Tag: 5th amendment

Rand Paul On Fauci’s Move To Hide Behind Fifth Amendment Despite Biden’s ‘Extraordinarily Sweeping’ Pardon

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said he was “really disappointed” that Dr. Anthony Fauci “chose not to testify” during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, considering that the former White House COVID czar could have “come clean” and “tell the truth,” without fear, since, under Joe Biden, he was given such an “extraordinarily sweeping” pardon.

The chairman of the Senate committee, Paul told Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty Wednesday evening that he was uncertain what to expect until he opened the hearing.

“I was disappointed,” said the senator, who is also a physician. “You know, I kind of hoped that he would try to come clean, that he would tell the truth. All he had to do was tell the truth.”

Paul explained Fauci could actually have simply admitted that he “destroyed records, that he previously lied to Congress” because he was “protected by pardon.”

“So, I was really disappointed that he hid behind the Fifth Amendment,” he continued. “It doesn’t seem to make sense because he was given complete immunity for a 10-year period for any possible crime. The only other person in the history of the United States that’s gotten this kind of pardon was Hunter Biden. So, it’s an extraordinary pardon. It’s extraordinarily sweeping and without limits, and yet he chose not to testify.”

Keep reading

Sen. Rand Paul: Congress Will Vote on Holding Fauci in Contempt After He Invoked Fifth Amendment Over 100 Times

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said there will be a panel vote to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt after the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) refused to answer any question during his testimony on Wednesday, instead repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment.

“That’s a vote that will happen in committee next week. It will be in contempt of Congress,” Paul told reporters after the hearing, which featured Fauci refusing to answer one question from lawmakers.

“We believe that with his… immunity from criminal liability, that he didn’t need to hide behind the Fifth Amendment and that maybe the Fifth Amendment doesn’t attach when you have a pardon in place,” Paul explained, noting it will be a legal question.

“That’ll be a legal question, but the question on contempt will be voted on, and then there’s a question of whether or not the Department of Justice will take that up,” he added.

Fauci made clear during his opening statement that he would not respond to any lawmaker questions. And after his own line of questions, which Fauci refused to answer, Paul said that there would be repercussions.

“The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon. The committee will have to consider after this hearing what appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so,” Paul said.

He added, “It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today.”

Other lawmakers on the committee also pointed out that Fauci, whom former President Joe Biden pardoned, had nothing to hide.

“Let’s just get one thing straight: You don’t have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you’ve been pardoned, as you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said. “Brown vs. Walker, 1896. When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege. You know that, your lawyers sitting behind you now shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it.”

Keep reading

Here’s why Fauci can’t chicken out and plead the ‘Fifth’ during upcoming hearing…

Anthony Fauci thinks Biden’s last-minute “autopen” pardon is his golden parachute.

But he could be very, very wrong.

In reality, that so-called pardon might turn out to be a pair of golden handcuffs instead.

Americans have sat back and watched Fauci play a lot of games. He’s dodged, danced, redefined words, split a lot of hairs, and acted like the rest of the country (and the world) was way too stupid to understand what really went down during the COVID circus. He became the face of the “pandemic” response, and according to the media and liberals, he was the patron saint of “trust the science.”

Who can forget these absurd candles?

As you likely know by now, Senator Rand Paul says Fauci will testify publicly before his committee on July 29th, and this time, the “fifth” escape hatch might not be so easy to open…

That’s because Biden gave Fauci that sweeping preemptive “autopen” pardon before leaving office. The pardon was supposed to protect him. But legally, it screws up Fauci’s ability to sit there, twiddle his thumbs, and plead the Fifth when the questions get uncomfortable.

A lot of Americans believe Fauci should’ve faced real legal consequences a long time ago for what he did to humanity. They look at COVID, the lockdowns, deaths, mandates, ruined businesses, lost years, and all the sketchy questions about Wuhan and the endless array of smug lectures from “experts,” and they don’t see a humble public servant who deserves yet another theatrical political hearing… they see a criminal.

A criminal who got protected.

