UNBIASED - August 3, 2026: Fauci Pleads the Fifth, Blanche Voids Anti-Weaponization Fund, What We Know About the In-N-Out Shooting, and More.

Episode Date: August 3, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: What We Know About the Shooting in Idaho (1:22) Red Cross Declares Blood Crisis (4:49) DOJ Acknowledges Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool Flaws; Asks Judge to Drop Charges Against Defendant (8:44) Blanche Voids Anti-Weaponization Fund and Clarifies IRS Audit Provision Ahead of Confirmation Vote (~16:43) Quick Hitters(~22:04) Fauci Pleads the Fifth. What You Need to Know About the Fifth Amendment and the Validity of His Pardon (~26:01) Critical Thinking Segment (~49:02) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Monday, August 3rd, and we have a lot to talk about. I was off last Thursday. A lot has obviously happened since the last episode on Monday. So today we have a lot of ground to cover. We're talking about the in-and-out shooting in Idaho. We're talking about the DOJ, now acknowledging reflecting pool renovation flaws, the second ever blood supply crisis. Fauci's testimony, of course, Blanche's upcoming confirmation vote, and much, much more. Now, the discussion about Fauci's testimony will take up a pretty big chunk of today's episode, so we are going to save that for last, just as a heads up.

Before we get into today's episode, I would love to ask you a favor. I do this every so often. Today felt like a good day to do it because I think this is an especially informative episode, but I would love to ask that you share today's episode with a friend. I know there's a lot of you out there that already do this, but if each one of you could just take 10 seconds to click the share button on this episode and send it off to a friend or a family member that would really mean a lot. Every share obviously helps and the more shares, the longer I can keep doing this. So thank you very much in advance. Really, really appreciate it.

Unfortunately, we have to start today's episode talking about this terrible shooting in Idaho. I will say we don't know a lot at this point, so we'll kind of just go over the basic facts. And then maybe if we know more by Thursday, I'll be able to provide you with some more details then. What we know now is that on Sunday, three victims were killed and seven more were injured after a gunman opened fire outside of a new in-and-out location in Twin Falls, Idaho. The 911 calls came in around 2.29 p.m. and the Twin Falls Police chief said that dispatchers could hear commotion in the back of they could hear screaming. From video taken by people in cars nearby, you can see the shooter from a distance, kind of aimlessly walking around the parking lot. He looked a little bit frazzled, I would say. He was carrying around a rifle at one point, at least in one of the videos. You can see the shooter point the

gun at the front of a Tesla and actually fire multiple shots through the dashboard. We don't know whether anyone was inside the Tesla. We don't know, you know, if some of the victims were people inside the Tesla. We don't have the identities of those killed. We do know that one of the victims was an in-and-out employee. We also know that there were seven who were injured, and of those seven, two are still in critical condition, two have been released, and three are stable. Now, the shooter has been identified as 24-year-old Chad Williams. And other than his name, we don't really know much about him or why he did it. The motive is still under investigation. At this point, it seems there were two people who fired back at the shooter and actually helped to distract him.

One was an off-duty Idaho state police trooper who has not yet been identified. The other was an in-and-out customer named Jordan Salinas. Salinas actually hasn't been formally identified by police either, but he has since come forward and talked with the Idaho statesman. Because the off-duty trooper hasn't been identified. We don't know much about him, but we have learned a little bit about Salinas. So Salinas is a 35-year-old health care worker from a nearby town. He said he and his girlfriend had planned to go horseback riding, but stopped for a burger beforehand at about 2.30 p.m. local time. He said he initially thought there was a kitchen fire because you just saw people running from the restaurant. But then he heard three pops, one after the

other, realized it was a shooting. He said he ran toward the sound in a quote-unquote automatic and mechanical response and said he only remembers his girlfriend calling out his name before the shooting started again. He told the Idaho statesman that he had gone through firearms training after a 2021 shooting at the Boise Town Square Mall and that he trained on the weekends, but up until Saturday, he had never pointed his gun at, quote, so much as an animal, end quote. He said he followed a four-step approach that he had practiced in his training for years, observe, or, you know, decide, act, and he said he used that four-step approach to confront the attacker. He posted on social media thanking everyone who had reached out to him.

He said that he would share a more complete account of what happened, at least what he could remember in the coming days. So like I said, we don't know a whole lot at this point. That's pretty much the extent of what we know. I will be sure to update you on Thursday, assuming more develops between now and then. In some other news, the American Red Cross says the country is now facing a new. national blood supply crisis for only the second time ever. Now, I do just want to clarify this is different from a federal emergency declaration because the Red Cross is a private nonprofit.

