This is my attempt at cleaning caption into a transcript of the HSGAC business meeting where the committee members voted 8-5 to hold Dr. Fauci in criminal contempt. I skipped some of the preamble to get to the discussion.

All Republican Senators were present for the roll call vote, and five Democratic Senators (Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal, Fetterman, Kim) were present.

Starts at minute 19, ends around minute 55 of this hearing.

I wrote a pretty crappy python script to put the transcript together from the closed captions, wrote another crappy script to try to clean it more, then did very quick a hand pass for readability.

Chair Paul: Senator Peters, you are recognized.

Sen. Peters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has a long and very proud history of conducting serious bipartisan oversight on behalf of the American people. Democrats and Republicans have worked together to follow the facts, compel information, and hold both Democratic and Republican administrations alike accountable. That work depends on the credibility of this committee. It depends on the legitimacy of our investigations and a recognition by witnesses, courts, and the public that Congress is exercising its powers dutifully.

The contempt resolution before us puts all of that at risk. Following a one-sided investigation and a rushed process that has repeatedly excluded the minority and other members of this committee, the chairman is now asking the committee to take action that could harm our ability to conduct future investigations and disregards constitutional protections long recognized by the Senate. All without making a reliable case that there is a legal basis for holding Dr. Fauci in contempt.

To be clear, this resolution will not provide the committee with any additional information for compel Dr. Fauci to provide answers to our inquiries. Criminal contempt is punitive. It does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we don't like to see. What it will do is create a damaging precedent that future witnesses will use to resist legitimate congressional oversight and undermine this committee's ability to compel testimony.

For decades, the Senate has maintained that a witness must appear before the committee even when that witness intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Senate committees have been able to defend that position in the courts because both Democratic and Republican chairs have consistently recognized and expected the constitutional rights of witnesses when they appear. And when a witness refuses to voluntarily appear, that principle leaves the Senate on very strong ground to compel their appearance, and where necessary, make referrals for criminal contempt.

If this committee now seeks to punish a witness for asserting their constitutional protection---his Fifth Amendment rights---future witnesses will argue that appearing before Congress exposes them to punishment regardless of whether they comply with a subpoena and invoke a constitutional protection. They will point directly to this vote as a justification for refusing to appear at all. That would make it harder for this committee---and every committee in Congress---to compel testimony in future investigations.

The chairman has also suggested he may attempt to refer this matter to the Department of Justice without approval of the full Senate. That would be even more dangerous, and widely unprecedented. No individual senator and no committee speaks for the entire Senate as a whole. The Senate's institutional powers belong to the full body. Allowing one chairman to unilaterally assert those powers would invite future chairs in both parties to bypass the Senate whenever they cannot secure the support of their colleagues.

This investigation has been one sided from the beginning. The minority has been excluded---excluded from witness interviews and full access to committee records. Information has been selectively released to support conclusions the chairman reached years ago. A process that lacks bipartisan participation and seeks to confirm predetermined conclusions does not strengthen congressional oversight. It makes our work to conduct oversight more challenging and less likely to withstand scrutiny.

This committee should not damage its future investigative authority to advance the chairman's years-long campaign against a single individual. It is not just what we investigate that matters---and what really matters is also how we conduct those investigations. That matters too.

I urge my colleagues to protect this committee, protect the Senate's institutional powers, and oppose this resolution.

Chair Paul: To the contrary---this investigation has been conducted with transparency. Thousands and thousands of documents have been put up for review from the minority. Have to request a password---that you have to request a password. Not one Democrat has requested a password to look at any of the documents. There is transparency. They are just not interested in viewing the documents.

Sen. Hassan: Mr. Chair?

I just want to address today's contempt resolution vote. There is a real need for serious bipartisan examination into what went well and what went wrong during our country's response to the pandemic, but that is not what we saw last week in this committee.

Instead, my colleagues in the majority held a hearing openly designed to target a single doctor and dedicated public servant who has testified before Congress many times before, and they wanted to blame him for everything that went wrong during the pandemic. The goal was clear, and I want to emphasize this: The goal was to wait for Dr. Fauci to make any kind of misstatements and then have a weaponized Department of Justice file criminal charges for that new statement---something that would not have been covered by the pardon---leaving Dr. Fauci little choice but to invoke his constitutional right to not walk directly into a trap.

