By Andrew Rice | The Center Square

(Worthy News) – U.S. Senators advanced, in an 8-5 vote on Thursday, a contempt of Congress resolution that would refer Anthony Fauci to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.

Fauci testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week on his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right to protect against self-incrimination more than 100 times during the hearing.

“Holding a witness in contempt is a serious thing, and it should be rare,” U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said. “But the contempt power exists for precisely this circumstance.”

Paul’s resolution called for sending Fauci’s contempt vote to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., led by Jeanine Pirro. Paul could bypass a vote by the full Senate to advance the contempt resolution.

Republicans fiercly criticized Fauci for refusing to answer questions last week about contradictions found in his personal diary compared to his public comments related to the pandemic. Paul released more than 1,000 documents, including Fauci’s personal diary entries during the time he led the nation through the pandemic.

Fauci’s diary entries revealed he knew of evidence linking the COVID-19 outbreak to a lab leak in Wuhan, China, though he denied the evidence in public comments.

In a January 2020 diary entry, Fauci acknowledged a Chinese market was merely the “amplifier” for the COVID-19 virus, despite public statements where he said it was a primary source.

“Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier,” Fauci wrote. “Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.”

In February 2020 diary entries, Fauci acknowledged that 9 of 11 scientists on a conference call believed “deliberate insertion was possible.”

However, from April 2020 to May 2020, Fauci publicly discredited the lab leak theory, including at a White House press briefing.

“The mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human,” Fauci said in an April 2020 press briefing.

In a March 2020 entry, Fauci detailed calling on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to close schools with high concentrations of infections. He told several officials to either delay or close schools where cases remained high.

“I have been saying consistent that we should have as a default position our attempt/intention to open schools because of the psychological effects on children and in some areas, the dependence on schools for breakfast and lunch,” Fauci wrote. “I have stated that one size does not fit all and decisions should be based on the level of infection in the community.”

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he asked Fauci the color of his tie last week to test whether he answered questions in “good faith.”

Hawley said Fauci needed to assert specific claims on his fear of prosecution to be adequately protected by the Fifth Amendment. He said Fauci did not display those fears in his answers to questions.

“He wouldn’t answer, that betrays the fact that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment wasn’t tailored to anything; it was a predetermined, premeditated design,” Hawley said. “He had no interest and no intention of answering any of our questions. There’s no privilege for any of that.”

Republicans on the committee also pointed to Fauci’s pardon from President Joe Biden, an order that granted him an exemption from criminal prosecution over his activities leading the COVID-19 response.

“What he displayed last Wednesday was contempt for Congress, contempt for this committee, contempt for our investigation,” U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., said.

Democrats repeatedly attempted to delay the vote on holding Fauci in contempt, but were overruled.

“This resolution will not provide the committee with any additional information, or compel Dr. Fauci to provide answers to our inquiries,” said. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich. “Criminal contempt is punitive; it does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we’d all like to see.”

“Oversight is not a courtesy this committee extends or a favor a former official grants us; it is a constitutional obligation,” Paul said.

Copyright 1999-2026 Worthy News. This article was originally published on Worthy News and was reproduced with permission.