This designation doesn't, you know, it doesn't unlock government funding. It doesn't change any laws or give federal agencies any sort of new emergency powers. It's essentially the Red Cross's way of saying that its own blood supply has fallen to a crisis level and it might not be able to fill every hospital order that it receives. A federal emergency. declaration is different. That's something that has to be issued by a government official under a specific law. And depending on the type of emergency, it can make federal funding available. It can make certain government resources available. It can maybe temporarily change certain rules to address the shortage. So this is still a serious nationwide shortage. It just isn't a federal legal designation.

And because the Red Cross supplies about 40% of the blood used in the United States, we could see this having an effect on hospitals too. But basically the Red Cross is saying that that blood donations have fallen to a four-year summer low. It currently has less than a one-day supply of O positive blood. And it started limiting how much type O blood it sends to individual hospitals around the country so that the remaining supply, you know, the supply that it does have can be reserved for the most critical life-threatening emergencies. And type O blood is really important because it can be used for a ton of different patients. O-positive is the most commonly transfused blood type, about 80% of patients can receive it.

O negative is considered the universal red blood cell type. So it's typically used during emergency surgeries when doctors don't have time to figure out someone's blood type. But altogether, type O makes up about 60% of the blood the red cross distributes. So how did the supply get so low? Well, donations usually go down during the summer because schools, which actually host a lot of blood drives are closed. People are also traveling. You have more donors canceling appointments, things like that. This year specifically, the Red Cross says extreme heat, poor air quality,

and widespread foodborne illnesses have also kept some people from donating. At the same time, hospitals tend to need more blood in the summer because they seem more serious injuries in the summer. In fact, the Red Cross says hospitals have been requesting almost 3,500 more units of blood per week than it originally expected. But serious injuries, of course, aren't the only thing that require blood transfusions, cancer patients, people with sickle cell disease, surgery patients, women who experience severe bleeding during childbirth, all of these people need blood. Now, donated red blood cells generally last for up to 42 days, and platelets, which are often used for cancer treatments, surgeries, and organ transplants usually last for only about five days.

So blood centers need a steady supply of new donors every week to kind of keep up. The Red Cross says some patients may already be feeling the effects of this shortage, depending on the hospital and the type of blood needed. A shortage can mean doctors have to, you know, prioritize emergency cases and potentially delay less urgent transfusions and procedures. And this actually isn't just a Red Cross issue, I should mention. Several other blood collection organizations have also reported critically low supplies this summer. So the Red Cross is asking people with every blood type to donate, but it says it especially needs people with type O blood.

It says the shortage could be stabilized if just three more people showed up to donate at every blood drive this summer. So if you're eligible and able to give, you can make an appointment through the Red Cross blood donor app, its website, or you can call 1-800 Red Cross. And even if there isn't an appointment immediately available, the Red Cross is asking people is asking people to schedule one for later in August because rebuilding the supply will take some. time. Next story, the DOJ is dropping its case against a former U.S. Olympian who was accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. And at the same time, the government is now acknowledging that the pool's new lining had issues from the beginning. So here's what happened. The reflecting pool, as we've talked about a bunch of times at this point, recently underwent a 14.7 million dollar renovation ahead of America's 250th anniversary. That was the fourth major

renovation since this pool was built in the 20s. But as part of this most recent project, the bottom of the pool was covered with a new coating. And this is something that we hadn't seen before. So when the pool was first built, it had an asphalt tile bottom. Then in the 80s, a concrete slab was poured that was meant to address structural issues. Then there was a major, major renovation in 2010 until 2012. And the old structure was essentially replaced in tires. and there was a specially designed tinted concrete that was poured. That tinted concrete actually helped with the reflection. But this new blue material that was just recently put down is completely different. It's a plastic-like waterproof coating called polyurea, which was sprayed

over an epoxy primer on top of the concrete and then tinted blue. So shortly after that project was finished, the coating started peeling in several places and algae started blooming. Now, The algae blooms have happened in the past. According to a statement from the Department of the Interior, algae blooms have affected every pool reopening since 1922. In fact, after the big $34 million renovation in 2012, there was a very large algae bloom that happened about a week after the pool was filled. And the algae was so bad that the National Park Service had to drain it, refill it, and then recalibrate its ozone levels. So the algae was something the interior department had seen before. The peeling coating was not. And initially, the Trump administration said vandals were responsible for the peeling.