So, who is helped by this political theater? It is certainly not this committee, which now goes without answers to the important questions about our pandemic response that would help us prepare for future pandemics. It is certainly not parents, who are not seeing any action to reverse the devastating cuts to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid that kicked them off their health insurance. It is certainly not our children, who are seeing no pushback on the baseless attacks on science and vaccines coming from Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and his administration.

Sadly, this is gamesmanship, and it represents everything wrong with Congress, which, under this majority, is not focused on the priorities of the American people.

Chair Paul: Let's be clear. All that was required from Anthony Fauci last week was to tell the truth.

Sen. Johnson: Mr. Chairman?

Chair Paul: Senator Johnson?

Sen. Johnson: I want to associate myself with and second your opening comments. I also want to strongly rebut the comments from our Democrat colleagues here, particularly when ranking member Peters says this has been one sided and rushed.

Rushed? When I was chairman of this committee back in 2020, I started conducting oversight. I held hearings. There was no cooperation in those hearings. I remember one, when we held a hearing with Dr. Corey, when he came in with all kinds of evidence on the use of ivermectin---the ranking member Durbin and I graded him, denigrated him. Back then, Dr. Cory was a Democrat. He was shocked at the chi mean he was given by the ranking member.

How many people died because they lacked early treatment with generic drugs?

That hearing laid out the truth that this could be something that could help people, and we had a ranking member that did everything he could to denigrate that truth.

My current experience as chairman of PSI: We have been holding hearings after hearings. Ranking member Blumenthal in those hearings---we had one voice of the vaccine injury. We had parents coming to tell their heart-wrenching stories. We had parents coming in and telling the truth, and the ranking member a few hours before that hearing held a press conference and said, "I hope the press doesn't cover it, because there is nothing credible about this hearing."

These investigations are one sided because one side simply doesn't want to look at the truth. They want to bury the truth. They want a memory hole it. They don't want to look at the 4G diaries and take a look at how contradictory what he wrote himself was to what he actually told the public.

I think one of the revelations in those diaries---probably the most significant one being overlooked---was early on in the pandemic. He wrote in his diaries that he thought COVID would be maybe twice a bad flu season.

Now, I'm not downplaying a bad flu season. We have them often times. They overwhelm hospitals. Something to take seriously. But a pandemic that is going to be twice that---is that really worth destroying people's lives, shutting down businesses, destroying an economy?

I argue back then that it would not be.

It has been six years since the pandemic began. We have not had a reckoning of what happened.

Last Wednesday's hearing was an excellent hearing from the standpoint of legitimate questions being raised---legitimate questions the American people want answers to. Legitimate questions that only Anthony Fauci, [garbeled] science could answer.

And even though we have quotes of him saying, "I'm not afraid of any oversight committee. I'm happy to talk to any oversight committee. I have nothing to hide," that is not the position he took last Wednesday. What he displayed last Wednesday was contempt for Congress, contempt for this committee, contempt for our investigation.

The same contempt that ranking member---our ranking members---have shown for the diligent oversight and the exposing of the truth that I have been undertaking for six years.

There has been nothing rushed.

It has been one-sided, but not because we haven't reached out---not because we have and involved the other side. The other side---far too many Americans---have just closed their eyes, covered up for years, and refused to look at the truth.

I am definitely going to vote yes on contempt of Congress, and my investigation has just begun.

We have invited Dr. Fauci for a transcribed interview. Okay, he doesn't want to do it in front of the American public. Come in front of our committee. We will go through detail after detail. You say you have nothing to hide---good. We will do it behind closed doors.

That is only one of the interviews we will be conducting. Again, last week's hearing just began the accountability. There is a lot more accountability that is required.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair Paul: The committee will now proceed to continue the debate once we get on.

The committee will continue to consider a cash consideration of a resolution authorizing the Senate to certify to the United States Attorney of the District of Columbia the committee's report concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci's refusal to answer questions required by committee subpoena.

Sen. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move the motion is to be tabled.

Chair Paul: This motion to table is intended to avoid accountability. You only have one question---whether to hold a witness responsible for his contempt toward Congress.

The witness had many chances to answer the questions pertinent to our investigation, and he made his decision on more than one occasion. We'll oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same.

The clerk will call the roll.

Sen. Peters: I moved to table this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the Senate rules, practice, and laws that address contempt of Congress.

