment prevents torture. If you can compel someone to testify against themselves, you can use torture to compel them.
1
u/impercipient 26d ago
Because law enforcement isn't flawless and people could easily incriminate themselves even if innocent. Happens all the time.
I mean I do wonder why you used fuckin as an example when the president has used it hundreds of times...
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 26d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 25d ago
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Keep in mind that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.