Officials said that people had reached into the pool and peeled the coating off the sides. And in June, Park Police arrested a man named David Hearn. Hearn had been riding his bike near the reflecting pool. He stopped for a second, reached into the pool, pulled out a piece of material from the water, and kind of held it up and looked at it. And prosecutors had accused him of intentionally pulling part of the lining up and causing more than $1,000 of damage. He was charged with felony destruction of government property. And he admitted that he had touched the lining, but he said it was already peeling away from the

bottom of the pool when he picked it up. He said he briefly touched a piece that was partially detached, but he didn't rip it up or take anything with him. So because of that, he pled not guilty. Now, though, the DOJ says new information supports at least part of Hearn's explanation. According to the new court filing, the problems with the coding actually started during the installation process. Internal project notes said the work was, quote, significantly behind schedule, end quote, following weather delays. And a quality control inspector had already found blistering in finished sections of the lining that needed to be repaired. The final inspection took place on June 9th. And two days later, a national park service engineer was notified that the lining was already peeling.

And that was eight days before Hearn was arrested. Prosecutors said the record showed repeated failures during installation and extensive peeling throughout the pool. Then when the pool was inspected more recently, damage was found everywhere, including in the middle of the pool where prosecutors said it wouldn't make much sense for someone to start peeling the lining. So the DOJ said the evidence now points to a rushed and flawed installation rather than widespread vandalism.

prosecutors also said the Interior Department initially gave them what they called, quote, less than fulsome information, end quote, and only started turning over the relevant records after Hearn's indictment and after what the court filing described as dozens and dozens of requests. They said that if the Interior Department had provided this information earlier, they wouldn't have asked a grand jury to indict Hearn. And because of that, the DOJ is now asking the judge to dismiss the charges against him. Technically, the charge against her, Hearn is not officially dismissed until the judge approves the request, but prosecutors are now saying they don't believe that they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hearn initially caused the damage that he was accused of causing. And remember, in a criminal case, it wouldn't be enough to prove that Hearn touched the lining. Prosecutors would have to prove that he intentionally damaged it and caused enough damage to support the felony charge. So the fact that prosecutors are saying they wouldn't be able to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt means that if this did go to trial, her most likely would not be convicted. All right, let's take a quick break here. When we come

back, we'll talk about the latest with Blanche's confirmation vote and then we'll get started on the Fauci discussion. Welcome back. Let's talk about what's going on with Blanche's confirmation vote because President Trump and two Republican senators have been in a bit of a standoff over Blanche's nomination for attorney general. But as of this morning, it looks like Blanche now has the votes. So this standoff originally caused the vote to be delayed last week. And, you know, and the next vote is scheduled for tomorrow morning. But late last night, Blanche took steps that seemed to have resolved the senator's initial concerns. So here's the situation. Blanche is already running the DOJ as acting attorney general. But to become the permanent attorney general,

Blanche has to be confirmed by the Senate. And up until now, there were two Republican senators, Senator John Cornyn and Senator Tom Tillis, that refused to support him unless he agreed to certain things. And their issues really centered around that settlement between Trump and the IRS and DOJ. So there are two parts of that settlement that the senators have concerns about, the anti-weaponization fund, and the language involving future IRS audits of Trump, his family, and businesses. As we know, the settlement originally called for roughly $1.8 billion to be set aside for people who the administration says were unfairly targeted by politically motivated government investigations or prosecutions. That was the anti-weaponization fund, right? But almost immediately, there were concerns

about the fund from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. One question was whether the DOJ even had the authority to create a fund like this without Congress first approving it. There were also questions about who was entitled to the money and more specifically whether it would go to people who were charged in connection with January 6th, especially the people who were convicted of assaulting police officers. Now, as we also know, Blanche eventually told Congress that, the DOJ was no longer moving forward with the fund. During his confirmation hearing, he said it was dead. And the DOJ had also told some federal courts in writing that the fund was not moving forward. But there was one judge who said that wasn't enough, right? The judge wanted Blanche and other top

DOJ officials to sign sworn statements saying the same thing. And the DOJ declined to do so. It said it had already made its position clear. And so it wasn't going to submit the sworn declarations. So even though Blanche kept saying the fund was dead, the actual order that created the fund was technically still sitting there and technically still in effect. And Cornyn and Tillis wanted him to formally cancel it. They wanted Blanche to revoke the original May 18th order that created the fund with a new formal order. And Blanche did that as of late last night. We'll talk about that in just a second. I do want to quickly touch on the second part of the settlement that Cornyn and.