Under the Senate rules and long-standing practice, as well as the U.S. Code, following a committee vote, it must vote to determine whether to defer the resolution of contempt of Congress to the Department of Justice. The Senate as a body---not an individual member---just make that decision.

Given that Chairman Paul has indicated he may attempt to bypass this process, which is required by Senate rules and precedents, members of this committee should move to table this resolution until we can be assured by the chairman he will not take action that weakens the Senate and this committee's ability to conduct oversight in the future.

Chair Paul: The clerk will call the roll.

Calling the roll: Chairman, on the basis of those present, the yeas are five, and the motion is not agreed to.

Sen. Hassan: Mr. Chairman? I moved to table until the chairman invites the views of legal experts who can speak to the constitutional questions and legal authorities Chairman Paul has raised in his contempt of Congress resolution.

This resolution should be tabled until our committee can hear from independent experts about the applicability of the relevant constitutional considerations raised by the chairman's actions.

Chair Paul: This motion is intended to avoid accountability. I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same. Call the roll.

Calling the roll. First call the roll. The motion is not agreed to.

Chair Paul: Senator Blumenthal.

Sen. Blumenthal: I moved to postpone consideration of this resolution until the committee has an opportunity to hear from Dr. Fauci's attorney, who was forcibly removed from the hearing last week.

I should point out that Dr. Fauci had a well-founded fear---based on facts---that he was in jeopardy of prosecution for perjury. In fact, the chairman and others on the committee have said, out loud, repeatedly, that their objective in that proceeding was, in fact, to put Dr. Fauci behind bars.

He was represented by counsel who attempted to speak at this proceeding, even daring the darkest days of the McCarthy hearings. Counsel were allowed to speak. We denied that opportunity to Dr. Fauci, and we should hear from his counsel before we move on this motion, so that we can hear his side of the legal argument here. I would simply predict, Mr. Chairman, based on the long history of assertions of self-incrimination, that there is virtually no chance that a court would actually prove any contempt---because he had a well-founded fear of self-incrimination, which entitled him to invoke the Fifth Amendment---and should hear from his counsel.

I ask for a roll call vote.

Chair Paul: Even when the fifth amendment is appropriately taken where no pardon exists, the fifth amendment does not allow you to testify on the other side of a question. Basically, you are allowed not to self-incriminate, but you are not allowed to say, "I'm not going to self-incriminate," but then condemn the committee investigation. So he attempted to do that in his opening statement, which of course I have looked poorly upon trying to have it both ways---and allowing the attorney to take the positive role of saying what he would have said had he spoken, but he is not going to speak. Also doesn't fit in with the history of the for the moment, so I will move to table.

Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman. I will oppose the tabling motion.

Sen. Moreno: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, what is the name of the attorney?

The attorney could be of Dr. Fauci's choice, as I recall. You said you want to hear from the attorney. What is the name of the attorney you want to hear from?

Chair Paul: I think it was David Schaller.

Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Schaller.

Sen. Moreno: Can we put in the record he is also the attorney for Senator Menendez in a bribery scandal, and are you asking that you think it is something you would be prosecuted for for answering Senator Hawley's questions about the color of the carpet?

Sen. Blumenthal: The format of the hearing and the responses and who would be there could be determined. All I'm asking is that we postpone this motion until we hear from an attorney of Dr. Fauci's choice, representing his Fifth Amendment rights, and to respond to Senator Paul.

There is well-established precedent that witnesses have their attorneys here, make statements before the committee, even during the McCarthy hearings.

There is also well-established precedent for a witness providing a statement at the outset, and then declining to answer questions afterward.

I think most of the prosecutors here know that if one of us as a prosecutor had said, "I'm putting this witness behind bars," and then called him to a grand jury or any other proceeding---or simply no way that a court would say you can hold him in contempt because he has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. I mean, this is sort of black letter---basic constitutional rights.

And I think all of us on this committee really have a stake in making sure those rights are respected.

Because if we tear down the precedents and the principles of the Fifth Amendment, there's no telling where the decline will wind us up---and we will all reap the whirlwind.

Sen. Hawley: Mr. Chairman, not to disagree with my fellow former attorney general, Senator Blumenthal---since Senator Moreno mentioned it---the reason I asked Dr. Fauci what color his tie was and what day of the week it was, and what color the carpet is---he looked, by the way---I thought he was going to answer that one. He looked at the carpet and decided not to answer.

