BREAKING--Dr Anthony Fauci Only Third Physician in History Held in Contempt of Congress

Implications of Fauci's action far more significant to Americans than his predecessors

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

It is very rare for physicians to conceal information from Congress. Most doctors who are called to testify give veracious statements to the best of their ability. Fauci is only the second doctor to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights before Congress and only the third physician to be held in contempt.

🏛️ Invoking the Right to Remain Silent

🩺 Dr. Kevin O’Connor — July 2025

Biden’s own White House physician. On July 9, 2025, Dr. Kevin O’Connor appeared before the House Oversight Committee under subpoena for their investigation into Biden’s mental fitness during his presidency. He pled the Fifth and refused to answer questions — including whether he ever believed Biden was unfit for office and whether he was ever asked to lie about Biden’s health.

His repeated line during the deposition: “I must respectfully decline to answer based on physician-patient privilege and the reliance of my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

The committee had subpoenaed him after he declined a voluntary interview. His lawyer, David Schertler — who, incidentally, also represents Fauci — said O’Connor had “no choice” but to invoke the Fifth given the committee’s refusal to limit the scope of questioning. The deposition lasted about 20 minutes, with O’Connor sticking to his script the entire time. There was no contempt vote and no consequences.

🏛️ Held in Contempt of Congress

---

⚕️ Dr. Edward Barsky (1947) — Physician by Training

Another case, though less direct: Dr. Edward Barsky, a surgeon, was convicted in 1947 under the criminal contempt statute (2 U.S.C. § 192) for refusing to produce subpoenaed documents to the House Un-American Activities Committee. He served five months in federal prison. New York then suspended his medical license for six months on the basis of that conviction — a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court (Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442).

The Supreme Court upheld the license suspension. Justice Black dissented, noting that Barsky’s offense involved “no moral turpitude whatever” and that he’d been exercising what he believed were constitutional rights. Sound familiar?

🏛️ The Most Direct Precedent: Dr. Miles Jones (1999)

In 1999, the House of Representatives held Dr. Miles Jones, a pathologist by training, in contempt of Congress. He ran a company called Opening Lines that procured and sold human fetal tissue to researchers. The House Commerce Committee, then chaired by Rep. Tom Bliley, subpoenaed him to testify about whether fetal body parts were being bought and sold in violation of federal law (42 U.S.C. § 289g-2(a), which makes it a felony to knowingly acquire or transfer human fetal tissue for valuable consideration).

Undercover video had captured Jones admitting to making up to $40,000 in a single week buying and selling fetal tissue, and explicitly stating that “market forces” — not actual costs — determined his prices. He was served a lawful subpoena and simply refused to appear. The House adopted a contempt resolution, and the case was referred for prosecution. What Jones was facing — The statute carried a sentence of no less than one month and no more than one year in prison, plus fines up to $100,000.

The Speaker’s certification was delivered to the U.S. Attorney General, but the DOJ did not take up action.

---

🔬 How Fauci’s Case Differs

A few things make Fauci’s situation unusual:

• The pardon complication. Biden’s preemptive pardon in January 2025 covers federal prosecutions from 2014–2025, but contempt of Congress occurring after that date falls outside its scope. Rand Paul explicitly noted this during the hearing. Fauci’s lawyer called the whole thing a “crude political stunt.”

• Fifth Amendment invocation. Fauci pled the Fifth over 100 times during his testimony last week. That’s his constitutional right, but it also means he gave the committee nothing. The committee’s position is straightforward: a witness who’s already received a blanket pardon can’t credibly claim fear of self-incrimination for matters covered by that pardon, yet he refused to answer anyway.

• Party-line vote. The Homeland Security Committee voted 8-7 along party lines. Democrats filed five motions to delay the vote, all of which failed on identical party-line splits.

• The full Senate hurdle. Normally, contempt resolutions go to the full Senate and require 60 votes. Republicans hold 53 seats. Rand Paul bypassed the full Senate vote procedure, calling it a waste of time — but that may create procedural challenges if the DOJ decides to prosecute.

---

📊 The Big Picture

Contempt of Congress prosecutions are genuinely rare. Before Bannon and Navarro got convicted and jailed in 2024, the last successful contempt convictions were back in the 1980s. Congress has asserted its contempt power since 1795, but actual prosecutions leading to jail time are few and far between.

Whether the DOJ under the current administration pursues charges against Fauci remains an open question. The committee referral is one thing — actual prosecution is another matter entirely, and historically, the Justice Department has been reluctant to act on congressional contempt referrals, especially in politically charged cases.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. AlterAI may be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

FOCAL POINTS has partnered with AlterAI to defend your medical freedom. Subscribe to AlterAI today and get a discount on unbiased and accurate AI!