Tillis took issue with. The second part of the settlement involved the IRS audits. Cornyn and Tillis were worried that that part of the settlement could be interpreted broadly and potentially apply to future tax filings as well, not just past tax disputes. So they wanted it clarified in writing that the settlement agreement only applies to existing tax disputes, not future tax filings. And because of those two main concerns, the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed its original vote on Blanche's confirmation. The vote was supposed to be last Thursday, but because Cornyn and Tillis hadn't received the written changes they were asking for, the vote was postponed until tomorrow.

And the reason for that is Cornyn and Tillis play a pretty important role. Their votes are important because Republicans only hold a 12 to 10 majority in the committee. So if all 10 Democrats vote against Blanche, he would need the support of every Republican, including Cornyn and Tillis. consequently, when he didn't have the support of those two senators last Thursday, committee leadership made the decision to postpone the vote in order to try to give Blanche more time to try to negotiate some sort of agreement. And late last night, Blanche posted a formal order rescinding the fund and there was also an accompanying press release that briefly addressed the IRS audit portion

of the settlement. So the formal order reads, quote, the attorney generals May 18th, 2026 order establishing the anti-webenization fund is rescinded and shall have no force and effect. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order is intended to contradict or otherwise be contrary to prior representations by the DOJ that the fund is not operative. No members were appointed, no funds were transferred, no process for receiving claims was established, no claims were paid. Nevertheless, several frivolous lawsuits have been filed challenging the fund and at least one court has declined to dismiss those claims as moot. This order established beyond any, establishes beyond any doubt that there is no fund.

And quote. Then there was that accompanying press release that briefly addressed the IRS audit portion of the settlement. That says in part, quote, the May 19th, 2026 order regarding a mutual release of claims applies by its terms only retroactively. End quote. So following that order and accompanying release, both Cornyn and Tillis have confirmed that Blanche has their vote and that vote is scheduled for 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. If the vote passes

the committee, that's when it'll go to the full Senate and it'll have to have to pass the full Senate in order for him to be officially confirmed and take the role as attorney general. All right, we're going to do things a little bit differently today. We're going to do quick hitters now and then we'll start with the Fauci discussion just because the Fauci discussion is pretty long and it's pretty detailed. So I want to get all of today's news out of the way and then we'll finish with Fauci. And today's critical thinking segment will also have to do with Fauci's testimony. So I think it just flows better. All right, first quick hitter. The Federal Reserve voted nine to three to keep interest rates unchanged, maintaining the federal funds rate target range at 3.5% to 3.75%. The Fed said the

economy is still expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have kept up with the workforce and unemployment has changed little, but inflation remains above the Fed's 2% goal, partly because of supply shocks affecting sectors like energy. Three Fed officials dissented because they wanted to raise rates by a quarter point at this meeting. President Trump's attorneys are appealing a federal judge's ruling that criticized his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax records. So we briefly talked about this lawsuit just a little bit ago. The judge found that Trump improperly used the lawsuit to obtain personal benefits from agencies he now overseas, including a settlement tied to tax protections and a proposed anti-weaponization fund. As we talked about earlier, that fund

has since been terminated by Blanche, but this appeal fights the judge's sanctions and findings. Devastating wildfires in eastern Washington have forced about 60,000 people to evacuate in the Spokane area and destroyed at least 600 homes, businesses, and other structures. There are three fires total. Officials are referring to the fires together as the Spokane Con. complex. So far, they've burned just under 8,000 acres and are 0% contained. Governor Ferguson has declared a state of emergency and Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown said the fires are the worst natural disaster the region has faced. Trump says the United States and Israel will pause additional strikes on Iran after officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran urged the U.S. to give diplomacy

another chance. Trump said Iran has agreed to a quote, immediate, complete and total opening. end quote, of the Strait of Hormuz as discussions continue and said negotiations were starting today. However, Iran says it has no plans to hold direct talks with Washington. Its only negotiations are with Oman. And speaking of international affairs last week, Trump announced that his board of peace had reached what he called a quote unquote historic agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. The new roadmap says Hamas would give up control of Gaza and its weapons, a new Palestinian administration would take over and Israeli troops would gradually withdraw as international monitors confirmed each side was following through. Hamas says it has conditionally

agreed to this roadmap, but wants Israel to begin withdrawing before it hands over its weapons. Israeli officials say Hamas must fully disarm first and Netanyahu has not yet publicly approved the plan. So this update means there's now a written framework for phase two of the peace deal between Israel and Hamas, but the two sides still disagree over certain things, like what complete disarmament means and which steps need to happen first. And ICE detentions hit a Trump second term monthly high in July with preliminary DHS figures showing more than 46,000 people taken into custody for alleged immigration violations, like entering the U.S. illegally or overstaying their visas. That's roughly 3,000 more than June's total. As of this weekend, internal agency figures showed ICE was holding