And let’s be honest here, a blanket pardon doesn’t exactly scream “innocence,” does it? Normal people see something like that and ask the obvious question: if nobody did anything wrong, why did Biden’s autopen feel the need to pardon him before anyone was even charged with anything?

And again, that’s what makes this hearing interesting.

Because if Fauci can’t hide behind the Fifth, then he may be forced into a very ugly corner. He can tell the truth or risk lying to Congress (again). And if Republicans actually have the balls to press hard, follow up, and refuse to let him bluster his way through the hearing, this could become more than another useless Swamp show.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rejects Michigan family’s claim that county committed ‘home equity theft’ over $2,200 tax debt

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously sided with Isabella County, Michigan, rejecting a family’s claim that local governments must pay homeowners the full fair market value of property seized and sold in tax foreclosures rather than the lower price obtained at public auction.

In the 9-0 decision, the court ruled that under the Fifth Amendment, “the proper baseline under the Takings Clause is the price obtained in a tax sale, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of our country’s history of tax sales.”

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito explained that “neither the Fifth nor the Eighth Amendment requires the government to compensate former owners based on the hypothetical fair market value of their property.”

The high court noted that creating a fair-market-value baseline would impose “unprecedented burdens” on local governments seeking to collect unpaid taxes, making these sales “impractical.”

“Under Pung’s rule, a tax sale to collect $20,000 in delinquent taxes would net the government a $20,000 loss—a loss paid out to the delinquent taxpayer himself,” Alito continued. “The possibility of such a perverse result would render tax sales infeasible as a debt-collection mechanism.”

The ruling comes amid a decade-long legal battle between Isabella County and the Pung family over what they called “home equity theft.” Isabella County foreclosed on the family’s 3,000-square-foot home over a disputed $2,241.93 tax bill stemming from a revoked Principal Residence Exemption, subsequently selling the $194,400 property at auction for just $76,008. Michael Pung, acting as the personal representative of the estate, disputed the bill and brought the legal challenge on behalf of the family.

While the county eventually returned the surplus auction proceeds, the family argued the Constitution required “just compensation” based on the home’s actual worth, rather than a low-ball auction price that destroyed more than $118,000 in equity.

However, the court said on Tuesday it would not “resolve any of Pung’s newfound contentions that the procedure the County followed in seizing and selling his property was unfair.”

The court ultimately vacated and remanded the case, sending it back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reconsider those procedural claims.

Keep reading

ActBlue CEO Repeatedly Pleads the Fifth as Congress Probes Foreign Donations

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights Wednesday during a congressional hearing on allegations the Democrat fundraising platform accepted foreign-linked donations.

Wallace-Jones declined to answer a series of questions from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) regarding alleged foreign donations, fraud controls, and the departure of ActBlue’s legal team.

“On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer this question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.”

Jordan asked Wallace-Jones about reports that millions of contributions processed by ActBlue in 2024 showed signs of foreign origin.

“Your board chairman said 38 million contributions in 2024 had the signs of foreign origin,” Jordan said. “How much fraud is too much fraud?”

Wallace-Jones pleaded the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer. Jordan then asked how many foreign contributions ActBlue accepted and whether the platform received donations from Russia. Wallace-Jones again declined to respond.

The Ohio Republican also questioned Wallace-Jones about the departure of ActBlue’s in-house legal team and whether the fundraising platform had weakened its fraud-prevention standards.

“Why did your entire legal team quit?” Jordan asked.

Wallace-Jones invoked the Fifth Amendment. Jordan later asked whether ActBlue had weakened its fraud standards to benefit Democrat candidates, drawing the same response.

The hearing comes weeks after a congressional staff report accused ActBlue of accepting illegal foreign donations during the 2024 election cycle and covering up the activity. The report also claimed that every member of ActBlue’s legal and compliance team either resigned, was fired, or took extended leave. It cited subsequent media reports alleging that the departures were linked to concerns over the platform’s donation practices.

