2026年7月30日 美国东部时间上午9:34 / 福克斯新闻
法律专家质疑拜登的全面总统赦免是否能剥夺福奇拒绝作证的权利
作者：伊莲·马伦
国会首席记者查德·佩格拉姆在《美国报道》栏目中详细回顾了安东尼·福奇博士在参议院听证会上111次援引第五修正案的最新进展，拆解了这场激烈听证会的关键时刻以及议员们的反应。
【新功能】您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/878b35b6-8c78-4796-9593-569cd80d33b5
收听本文
时长：6分钟
安东尼·福奇博士在周三激烈的参议院听证会上拒绝回答超过100个问题，这引发了一场法律对决：获得全面总统赦免的证人是否仍能援引第五修正案。
参议院国土安全与政府事务委员会主席、肯塔基州共和党议员兰德·保罗在听证会结束后宣布，福奇多次援引第五修正案并拒绝回答议员问题，他计划对福奇提起藐视国会诉讼。
“我们下周将就藐视法庭一事进行投票，”保罗说，“我认为还有另一个法律问题可能需要法院裁决，那就是总统赦免是否能为你提供完全的豁免权。”
兰德·保罗在福奇100多次援引第五修正案后寻求藐视法庭指控
安东尼·福奇在参议院委员会关于他在美国新冠疫情应对中角色的听证会上拒绝作证，援引了第五修正案权利。（亚历克斯·弗罗布莱夫斯基/法新社通过盖蒂图片社 | 阿尔·德拉戈/彭博社通过盖蒂图片社）
前总统乔·拜登向福奇——美国政府新冠疫情指南的首席设计师——发布了全面且无条件的赦免，涵盖2014年1月1日至2025年1月19日期间的所有行为。拜登的广泛赦免保护福奇免受该委员会调查的行为的起诉，仅当他在宣誓后撒谎时才可能面临指控。
前司法部官员阿比谢克·坎布利如今代表前特朗普顾问彼得·纳瓦罗处理其藐视国会案件，他告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，这个问题提出了一个新颖的法律疑问：福奇是否根本就有权援引第五修正案。
“显然，如果他如实作证，那么他将受到全面赦免的保护，因为他所披露的过往行为已完全豁免，”坎布利告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
坎布利质疑，如果如实作证不会再让福奇面临针对相关行为的起诉，第五修正案的特权是否仍适用。
“他的理由是这是一场政治迫害，他们试图设置伪证陷阱起诉他，这就是他需要援引第五修正案的原因，”坎布利说。
但坎布利表示，如果议员们提出的是直截了当的事实性问题，这一论点将更难成立。
“我认为这就有点棘手了，”坎布利谈到福奇为诸如“今天星期几”这类常识性问题援引第五修正案的行为时说。
【福奇以“零法律依据”援引第五修正案，批评人士怒而要求追究藐视法庭责任】(https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-repeatedly-pleads-fifth-fiery-showdown-rand-paul)
前美国国立卫生研究院院长安东尼·福奇（右）的律师大卫·舍特勒（左）在委员会主席、肯塔基州共和党议员兰德·保罗的指示下被带离听证室，摄于2026年7月29日华盛顿特区参议院国土安全与政府事务委员会听证会期间。福奇在听证会上援引第五修正案权利拒绝回答委员会的问题。（凯文·迪奇/盖蒂图片社）
“如果只是他理应知道答案的事实性问题，很难想象他会陷入伪证陷阱，因为他只是如实陈述，而伪证还需要明知故犯地作出虚假陈述，”坎布利说，“如果他的记忆有误，那只是无心之失，通常不会构成伪证指控。”
坎布利表示，联邦法律区分了无视国会传票的证人和出席国会但拒绝回答问题的证人。他说，在后一种情况下，检察官通常无需证明证人故意违法。相反，核心问题在于证人是否有合法理由拒绝回答，例如依据第五修正案提出的正当主张。
“关键在于，如果他如实作证，他已受到保护，只有当他明知就重大事项撒谎时才会被起诉，”坎布利说，“所以问题变成了参议院能否据此向司法部提交 referrals（注：此处指转介调查）。”
乔治华盛顿大学法学教授乔纳森·特利表示，围绕福奇作证的法律问题比双方所暗示的更为复杂。
“他面临的唯一风险来自他在听证会上就这些问题作出的任何虚假陈述，”特利告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，“这很可能会被认定为足够的指控依据，尤其是有些问题可能涉及赦免令发布后的陈述和行为。”
特利还指出福奇在援引第五修正案前先发表了开场陈述，这可能引发额外的法律疑问。
“还有一些问题涉及赦免令覆盖的时限，以及他在援引前发表开场陈述的决定，这些都可能成为藐视法庭的理由。这会引发新颖的法律问题，不过洛伊丝·勒纳事件中已有先例，”特利说。
【福奇听证会五大关键时刻：保罗驱逐律师，莫雷诺爆发，藐视投票迫在眉睫】(https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-5-moments-from-faucis-hearing-paul-boots-lawyer-moreno-erupts-contempt-vote-looms)
前美国国立卫生研究院院长安东尼·福奇2026年7月29日在华盛顿特区参议院国土安全与政府事务委员会作证。外界预计他将被问及处理新冠大流行期间的日记内容。（盖蒂图片社）
特利所指的是前美国国税局官员洛伊丝·勒纳，她在2013年国会听证会上先自愿发表开场陈述声明自己无罪，随后援引第五修正案。众议院共和党人认为，勒纳在就调查主题发表陈述后，已放弃援引第五修正案的权利。尽管众议院认定勒纳藐视国会，但司法部后来拒绝追究刑事藐视法庭指控。
但“推进美国自由”组织高级法律研究员汉斯·冯·斯帕科夫斯基认为，保罗的立场比福奇的更站得住脚。
“联邦政府无法因赦免令覆盖期间的行为起诉他，”冯·斯帕科夫斯基说，“不过，如果他在今天的听证会上就这些过往行为宣誓撒谎，他可能会因伪证罪被起诉。”
【订阅政治新闻简报】(https://www.foxnews.com/newsletters)
[image_7]
尽管冯·斯帕科夫斯基承认拜登对福奇的赦免仅适用于联邦指控，无法保护福奇免受州级指控，但他指出至少目前没有州指控福奇违反州法律。佛罗里达州总检察长詹姆斯·尤特迈尔周三宣布，在福奇在国会山作证后，将对其展开州级调查。