The reason I asked those questions was to test the good-faith nature of his invocation of the Fifth Amendment.

Because, as the lawyers in the room know, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment---particularly in a context where immunity has been obtained---for some 11 years---in that context the assertion of privilege only adheres to those instances where the witness has a reasonable fear of future prosecution, and it must be tailored to any such fear.

And the fact that he would not answer questions about the tie he was wearing or the color of the carpet or the day of the week---Senator Paul asked him---did he have a folder in front of him?"---betrays the fact that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment was not tailored to anything. It was a predetermined, premeditated effort designed to evade this committee's questions on any subject, including those for which he has a pardon.

In the United States Supreme Court, has been clear for over a century: when a witness has received immunity, he may not stand upon his privilege.

In multiple courts of appeals---including the United States Supreme Court---it has said (I'm quoting): a witness must reasonably believe his statement could be used in criminal prosecution, or can lead to other evidence that might be so used. The court has also said the danger must be real and appreciable; it must not be one of imaginary and unsubstantial character.

All that to say: I think it is pretty clear, given Dr. Fauci's many invocations of the Fifth Amendment---oncluding questions he could have no fear of prosecution on---the fact that he's not going to get prosecuted for the color of his tie shows he had no interest in answering our questions. And that is an abuse---there is no privilege for any of that.

And I think there was no good-faith attempt, Senator Blumenthal.

Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I really need to answer with your permission that point.

Whether he had a reasonable fear, I think, is beyond question.

Not only the chairman of the committee, but three state attorneys general had said they are conducting investigations of Dr. Fauci.

Maybe you are testing his good faith, but the standard is not your response to your questions---it is whether he had a reasonable fear, and it is to be liberally construed, as you know, under Supreme Court cases you cited.

President Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment 400-plus times in his deposition with the New York attorney general. Nobody held him in contempt for doing so.

This right is so fundamental that we ought to seriously consider before we take this immensely historic step, and hear from his counsel---about what he feared, why, and how.

And my motion would simply postpone consideration of this contempt motion until we hear from him.

Chair Paul: The primary question of the hearing last week was to understand why Dr. Fauci made the decision to do this funding of this research in Wuhan. I can't understand how there could be any liability attached to that---it's his opinion of why he funded it. It is not a crime in funding it.

Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, there is a serious---

Chair Paul: All he had to do was tell the truth. The court will call the roll on the motion.

Calling roll: The motion is not agreed to.

Sen. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I move to table this resolution.

I moved to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the---that was my last one.

I move---until the chairman provides all members of this committee with access to all documents, transcripts, and materials related to this investigation, which I have repeatedly requested since the beginning of this Congress.

The committee rules are clear that all members of this committee have a right to access committee documents. Chairman has publicly stated he has received over one million documents as part of this investigation and has only shared a small fraction with a minority, despite repeated requests of the past year and a half.

It is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this, and I just want to reply to some of the comments made by the chair that we just didn't want to look at this information.

We have been asking for information for quite some period of time over the past 18 months, and at every turn---whether it is the documents or trying to have the ability to question witnesses---we have been denied.

In April of this year, your staff conducted an interview without even notifying my staff about the interview. After you posted the transcript publicly, we asked for the unredacted version and the classified portion. We received absolutely no response.

You refused to let the minority participate in the transcribed interview that Dr. Fauci agreed to do voluntarily.

A comment one of my colleagues made: "we could just do it and have a transcript in private." We were open to that. Dr. Fauci was open to it, but we were declined the ability to do that.

It was going to be one-sided, and when he knew it was going to be one-sided, he did not want to come in. This committee normally deals in a bipartisan way.

I know that the chairman says that these documents were on some sort of website. We did not know about that website. We were told there was a letter talking about the website. We understand it was hard copy only. We have no record of receiving it. Everybody on the dais has no record of receiving it.

Yet as we continually asked for documents---if there was this website---just different than what we have done as a committee---we always have a shared site where all members can take a look at documents. We have a right to look at those documents.

If this other website existed and we were supposedly told about it in a letter, and we didn't get it, we don't have any record of receiving it here---but there were numerous times where the chairman's staff, when we were asking for documents, could have said, "Hey, go to that website. Okay, we will take a look at it." I don't know---I have records of all of these emails. I could go through them. I don't maybe need to go through the mall---where are these records? We would like to see records.

