'Chairman, Really This Is a Question for You…' — C-SPAN

>> Chairman, really this is a question for you and it's a question to try to figure out how do we get an answer on this? Because clearly Dr. Fauci's attorneys are saying that he has a Fifth Amendment right. We've also subpoenaed him to be able to compel his testimony to be able to be here. I happen to be in the committee where we're also dealing with Lois Lerner. Lois Lerner came and testified, gave an opening statement and then took the Fifth Amendment. The committee then held her in contempt for that saying you can't do both. You can't both testify and say I'm not going to answer questions. So the parliamentary question that I think we've got to be able to deal with is, is this consistent with Lois Lerner? What she also did when she came before Congress, gave an opening statement testimony. So made a statement and then refused to answer questions. Are we dealing with the same issue here where someone is making, you can't make a statement and say I'm not going to make statements at the same time. >> That's a very good question. I think that's something all of us will examine over next week. We're going to have a vote next week on contempt. I think there's another legal question that the courts may have to decide upon and that is whether or not a presidential pardon that offers you complete immunity that you can still claim that you need protection from immunity when you've been protected. Because Dr. Fauci isn't liable for anything as long as he tells the truth. Even if he admits that he destroyed records on a routine basis. >> The assistant said she destroyed a ton of emails. I think it was a routine thing. I think he destroyed throughout his career there are probably thousands of emails. Even if he did that, as long as he answered truthfully, yes, I did. I didn't think that was important. I made a mistake. You can't be prosecuted for it. Many of the things are outside the statute of limitations as well. All he had to do today if he wanted to testify was be honest. As long as he was honest, even about committing a crime, he would have no jeopardy. He has given him more immunity than most people would ever get. If you offer a witness immunity in exchange for testimony, he has blanket immunity. The president gave him blanket immunity for virtually anything he could have possibly done while at NIH. I think we all have to individually answer this question. We welcome you to be part of helping us figure out the question. There will be a vote, at least right now, we plan to be a vote next week on contempt.