2026-07-29T18:08:09.382Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/29/politics/fauci-senate-fifth-amendment
如今在美国政坛,公众早已习惯了知名人物援引第五修正案,以避免回答他们认为可能会给自己带来刑事指控的问题。其中包括2022年唐纳德·特朗普总统在一桩民事案件中超过400次援引该修正案。
但当安东尼·福奇博士像周三在参议院作证时那样反复援引第五修正案时,情况就要复杂得多。
这是因为福奇已于去年获得时任总统乔·拜登的赦免。
事实上,周三的听证会不太可能是整件事的终点。它甚至可能为共和党人和特朗普政府铺平道路,让他们得以推行许多人公开提议的计划:试图将福奇送进监狱。
表面上看,他们并非要就福奇在新冠疫情期间的行为起诉他,而是谈论以藐视国会罪对其提起诉讼——这一程序启动后,司法部将考虑是否对他提出指控。
共和党人试图起诉福奇,是他周三拒绝回答问题的原因。具体而言,他援引了参议院国土安全与政府事务委员会主席兰德·保罗多年来对他的攻击。
福奇称,这位肯塔基州共和党议员正试图“让我说些什么,任何话,以证明他反复公开宣称的、将我‘关进监狱’的说法是正确的”。
但福奇援引第五修正案与其他人士的关键区别在于,福奇在2025年初获得了拜登的赦免。
在卸任前夕,拜登对福奇和其他即将上任的特朗普总统及其盟友可能试图对其提起公诉的目标人物发出了预先赦免令,并指出新一届政府及其盟友可能会煽动对他们的起诉。(鉴于特朗普政府时期的司法部曾试图以站不住脚的证据起诉特朗普的政敌,这种担忧已得到证实。)
这位美国国家过敏和传染病研究所前所长福奇不仅获得了赦免,还得到了范围极广的赦免令,涵盖了2014年1月至2025年1月期间他在政府任职期间几乎所有相关行为。
换句话说,福奇已经对保罗和该委员会共和党议员可能试图将他与新冠疫情时期联系起来的许多潜在指控享有豁免权。
但福奇表示,他援引第五修正案是因为担心共和党人会设下伪证陷阱——即试图让他说出某些话,从而可以以此对他提起伪证指控。
事实上,听证会前一些知名人士曾表示,尽管福奇获得了赦免,但他仍可能因伪证罪被起诉。其中包括美国卫生与公众服务部部长小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪和保守派律师约翰·柳,他们两人在福克斯新闻的采访中都表达了这一观点。
(尽管福奇在新冠疫情期间的医疗建议遭到了共和党人的广泛批评,但几乎没有证据将他与犯罪行为联系起来。今年早些时候的民调显示,大多数美国人仍然对他抱有信心。)
但福奇援引第五修正案就能就此了结此事吗?这是一个尚未得到解答的重大问题。
第五修正案的保护条款与国会的调查权之间存在矛盾。声称自己受到保护、无需回答问题的证人,可能会被要求在法庭上为自己的主张辩护,甚至可能被判定为藐视国会。
例如,特朗普前顾问史蒂夫·班农曾援引行政特权,拒绝就推翻2020年大选结果的相关事宜作证。后来,法院驳回了他的主张,他因藐视国会罪被定罪并判处四个月监禁。(特朗普领导的司法部此后已申请撤销对他的定罪。)
保罗周三暗示,他将于下周在委员会就福奇的藐视国会问题发起投票,并表示:“阻挠国会调查是违法行为。拒绝作证将产生后果。”
值得注意的是,即使委员会投票认定福奇藐视国会,将案件正式移交司法部仍需要参议院全院多数票通过,而且该投票还需突破阻挠议事程序。这意味着保罗需要争取少数民主党议员支持才能推进此事——或者说服众议院的某位议员接手此事,而众议院仅需简单多数即可通过。
尽管福奇面临实际指控还有很长的路要走,但一些法律专家表示,他援引第五修正案的主张可能站不住脚。
“这种(被起诉的)担忧是否足以支持援引第五修正案,最终将由法院裁定,”前联邦检察官达尼亚·佩里说道。
她补充道:“福奇会指出保罗反复的指控和威胁,以此证明被起诉的前景是具体的,而非推测性的,哪怕他认为任何此类起诉最终都会失败。”
圣托马斯大学法学教授马克·奥斯勒在一封电子邮件中写道:“赦免似乎涵盖了福奇在2025年1月19日之前在国会所作的证词。因此,他不能以可能被问及揭示其先前证词虚假(或至少可能面临此类指控)的问题为由,援引第五修正案。”
但奥斯勒表示,福奇可以辩称他的赦免存在漏洞,可能被利用——例如2014年之前的行为,或与其政府公职无关的行为。
CNN高级法律分析师埃利·霍尼格推测,福奇的主张会很有力,这不仅因为赦免的时间限制,还因为他可能担心因潜在的州级犯罪被起诉,而联邦赦免并不覆盖此类罪行。
“如果他在赦免范围之外存在被起诉的风险,那他当然可以援引第五修正案,而他显然确实存在这种风险,”霍尼格在CNN节目中说道。
如果法院认定第五修正案的保护不适用于福奇的证词,那么他届时可以同意作证,从而避免可能的藐视国会指控。但他必须在这一选择与作证可能带来的潜在起诉风险之间权衡利弊。
有趣的是,这种情况在特朗普第一任期期间及之后不久就常被预判,只是角色略有颠倒。
当时人们的想法是,特朗普可以赦免他的盟友,但这可能会让他们更容易指证特朗普。
如今,一些共和党人正准备继续与福奇缠斗。
“我们先把话说清楚:你在第五修正案下没有任何权利,因为你已经被赦免了,这一点你非常清楚,正如最高法院一个多世纪以来的明确裁决一样,”密苏里州共和党参议员约什·霍利在周三的听证会上说道。
霍利接着提及福奇的律师团队,其中一名律师在保罗的要求下,在一段紧张的来回交锋后被请出了听证会现场。
“坐在你身后的律师们,现在正紧张地坐立不安——他们清楚这一点,”霍利说道。“这与宪法无关,与法律无关。这关乎藐视——藐视这个机构,藐视美国人民。”
Why Anthony Fauci might not be safe after pleading the Fifth
2026-07-29T18:08:09.382Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/29/politics/fauci-senate-fifth-amendment
By now in American politics, we’ve become accustomed to high-profile figures pleading the Fifth to avoid answering questions they believe could be used to incriminate them. That includes President Donald Trump doing it more than 400 times in a civil case in 2022.