A separate congressional staff report released in 2025 alleged that two policy changes adopted by ActBlue in 2024 led to an increase in fraudulent contributions on the platform. Investigators further alleged that internal training materials instructed employees to search for reasons to approve donations rather than flag potentially suspicious transactions.

The House Administration Committee launched its probe of ActBlue in October 2023. In a letter to committee chairman Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) that year, then-CEO Regina Wallace-Jones assured Congress that “only donations with passport information are processed.”

ActBlue has helped raise more than $19 billion for Democratic candidates and causes since its founding in 2004.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Dismisses Criminal Case Against MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia

A federal judge on Friday dismissed the criminal indictment against MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee, granted Abrego Garcia’s motion to dismiss the human trafficking case for vindictive and selective prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The Trump DOJ vowed to appeal Judge Crenshaw’s decision.

Last October, Judge Crenshaw set a hearing on whether the child-trafficking case against MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia was due to “vindictive prosecution.”

Crenshaw set a hearing based on public statements made by Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kristi Noem, and others.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who was illegally residing in Maryland. In 2019, an immigration judge ordered Abrego Garcia, an alleged member of the dangerous MS-13 gang, removed from the US.

After a months-long court battle over his deportation, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was transported back to the United States from El Salvador to face criminal charges.

Keep reading

Five ActBlue Employees Plead the Fifth on 146 Questions During House Judiciary Depositions – EVERY Member of Legal & Compliance Was Fired, Quit, or on Extended Leave From Platform in 2025

On Monday, The Gateway Pundit reported that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued ActBlue, the Democrat fundraising platform, for “deceiving Americans by lying about its donation processes that allow fraudulent and foreign donations.” This was following an internal investigation that “prove[d] that ActBlue continues to process gift card donations” without proving identification of the donor.

The same day, the House Judiciary Committee deposed five employees after subpoenas were issued to two employees in June 2025 by Reps. Jim Jordan, Bryan Steil, and James Comer. The recent depositions included “top staff responsible for fraud prevention” and sought to “learn more about the platform’s acceptance of illegal donations – and the subsequent cover-up,” according to a post on X by the House Judiciary GOP.

The House Judiciary GOP account states that the five employees were asked 146 questions and that the ActBlue employees “refused to answer a single one, invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination every time.”

Keep reading

Police Destroyed Innocent People’s Property—and Left Them With the Bill. Will the Supreme Court Step In?

2022 was a big year for both Carlos Pena and Amy Hadley. Separated by several states, SWAT teams left their properties in ruins while attempting to capture two suspects. In August, officers threw dozens of tear gas canisters into Pena’s Los Angeles printing business; two months prior, law enforcement had done the same to Hadley’s Indiana home before also destroying security cameras, punching holes in the walls, and ransacking the house.

Neither was suspected of a crime. They were, to put it mildly, unlucky. Which raises an unfortunate question: What is an innocent person owed when police wreck their property?

The Supreme Court will once again decide if it will address that question and offer legal clarity in a debate that has seen governments refuse to reimburse people when their property becomes major collateral damage in a law enforcement operation.

The circumstances leading up to Pena and Hadley’s property damage differ slightly. A SWAT team from the city of Los Angeles blew up Pena’s shop, NoHo Printing & Graphics, after a suspect ejected Pena from the business and barricaded himself inside while attempting to evade capture. (Police would later find that the man had escaped.) Over in Indiana, law enforcement arrived at Hadley’s house after an officer posited that a suspect was accessing the internet from her IP address, which wasn’t true.

The basic end result, however, was the same. Local government officials ignored their pleas for help and declined to compensate them for mutilating their respective properties, despite the fact that no party disputes their innocence. Pena has sued for over $60,000, alleging the raid destroyed his shop and the equipment inside, forcing him to relocate to a garage with one printer and a reduced capacity that has cost him significant revenue, according to his lawsuit. Hadley, meanwhile, says she incurred about $16,000 in losses, which insurance only partially covered. That it helped at all is not the norm. Pena’s insurance denied assistance, as most policies stipulate that they are not liable for government-induced damage.