68,000 detainees in its detention system, approaching a record high of over 70,000 detainees set in January. The increase comes as ICE has expanded arrests at airports, immigration check-in offices, traffic stops, and communities across the country. All right, finally, the moment I'm sure you've all been waiting for last Wednesday, Dr. Fauci testified under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is currently chaired by Republican Senator Rand Paul. The hearing lasted for nearly three hours and Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to more than 100 questions. So first I want to talk about why Fauci is being questioned in the first place and then we'll get into the Fifth Amendment analysis and Fauci's pardon and the

autopen and all of those things. Senator Paul has spent years investigating the origins of COVID, federally funded virus research, and whether Fauci or other government officials misled Congress or improperly handled government records. Now, Fauci led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until 2022. And during the pandemic, Fauci became one of the main people who was explaining COVID and the government's response to the public. So Paul wanted to question him about several different issues. Research funded by the NIH, work performed through a nonprofit, called EcoHealth Alliance and research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

This is not the first time Paoji has testified, okay? We've talked about this a lot, but a lot of this centers around something called gain of function research. So under the broad definition, gain of function means that scientists changed something in a virus and it gained a new ability or an ability it already had got stronger. So that could mean the virus became better at infecting cells, better at strong. spreading, maybe more dangerous in lab animals, maybe it's better able to survive certain conditions, things like that. But here's where this gets complicated. Okay, there's that broad

scientific definition that I just talked about. And then there are narrower federal definitions that are used to determine whether a particular experiment is so risky that it requires additional government reviews. So, for example, there's a 2017 HHS P3CO framework about research that is reasonably anticipated to either create, transfer, or use an enhanced potential pandemic pathogen, meaning a pathogen whose transmissibility and or virulence in humans has been enhanced. So the key limiting phrase is potential pandemic pathogen. Under this narrower framework, the pathogen has to be likely, highly transmissible, capable of wide and uncontrolled spread in humans and likely highly virulent, causing significant morbidity or mortality in humans.

Fauci testified that when he said, when he testified under oath, that NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute, he meant it did not fund research that meant that narrower definition. So keeping those two definitions in mind, Senator Paul argues that the NIH funded research that was conducted through EcoHealth Alliance at the Wuhan Lab in China, qualifies as gain of function research under the broader definition and therefore Fauci misled Congress when he denied that in 2021, when he said that the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan lab. Fauci says he didn't lie.

Fauci's position has been that the research Paul was referring to did not meet the federal government's specific narrow definition of the especially risky type of. of gain of function research that they were discussing during those hearings. And that is the debate that's been going on for years. Okay. Did the NIH fund gain of function research? Now, in addition to investigating whether Fauci gave false testimony in 2021, Paul is also looking into whether Fauci or anyone else deleted government emails or records

that they were supposed to keep. Because when you work for the federal government, you generally can't just delete official communications if they might be part of the public record. And Paul says that he has found emails that appear to show Fauci telling other government employees to delete certain messages. Fauci has denied this. So that's also what's in the background of all of this. Okay. And because of all of this controversy, Paul tried to get Fauci to testify voluntarily.

But after months of back and forth, Fauci said he would not appear voluntarily. So Paul went ahead and issued a subpoena. A subpoena is basically a legally enforceable demand from Congress that requires someone to either appear and testify or turnover documents. A subpoena can have different purposes. In this case, it was to get Fauci to appear. A person can't just ignore a subpoena, okay? They can be held in contempt if they do.

They can possibly face criminal charges. So Fauci was required to show up. Then just days before this hearing, Paul released more than 1,100 pages from Fauci's personal notes and diary entries during the pandemic. Paul says those notes show that Fauci was privately considering certain possibilities, including the possibility that COVID came from a lab, while saying something very different publicly, or at least sounding a lot more certain about the origins of COVID when speaking to the public. Fauci's side, though, says these notes just show that scientists were

working through this brand new virus as it was happening and looking at a bunch of possible different avenues, which includes considering different explanations and, you know, changing their views as they learn more about it. So Paul's argument is that Fauci's private notes don't match what he was telling the public. Fauci's argument is that the notes simply just show how the scientific process works when things are still developing. Okay. So that's all in the background of this hearing. So at the hearing, senators tried to question Fauci about all of these things. They asked about the origins of the virus, research funding in China, gain of function research, school closures, masks, vaccines, government records, statements Fauci previously made to Congress, the diary entries,

all these things. Fauci opened the testimony with a short, opening statement saying that he had testified before or briefed Congress more than 200 times during his career. And he accused Paul of trying to create a criminal case against him rather than conducting a neutral investigation. Fauci specifically referenced Paul's repeated public comments calling for him to be prosecuted and sent to prison. And he said that based on those previous statements from Paul and the public release of his personal diary, he believed the purpose of the hearing was to get him to say something that could later be used to prosecute him. So on the advice of his attorneys, he said he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. After that,