Crickets---othing. No mention of it. Could have been mentioned, by the way---we have this. This is over 18 months. Stonewalling for 18 months. That is not the way this committee should ever work.

Now, Chairman Paul: We had a detailed investigation of COVID-19. We worked with then-ranking member Paul. Under Chairman Paul, we don't get those records. That is just not the way this place should work, and I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that.

Things change. If we make this the new precedent, there will be a Democrat as a chair. Would you want them to do that? Would you want them to be treated that way?

You will scream and holler about it, and we should stop it right now. Let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigations that has made this committee a powerful committee over the years.

Right now we are just making it highly partisan, and when you make it partisan, people just ignore what you do---and that is really tragic. And it is sad.

I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution---let us take a look at these documents. They are on his private web or whatever he has set up for it. We will take a look at it, but we should get back to the practice where we have shared information.

I know when Senator Johnson was chair, we had shared information. I know he wanted shared information under Chairman Paul's chairmanship as well.

Chair Paul: We need to get to the motion.

Sen. Peters: Let me finish.

Chair Paul: I have let you go on and on, and we are going to get to the votes.

Sen. Peters: I understand that, but I don't ever remember cutting you off when you were ranking member, and I always respected your rights. And I have continued to respect your rights. I would just hope that you offer that same courtesy to us, because things do change, and precedent is important. And I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution until we have a chance to look at the information---as has been the practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence.

Chair Paul: For the record, Anthony Fauci refused a private deposition, and that is why he was brought in under subpoena.

Sen. Peters: Because it was going to be one-sided.

Chair Paul: Don't interrupt the chair.

With regard to access to records, there has been an unprecedented access to records. Have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join. You had outward disdain---you never even asked for the password. Not one of you signed up. It has been up for over a year. The information is there for the taking.

I repeated it publicly over and over. Don't come to this hearing saying you were given records. Records were given.

The clerk will call the roll. The motion is not agreed to.

Chair Paul: Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution.

Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

Chair Paul: We will entertain more motions, but the discussion has become dilatory, and so the discussion will be for two minutes. You will have two minutes to present your motion.

Sen. Blumenthal: I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until this committee has an opportunity to seek leave from the Department of Justice to obtain a court order providing Dr. Fauci with immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony on matters raised during the committee's hearing.

The immunity from prosecution could be limited to perjury. It is standard procedure, and we need to hear from his counsel as to whether it would be satisfactory to provide immunity.

If this committee is really interested in serious answers to the serious questions, it will seek to provide him with this very limited immunity to appear before this committee.

There is a need for a serious inquiry to answer questions arising from the pandemic. We need to know where COVID originated, how it spread, and what could have been done better. We need to hear not only from Dr. Fauci, but from others in the course of a bipartisan, nonpartisan inquiry—perhaps through a commission where, again, Dr. Fauci could testify. A 9/11-type commission.

But this kind of show trial is no way to elicit the important information that the country needs to know. So I would ask that we postpone consideration of this resolution until we can give Dr. Fauci the kind of legal protection against self-incrimination that he needs.

Chair Paul: The clerk will call the roll. The motion is not agreed to.

Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record all of the copies of emails that we sent to your staff asking to have access to information. In these emails, you will see there is either absolutely no response, or no way to understand that there is a separate place somewhere we can get the information.

Chair Paul: Certainly, I will put these on the record, without objection.

Sen. Blumenthal: Certainly, I would be open to seeing any emails that told us about this. We cannot find any in our electronic records, and we would be open to seeing that---but we would like to do this without objection.

Chair Paul: Without objection. Seeing no other motions.

Sen. Peters: If I may, Mr. Chairman?

Chair Paul: The clerk will call the roll.

Chair Paul: On behalf of the millions of people harmed by Anthony Fauci, resoundingly, yes.

Sen. Peters: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to---

Chair Paul: I haven't recognized you.

Sen. Peters: Mr. Chairman?

Chair Paul: We have had ample remarks on this. The chair will limit remarks to two minutes. I will give you another chance to state your opinion, which has been amply stated.

Sen. Peters: Pursuant to committee rule 6B, I'm notifying you that I intend to file minority views regarding this resolution.

Chair Paul: The clerk will report the conclusion of the vote. And that is reported favorably.