“州级起诉的可能性几乎为零，因为州通常无法起诉在职责范围内行事的联邦官员，而福奇会辩称他在新冠疫情期间的所有行为都是作为美国国家过敏和传染病研究所所长履行公职，”冯·斯帕科夫斯基告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
“他援引第五修正案的唯一原因是，他不想根据个人日记承认，作为美国国家过敏和传染病研究所所长期间，他曾多次向公众和国会撒谎，”冯·斯帕科夫斯基说。
【点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用】(https://foxnews.onelink.me/xLDS?pid=AppArticleLink&af_dp=foxnewsaf%3A%2F%2F&af_web_dp=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fapps-products)
如果保罗的藐视国会决议在委员会获得通过，将提交至参议院全院审议，但需要获得60票才能打破 filibuster（注：美国参议院议事阻挠条款，即阻挠议事）并通过该决议。
福克斯新闻数字频道已联系福奇的律师大卫·舍特勒置评。
伊莲·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，报道全国政治新闻。
Can Fauci hide behind the Fifth? Game-changing Biden pardon may not provide complete cover, experts say
July 30, 2026 9:34am EDT / Fox News
Legal experts question whether Biden’s sweeping presidential pardon eliminates Fauci’s right to refuse testimony
By Elaine Mallon
Chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram has the latest on Dr. Anthony Fauci invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times during his Senate testimony, breaking down key moments from the contentious hearing and lawmakers’ reactions on ‘America Reports.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/878b35b6-8c78-4796-9593-569cd80d33b5
Listen to this article
6 min
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s refusal to answer more than 100 questions during Wednesday’s fiery Senate hearing has sparked a legal showdown over whether a witness granted a sweeping presidential pardon can still invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, announced after the hearing that he plans to pursue contempt proceedings against Fauci following the repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment and his refusal to answer lawmakers’ questions.
“We’re going to have a vote next week on contempt,” Paul said. “I think there’s another legal question that the courts may have to decide upon, and that is whether or not a presidential pardon offers you complete immunity.”
RAND PAUL SEEKS CONTEMPT CHARGES AFTER FAUCI INVOKES FIFTH AMENDMENT MORE THAN 100 TIMES
Anthony Fauci declined to testify in a Senate committee hearing on his role in the U.S. response to COVID-19, invoking his 5th Amendment rights.(Alex WROBLEWSKI / AFP via Getty Images | Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Former President Joe Biden issued Fauci, who served as the chief architect for the government’s COVID-19 guidelines, a full and unconditional pardon for all actions taken between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 19, 2025. Biden’s broad pardon protected Fauci from prosecution for the actions being investigated by the committee, leaving only the possibility of charges if he lied under oath.