Senator started asking questions. And Fauci repeatedly gave the same response. He would say, in response to basically every question, quote, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, end quote. And this was to every question. Okay. So, for example, Senator Ron Johnson asked Fauci about a March 2020 pandemic reopening plan and whether one of Fauci's diary entry, about that plan was accurate. Fauci invoked the fifth. Senator James Lankford asked about the lab leak theory. He asked about school closures and declining literacy rates, as well as an entry in Fauci's diary that expressed concern that children were missing routine vaccinations during the pandemic.

Fauci invoked the fifth. Senator Josh Hawley tried asking some very basic questions, like what color tie Fauci was wearing, what color the floor was in front of Fauci. Fauci invoked the fifth in response to those questions as well. In total, Fauci pled the fifth to all 111, questions asked. Now, the reaction to the testimony is, is pretty much split along party lines. Republicans have argued that Fauci had an obligation to answer these questions about taxpayer-funded research and government decision-making and the accuracy of his previous testimony because of the pardon that was previously issued by President Biden, which we'll talk about in a minute. Democrats have defended Fauci's right to invoke the fifth, and they've accused Paul of holding

this hearing with the predetermined goal of prosecuting Fauci. So that split has raised the big question. of was Fauci actually allowed to plead the fifth despite receiving a pardon? And I will answer that question in tons of detail after we take the second and final break of this episode. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, Peace contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. The 2026 Chevrolet Tracks is the stylish SUV for those on the move. And with the standard Chevy safety assist package, you have the backup to handle every turn with confidence. The 26 tracks, start your build at Chevrolet.ca. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about the controversy between Fauci and Senator Paul and what happened at the hearing. But the big question now is, was Fauci actually allowed to plead the fifth despite receiving a pardon? And the short answer is that it depends on the question asked. But to fully explain how this works, we need to break down the Fifth Amendment. Okay. So the Fifth Amendment protects someone from being forced to give testimony that could be used against them in a criminal case. And we typically hear about people pleading the fifth in a courtroom setting, but this protection also applies during congressional hearings. Generally speaking, someone can only plead the fifth when there is a real risk that answering the question truthfully could lead to prosecution. The Supreme Court has said that when a pardon

completely removes the threat of prosecution for a particular offense, a witness has to answer questions about that offense because there's no longer a real risk of prosecution in that case, right? And the logic behind that is pretty straightforward. If you legally can't be prosecuted for the conduct anymore, your answer can't incriminate you in connection with that conduct. The answer might still be embarrassing. It could hurt your reputation, potentially. It could maybe cause some political backlash.

But the Fifth Amendment protects against criminal prosecution. It does not protect against embarrassment, doesn't protect against public criticism, doesn't protect against anything other than criminal prosecution. And that's essentially Paul's argument here. So Paul argues that Fauci's pardon already protects him from federal prosecution for conduct connected to his government work during the period Congress was asking about. So he should have been required to answer. Fauci, though, says Paul's repeated calls for his prosecution gave him reason to believe his answers could be used to build a criminal case against him. And Fauci's attorney's argument is that the pardon that President Biden issued didn't eliminate every possible form of criminal experience.

exposure. Okay. So when we talk about Fauci's pardon, it is broad, but it doesn't cover everything. We'll go over what it, what it does cover and what it doesn't cover. It covers any potential federal crimes that Fauci might have committed from January 1st, 2014 through January 19th, 2025. Any potential federal crimes have to be connected to his role as either the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, his role as a member of the White House coronavirus task force or the White House COVID-19 response team or as part of his role as chief medical advisor to the president. That is what the pardon covers. Now, this is what it doesn't cover. It doesn't cover possible federal crimes committed before January 1st, 2014.

