5 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
Representative James Comer said Fauci's invocation of the Fifth Amendment indicates that a pardon issued to Fauci by President Biden via autopen rests on legally questionable ground. The New York Times reported that the pardon would not shield Fauci from new offenses.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 6 hr ago, when HotAir reported it. Coverage has since grown to 5 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 2 hr ago from Washington Examiner. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Ex parte Garland confirms a preemptive pardon for past conduct is valid, exercisable before or after proceedings. Burdick v. United States adds that a pardon needs acceptance and may be declined to keep the self-incrimination privilege. Neither makes a pardon turn on later Fifth Amendment use. The autopen-validity question itself is unsettled, listed in the slices as pending with no court ruling.
Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Field
Two holdings. (1) The 1865 test-oath act, as applied to attorneys, was a bill of pains and penalties (within the bill-of-attainder ban) and an ex post facto law: exclusion from a profession for past conduct is punishment. (2) On the pardon: 'The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control.
Burdick v. United States 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
Vote: 8-0 (Justice McReynolds took no part) · Opinion: McKenna
Reversed. Acceptance is essential to a pardon's effect: quoting Marshall in United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 — 'A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.' A witness may therefore decline a tendered pardon and keep his self-incrimination privilege.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