But when it comes to Dr. Anthony Fauci invoking the Fifth Amendment — as he did repeatedly in Senate testimony Wednesday — it’s much more complicated.
That’s because Fauci was pardoned last year by then-President Joe Biden.
Indeed, Wednesday’s hearing is very unlikely to be the end of the story. And it could actually grease the skids for Republicans and the Trump administration to do something many of them have openly floated: Trying to put Fauci in prison.
They’re ostensibly not trying to prosecute Fauci for what he did during the Covid pandemic, but have talked about holding him in contempt of Congress — a threat to initiate a process that would result in the Justice Department considering whether to charge him.
GOP efforts to prosecute Fauci formed the basis of his refusal to answer questions Wednesday. Specifically, he cited Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul’s years-long attacks against him.
Fauci claimed the Kentucky Republican was trying to “get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars.’”
But the key difference between Fauci pleading the Fifth and others doing so is that Fauci was pardoned by Biden in early 2025.
On his way out of office, Biden issued preemptive pardons for Fauci and others targeted by incoming President Trump while citing signs the new administration and its allies might try to drum up prosecutions against them. (That fear that has been legitimized, given the Trump Justice Department’s efforts to target Trump foes based on often flimsy evidence.)
And Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was not only pardoned; he received a very broad pardon that covered virtually anything related to his government service between January 2014 and January 2025.
In other words, Fauci is already immune from prosecution for many of the potential alleged crimes Paul and the committee’s Republicans could try to link him to from the Covid era.
But Fauci indicated he was pleading the Fifth because he feared Republicans would try to lay a perjury trap — i.e. try to get him to say something that could be used to bring a perjury case against him.
Indeed, some prominent figures had spoken before the hearing about Fauci possibly still being prosecuted for perjury, despite his pardon. They included Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and conservative lawyer John Yoo, who both suggested as much in interviews on Fox News.
(While Fauci’s medical advice during the Covid pandemic has been roundly criticized by Republicans, there is little to link him to criminal activity. And polling earlier this year showed a majority of Americans still had confidence in him.)
But whether it’s enough for Fauci to plead the Fifth and be done with it is a major unanswered question.
There is a tension between Fifth Amendment protections and Congress’ investigative authority. And witnesses who claim they are protected from answering questions can be called upon to justify that in court and can be held in contempt.
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, for instance, invoked executive privilege to avoid testifying about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He was later convicted of contempt of Congress and sentenced to four months in prison when the courts rejected his claim. (The Trump DOJ has since sought to dismiss his conviction.)
Paul signaled Wednesday that he was scheduling a contempt vote for Fauci in his committee for next week, saying, “It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions for your refusal to testify.”
It’s worth noting that even if the panel votes to hold him in contempt, an actual referral to the Justice Department requires a majority of the full Senate, and that vote would have to clear a filibuster. That means Paul would need a handful of Democrats to get on board to follow through — or convince someone to take up the cause in the House, where it only requires a simple majority.
While there’s a long way to go before Fauci potential charges, some legal experts say his claim to the Fifth Amendment here could be dicey.
“Whether that concern (about prosecution) is sufficient to support a Fifth Amendment invocation would ultimately be for a court to decide,” said former federal prosecutor Danya Perry.
She added: “Fauci would point to Paul’s repeated accusations and threats as evidence that the prospect of prosecution was concrete rather than speculative, even if he believed any such prosecution would ultimately fail.”
Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, wrote in an email that “the pardon would seem to cover Fauci’s previous congressional testimony prior to January 19, 2025. Thus, he can’t assert the 5th based on the fact that he may be asked questions that reveal his prior testimony as false (or at least subject to such a charge).”
But Osler said Fauci could argue his pardon has some holes that could be exploited — such as conduct that occurred before 2014 or that didn’t relate to his government service.
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig wagered that Fauci would have a strong claim not just because of the time limit of the pardon, but also because he could fear being prosecuted for potential state crimes, which aren’t covered by a federal pardon.
“He certainly can take the Fifth if he has exposure outside of the pardon, which he certainly does,” Honig argued on CNN.
If courts found that Fifth Amendment protections didn’t apply to Fauci’s testimony, he could conceivably agree to testify at that point and avoid possible contempt charges. But he would have to balance that against whatever potential prosecution he might fear his testimony could lead to.
Interestingly, this is a scenario that was often previewed during and shortly after Trump’s first term, but with the roles somewhat reversed.
Back then, the thought was that Trump could pardon his allies, but that meant it could potentially be easier to make them testify against him.
Now some Republicans are girding to continue the fight with Fauci.
“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,” GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said at Wednesday’s hearing.
Hawley went on to cite Fauci’s lawyers, one of whom was escorted out of the hearing at Paul’s request after a tense back-and-forth.
“Your lawyers sitting behind you, now shifting nervously in their chairs — they know it,” Hawley said. “This isn’t about the Constitution. This isn’t about the law. This is about contempt — contempt for this body and contempt for the American people.”
发表回复