It doesn't cover possible federal crimes committed after January 19, 2025. It doesn't cover possible state crimes. It doesn't cover possible federal crimes unrelated. to the roles that I just mentioned. So going back to the Fifth Amendment analysis, if a truthful answer could have exposed Fauci to one of those risks I just mentioned, he might have had a valid reason to plead the fifth. If a truthful answer wouldn't have exposed Fauci to any one of those risks, or if a truthful answer would have only exposed him to a crime that's clearly covered by the pardon, he most likely

did not have a valid basis to invoke the fifth. So that's why I said in the beginning that his ability to plead the fifth depends on the specific question he was being asked. He could potentially have had a valid Fifth Amendment claim for some questions, but not others. So let's run through some examples. We'll start with the easiest examples. Senator Hawley asked Fauci what day of the week it was. He asked Fauci what color tie he was wearing. He asked Fauci what color the carpet was in front of him. And Fauci invoked the fifth in response to all three of those questions. Those are probably the clearest examples of questions where he did not have a valid reason to plead the fifth. There's really no realistic way.

that a truthful response like it's Wednesday or my tie is gray with white dots could have helped prosecutors build a case against him unless there's something we don't know about, you know, pleading the fifth to the color of the tie or the day of the week and the carpet questions was most likely not legally justified. Now, the questions about deleted emails are more complicated because those questions at least involved conduct that could potentially be criminal, right? So for example, Paul told Fauci that his assistant had reportedly said she deleted large numbers of emails in 2024, even though Fauci had previously testified that he didn't delete federal records. Paul then asked essentially who's telling the truth. Is it you or is it your assistant?

And then Paul also pointed to a February 2020 email in which Fauci told then NIH director, Francis Collins, please delete this email after you read it. That conduct allegedly happened in 2020 and 24 while Fauci was working for the federal government. And as we talked about, the pardon covered federal offenses that Fauci may have committed during this time frame as long as they were related to his government service. So let's say Fauci truthfully answered, you know, yes, I told someone to delete an email or yes, I knew my staff was deleting messages. If that answer only exposed him to a possible federal records or obstruction charge based on conduct, you know, in the time covered by the pardon, the pardon most likely prevents that prosecution. And if prosecution is no longer

legally possible because of a pardon, then as we know, a witness generally can't use the Fifth Amendment just to avoid embarrassment or avoid reputational damage. They generally have to answer the question. So based only on the way the questions were phrased, Paul would have a stronger argument that Fauci should have answered. But there's still an important exception. Let's say answering the question would have revealed that Fauci, you know, continued deleting or concealing records after January 19, 2025 when the pardon no longer applied. Or maybe it would have revealed that he joined an ongoing effort to obstruct the investigation that continued after the pardon. Or maybe it could implicate him in a state crime. That would involve conduct not covered by the pardon, right? And therefore, a truthful answer

could potentially provide what courts call a link in the chain of evidence for an unpardoned crime. therefore Fauci might have had a valid reason to plead the fifth. With that said, a question that only asks about a specific email sent in 2020 is much harder to connect to a postpartum crime or a crime not covered by the pardon. Then there were questions about gain of function research. So Paul and other senators wanted to know whether Fauci knew that NIH funding was supporting gain of function research in Wuhan, whether he believed that research was dangerous, and whether his previous testimony denying that NIH funded that type of research was

accurate and let's say Fauci had answered yes I knew the the research qualified as gain a function research that would have contradicted what he told Congress in 2021 and therefore a truthful response would provide evidence that his earlier testimony was false but any possible federal false statement or perjury offense from 2021 would fall within the dates of the and the and the government related conduct covered by the pardon so if the only criminal risk was that his answer would expose in an old pardoned federal offense, his Fifth Amendment claim would likely be much harder to defend. So again, the questions fall on a spectrum. The color of his tie, the color of the carpet, the day of the week, almost certainly not

valid Fifth Amendment claims. Questions related to emails, research decisions, congressional testimony from, you know, before January 19, 2025, the pardon most likely removed the federal criminal exposure, which would make Fauci's Fifth Amendment claim weaker, but not as weak as the color of the tie question. Questions about deleting records or misleading investigators or coordinating with other people after January 19, 2025. Those might be more likely to support a Fifth Amendment claim because the pardon wouldn't cover that conduct. But ultimately, these questions would be questions for a court. A court would have to decide which Fifth Amendment claims were valid and which weren't. Now, let's say a court looked at some of these questions and decided Fauci didn't have a valid

reason to plead the fifth. What happens next would depend on what context the court was reviewing in. So if the court reviewed his Fifth Amendment claims as part of a criminal contempt case, then the court would primarily be deciding whether Fauci could be punished for refusing to answer the first time. A conviction in that case wouldn't automatically force him to go back to Congress and answer the questions, but it would punish his refusal to answer. However, the Senate could also take a civil route and ask a federal judge to enforce the civil. subpoena. In that type of case, if the judge ruled that Fauci didn't have a valid Fifth Amendment claim for some of the questions, the judge could order him to actually answer the questions. And at that point,