Abhishek Kambli, a former Justice Department official who now represents former Trump advisor Peter Navarro in his contempt of Congress case, told Fox News Digital that the issue presents a novel legal question about whether Fauci can invoke the Fifth Amendment at all.
“Obviously, if he tells the truth, then he would be protected by that blanket pardon, since the past conduct that he reveals he’s fully immunized from,” Kambli told Fox News Digital.
Kambli questioned whether the Fifth Amendment privilege properly applies if truthful testimony could no longer expose Fauci to prosecution for the underlying conduct.
“His theory is that it’s a witch hunt and that they’re looking for perjury traps to charge him with, so that’s why he needs to invoke the Fifth Amendment,” Kambli said.
But Kambli said the argument becomes more difficult to sustain if lawmakers are asking straightforward factual questions.
“I think it gets a little problematic,” Kambli said of Fauci invoking the Fifth Amendment for common knowledge questions like what day of the week it is.
FAUCI PLEADS FIFTH WITH ‘ZERO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION’ AS CRITICS ERUPT AND DEMAND CONTEMPT CHARGES
The attorney for former NIH Director Anthony Fauci (R), David Schertler (L), is removed from the hearing room at the direction of committee chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) during a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on July 29, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Fauci declined to answer questions from the committee asserting his Fifth Amendment right during the hearing.(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“If it’s just factual questions that he should know the answer on, it’s hard to see how he would walk into a perjury trap if he’s just telling the truth, because perjury also requires that you knowingly made a false statement,” Kambli said. “If he had an incorrect recollection, that was an innocent mistake that typically wouldn’t lead to a perjury charge.”
Kambli said federal law distinguishes between witnesses who ignore a congressional subpoena and those who appear before Congress but refuse to answer questions. In the latter case, he said, prosecutors generally do not have to prove the witness intentionally violated the law. Instead, the central question is whether the witness had a valid legal basis for refusing to answer, such as a legitimate claim under the Fifth Amendment.
“The issue is [the witness] is already protected if he tells the truth, and it’s only if he knowingly lies about something material that he can be charged,” Kambli said. “So the issue becomes whether the Senate can make a referral to DOJ based on that.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the legal issues surrounding Fauci’s testimony are more complicated than either side suggests.
“The only risk that he faced would come from any false statements that he made in the hearing in dealing with these questions,” Turley told Fox News Digital. “That would likely be viewed as sufficient, particularly since some questions could extend to statements and conduct from after the pardon grant.”
Turley also pointed to Fauci’s decision to deliver an opening statement before invoking the Fifth Amendment, suggesting it could raise additional legal questions.
“There are also questions about the questions limited to the period of his pardon as well as his decision to give an opening statement before invocation. Those are possible grounds for contempt. It would raise novel issues, though there is precedent from the Lois Lerner matter,” Turley said.
TOP 5 MOMENTS FROM FAUCI’S HEARING: PAUL BOOTS LAWYER, MORENO ERUPTS AS CONTEMPT VOTE LOOMS
Former NIH Director Anthony Fauci testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C., on July 29, 2026. Fauci was expected to be questioned about his diary entries during his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.(Getty Images)
Turley was referring to former IRS official Lois Lerner, who declared her innocence in a voluntary opening statement before invoking the Fifth Amendment during a 2013 congressional hearing. House Republicans argued Lerner waived her right to invoke the Fifth Amendment when she made statements about the very subject under investigation. Although the House held Lerner in contempt, the Justice Department later declined to pursue criminal contempt charges.
But Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued Paul’s position is stronger than Fauci’s.
“He can’t be prosecuted by the federal government for any actions he took during the period the pardon covers,” von Spakovsky said. “However, if he lies while under oath at his hearing today about any of those prior actions, he could be prosecuted for perjury.”
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
[image_7]
While von Spakovsky acknowledged that Biden’s pardon of Fauci covers only federal charges, it does not shield Fauci from facing state charges. But he noted no state has accused Fauci of violating state law, at least not yet. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on Wednesday announced a state investigation into Fauci, following his testimony on Capitol Hill.
“The possibility of a state prosecution is almost nonexistent because states generally cannot prosecute federal officials acting within the scope of their duties and Fauci would argue that everything he did over COVID was carried out in his official slot as head of NIAID,” von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.
“The only reason for him to take the Fifth is because he doesn’t want to admit, based on his personal diaries, that he lied repeatedly to the public and Congress when he was head of the NIAID,” von Spakovsky said.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
If Paul’s contempt resolution clears the committee, it would move to the full Senate, but it will need to beat the 60-vote filibuster in order to pass.
Fox News Digital reached out to Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, for comment.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.