Common sense may dictate that innocent people should not individually shoulder the financial burden of public safety (or, in Hadley’s case, a flawed police investigation). Yet both were denied relief because of how the property met its demise.

Is that constitutional? The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause promises “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use. But some courts have ruled that it does not always apply when police are involved.

The courts are not in agreement on what exactly the exception is or how far it goes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that Pena could not sue for damages because “law enforcement officers destroy[ed]” his shop “while acting reasonably in the necessary defense of public safety.” In other words, the judges declined to say if a categorical “police power” exception applies in such cases; that law enforcement acted reasonably and out of necessity was enough to kill his claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, however, did find a categorical exemption. “The Fifth Amendment does not require the state to compensate for property damage resulting from police executing a lawful search warrant,” wrote Judge Joshua Kolar, rejecting Hadley’s claim.

Keep reading

A Trumpian Headache

President Donald Trump’s use of the U.S. military to kill persons on speed boats in international waters, or in territorial waters claimed by other sovereign nations – all 1,500 miles from the U.S. – has posed grave issues of due process. The Constitution’s guarantee of due process requires it for every person, not just Americans. The operative language of the Fifth Amendment is that “No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

The Trump administration has claimed that it can kill whomever it designates as an unlawful enemy combatant – it prefers the political phrase “narco-terrorist” – and the due process it provides is the intelligence gathered by American spies and the White House analysis of that intelligence. This secret analysis, the government’s argument goes, satisfies the president that the folks he has ordered killed are engaging in serious and harmful criminal behavior, and somehow is a lawful and constitutional substitute for the jury trial and its attendant procedural protections that the Constitution commands.

To be fair, I am offering an educated guess as to the administration’s argument. The reason we don’t know the argument precisely is that the Department of Justice calls it classified. This is, of course, a non sequitur. How could a legal argument possibly be secret in light of well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence? It can’t. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that there are no secret laws or secret rationales for employing the laws. Moreover, it has ruled that the First Amendment assures a public window on government behavior whenever it seeks to take life, liberty or property.

The last time we went through efforts to obtain the government’s legal argument for presidential targeted killing was during the Obama administration. When President Barack Obama ordered the CIA to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and his son – both natural born American citizens – it, too, claimed a secret legal rationale. Yet some brave soul who had access to that rationale leaked it to the press. The rationale likened killing al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son to police shooting at fleeing bank robbers who are shooting at the police.

The Obama justification was absurd, as al-Awlaki was not engaged in any violent acts. He had been followed by 12 intelligence agents during his final 48 hours of life. Those agents couldn’t legally arrest him, because he hadn’t been charged with a crime, but in the Obama logic, they could legally kill him.

When those of us who monitor the government’s infidelity to the Constitution publicly pointed out the flaws in the Obama argument, it reverted to the argument that I suspect the current administration is secretly using. Namely, that its secret internal deliberations are a constitutionally adequate substitution for traditional due process.

It gets worse.

Keep reading

Former Dem ‘super mayor’ pleads the Fifth after failing to produce public records in court

A Chicago suburb’s former Democratic “super mayor” is facing yet another legal hurdle after failing to produce public records from her time in office after being held in contempt of court earlier this month.  

In a hearing on Friday, Tiffany Henyard’s attorney Beau Bridley pleaded the Fifth on his client’s behalf after she was ordered to hand over public records from her time in office.

“The smear campaign against Tiffany Henyard, which began while she was in office, continues even now that she is out of office,” Bridley said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Bridley conceded that the former mayor does not have the requested document, with an Illinois judge allowing Henyard’s legal team to submit an affidavit in its place. 

“The mayor has no document that the plaintiff seeks,” Bridley said. “This matter is going to be resolved with a simple affidavit. The whole hearing was much ado about nothing.”

The hearing stems from a lawsuit filed by the Edgar County Watchdogs Inc., after the organization sued Henyard and the Village of Dolton for failing to produce financial records after the documents were requested under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Keep reading