Fauci might have to appear before the committee again or answer the questions in a deposition. And if he still refused, the court could then hold him in contempt. Now, after Wednesday's hearing, Senator Paul said the committee would consider a resolution holding Fauci and criminal contempt of Congress. And Florida's attorney general said that his office would be opening an investment into Fauci. That announcement from Florida's Attorney General could potentially give Fauci's attorneys a stronger argument that there's at least some possible state level criminal exposure. But still, you know, simply announcing an investigation doesn't automatically mean Fauci can refuse to answer every question. So again, just kind of a recap, Fauci is still able to plead the fifth,

despite his pardon, so long as answering a question truthfully could expose him to either a state crime or a federal crime committed in a time frame not covered by the pardon or a federal crime, you know, unrelated to the roles specifically mentioned in the pardon. So there is some criminal exposure still. Now, the other question I got a lot was regarding the validity of Fauci's pardon. Some people are under the impression that because Fauci's pardon was signed via autopen, it's invalid. But the use of an autopen by itself does not invalidate a presidential action. And we've talked about these auto pen allegations several times over the last year and a half because in October of last year, the House Oversight Committee released its findings following this month's long investigation

and claimed that many of the executive actions under Biden were enacted without his knowledge or while he was incapable of properly judging them due to his cognitive decline. The Democrats on the committee said there was no credible evidence that Biden lacked capacity or that there was any wrongdoing. They argued the auto pen scandal has been manufactured and that this entire investigation was a sham. then in December, Trump said he would be voiding all of Biden's actions that were signed with the auto pen. So we've talked about this on multiple occasions, but this is what you really need to know. The Constitution gives the president the power to grant partons. It doesn't specifically say that a president has to hold a pen and personally write out his signature for the pardoned

account. Now, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel has previously determined in the context of signing legislation that a president can authorize someone else to apply his signature, including through an auto pen, after the president has made the decision to approve the document. Now, of course, that opinion was about legislation rather than pardoned, so it doesn't completely settle the question, but it does show that an auto pen signature isn't automatically treated as invalid. So the question really comes down to whether Biden himself made and authorize the decision to pardon Fauci. Biden has said that he made the clemency decisions issued at the end of his presidency. Former Biden officials also testified that he authorized the

partons, but Republicans argue that the administration's recordkeeping wasn't sufficient to prove that authorization in every case and that Biden's condition raises questions about who is actually making certain decisions. So hypothetically, if there was hard evidence that Biden never approved Fauci's pardon or that someone else independently decided to issue it and, you know, placed Biden's signature on the document, that could certainly raise a legalist. issue, but that issue would most likely have to come up in court. So for example, if the federal government tried to prosecute Fauci, Fauci would likely present the pardon as a defense. The government could then argue that Biden never actually authorized it and a judge would have to decide whether

Biden granted a valid pardon in the first place. Now, the presidential pardon power is extremely broad. A court generally can't invalidate a valid pardon simply because, you know, the judge or a future president or members of Congress disagree with it. A court. can decide legal questions about a pardon, like whether the president actually granted it and exactly what conduct it covers, but a court generally can't overturn it. So again, the legal question is whether Biden authorized Fauci's pardon. The question is not simply whether an auto pen was used. An auto pen by itself does not make it invalid. So now let's finish today's episode with a little critical thinking. For those of you who are new here, this is a segment I like to throw in at the

end of every episode just to get you thinking a bit deeper about a particular story because in today's media landscape, we are often told how and what to think, so much so that we tend to forget to form our own opinions on things. So this segment is just designed to challenge you a little bit, get you thinking about why you feel the way that you feel. Every episode, the questions relate to a story we covered earlier in the episode and today the questions will tie back to the Fauci story. So here we go. Here's the first set of questions. If you feel that Fauci had the right to plead the fifth, I want you to give the strongest example of a question he still should have answered. And if you believe he should have answered everything, I want you to give the strongest

example of a question he might have been justified in not answering. Then, if Fauci's pardon removed most but not all of his criminal exposure, how much possible risk should be enough to let him refuse a question. And finally, imagine the exact same hearing involved an official from the political party you support or one you really oppose. Would your standard for when that person can plead the fifth stay the same? That's what I have for you. In Thursday's episode, we'll do rumor has it. I already have two lined up, including this new paid subscription service for early access to Trump's social media posts.

But if there are any other potential rumors you want cleared up, let me know, sending me a message on Instagram is the best way to do that. Don't forget to share this episode with a friend or a family member. I hope you have a great next few days and I will talk to you on Thursday.