BREAKING NEWS: Rand Paul's Procedural Proposal Sparks Debate on Capitol Hill.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said Wednesday that a proposed congressional contempt resolution involving former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci may be referred directly to the Department of Justice for possible review instead of moving through the full Senate.
Speaking during an interview with Fox News following a heated Senate hearing, Paul explained what he believes could happen after Fauci repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while appearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
According to Paul, the measure under consideration is a committee resolution recommending that Fauci be considered for contempt of Congress. He stated that if the resolution is approved by the committee, it could potentially be forwarded directly to the Department of Justice without requiring approval from the entire Senate.
Paul noted that because the proposal is a congressional resolution rather than legislation, it does not follow the traditional lawmaking process. He explained that it would not require passage by the House of Representatives or the president's signature before being referred for possible review.
The Kentucky senator also revealed that he has previously urged federal prosecutors to investigate Fauci, alleging that the former health official destroyed government records and provided false testimony before Congress—actions Paul characterized as potential felony offenses.
According to Paul, earlier referrals submitted during the Biden administration did not result in criminal charges. He added that he has since forwarded similar evidence and supporting materials to the Department of Justice under the Trump administration, expressing hope that prosecutors may now consider the matter.
Paul suggested that the committee could bypass a vote of the full Senate and instead send the contempt recommendation directly to the Justice Department if members approve the resolution.
His comments came shortly after Fauci appeared before the Senate committee under subpoena for a hearing examining the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as questions surrounding the origins of the coronavirus outbreak.
Before lawmakers began questioning him, Fauci delivered opening remarks accusing Republican members of attempting to build a criminal case against him rather than conduct impartial congressional oversight. Following the advice of his legal team, Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer nearly all substantive questions posed during the hearing.
Throughout the proceedings, Fauci relied on his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than one hundred times, refusing to respond to questions concerning pandemic policies, National Institutes of Health funding related to coronavirus research, lockdown decisions, vaccine recommendations, and several other topics raised by Republican senators.
Paul sharply criticized Fauci's refusal to answer questions, arguing that the public deserves greater accountability regarding decisions made during the pandemic and previous testimony Fauci provided before Congress. The committee chairman announced that members are expected to vote the following week on a resolution seeking to hold Fauci in contempt for declining to testify.
The hearing also featured another tense moment when Paul directed security to remove one of Fauci's attorneys after the lawyer repeatedly attempted to address the committee without being recognized by the chair.
Democratic senators defended Fauci throughout the hearing, arguing that he had legitimate constitutional grounds to invoke the Fifth Amendment given repeated public calls for his criminal prosecution. They maintained that Republican lawmakers had already formed conclusions before the hearing began and characterized the proceedings as politically driven.
The hearing followed Paul's recent public release of more than 1,100 pages from Fauci's pandemic-era diaries. Paul has argued that the documents raise additional questions about the federal government's handling of COVID-19, while Fauci has rejected those claims, insisting that his diary entries are consistent with his public statements and denying any misconduct.
If the committee approves the contempt resolution as Paul anticipates, lawmakers will then decide whether to pursue the direct referral process he described, potentially placing the matter before the Department of Justice for consideration.
Supreme Court Decision - E. Jean Carroll's Nightmare Comes True
Trump’s Carroll Case Returns to Spotlight as Supreme Court Redistributes Rehearing Bid
WASHINGTON, D.C. — August 5, 2026
President Donald Trump’s legal fight with writer E. Jean Carroll is drawing renewed attention after the Supreme Court redistributed his petition for rehearing in the civil case that produced a $5 million verdict against him.
The move does not mean the justices have agreed to hear the case. The court denied Trump’s original petition on June 29, then accepted a rehearing petition that was distributed on July 23, according to the Supreme Court docket.
Still, the development has given Trump’s allies a new opening to argue that the case deserves another look.
Funding Questions Resurface
The legal fight is also unfolding alongside a Justice Department investigation into outside funding connected to Carroll’s lawsuits. CBS News, Reuters and The Washington Post have reported that investigators are examining a nonprofit tied to LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman that helped pay some of Carroll’s legal expenses.
Carroll testified in a 2022 deposition that no outside funder was paying her legal bills. It later became public that American Future Republic, a Hoffman-backed nonprofit, had covered some costs.
The investigation has not resulted in charges against Carroll, Hoffman or the nonprofit. Carroll’s attorneys have previously said the outside funding did not affect the merits of the case.
Trump Challenges Trial Evidence
Trump’s Supreme Court argument focuses heavily on evidence admitted at trial. His lawyers contend jurors should not have heard testimony from other women who accused Trump of misconduct, or the 2005 Access Hollywood tape, because those materials risked turning the trial into a broader judgment of character rather than a narrow decision about Carroll’s specific claim.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation and said he did not know Carroll.
A New York jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023, awarding Carroll $5 million. A separate jury later awarded her $83.3 million in a defamation case tied to Trump’s comments while he was president. Trump and the Justice Department are separately asking the Supreme Court to review that larger judgment.
A Case Far From Over
The Second Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict, and lower courts have rejected Trump’s efforts to overturn Carroll’s wins. But the Supreme Court’s handling of the rehearing request, combined with the DOJ probe into litigation funding, has kept the case alive politically and legally.
For Trump, the issue is whether jurors were exposed to unfairly prejudicial evidence. For Carroll, the verdicts remain a major legal victory after years of public denial from Trump.
The Supreme Court has not signaled how it will act next. But the case has once again moved from the background of Trump’s legal docket to the center of a broader fight over evidence, political funding and the limits of civil liability.
Wait - Did Ilhan Omar's Fraud Scandal Just Go Nuclear?
Wait – Did Ilhan Omar’s Fraud Scandal Just Go Nuclear?
Posted August 5, 2026
Representative Ilhan Omar is facing renewed political scrutiny following the release of court exhibits connected to the high-profile Feeding Our Future fraud investigation in Minnesota. While the documents have generated new questions, no criminal charges have been filed against Omar, and the available court records do not establish wrongdoing on her part.
The article opens by raising allegations regarding Omar's immigration history, expressing the author's view that those matters should be investigated by federal authorities. Those allegations have not resulted in criminal charges, and the article argues that any future conviction could carry serious legal consequences, including potential denaturalization and deportation. No such action has been announced.
The article's primary focus, however, is on Omar's appearance in court exhibits introduced during the 2025 federal trial of Aimee Bock, founder of the nonprofit Feeding Our Future. Bock was convicted on multiple federal charges, including wire fraud, conspiracy, and bribery, in connection with a scheme prosecutors said improperly diverted approximately $250 million in federal child nutrition funds intended for children during the COVID-19 pandemic. She is currently awaiting sentencing.
According to the court exhibits referenced in the article, Omar's name appears several times in communications connected to the case. One exhibit reportedly includes a February 5, 2021 email involving Bock with the subject line "help with USDA food program." Other records reportedly mention "Ilhan's Office" in exchanges between Bock and former Feeding Our Future employee Abdikerm Eidleh, who later left the United States after being indicted.
The article notes that while the exhibit list has been made public, the underlying communications remain under court seal. As a result, the full context of those references has not been publicly disclosed.
The court records also reportedly reference a text message exchange between Bock and Omar that investigators allegedly recovered during a search of Bock's residence. The article emphasizes that the existence of those records has prompted additional public attention but does not indicate that Omar has been charged in connection with the fraud investigation.
The article further discusses Omar's decision not to appear before Minnesota's legislative Fraud Prevention Committee, which has been examining the broader Feeding Our Future scandal. Following her absence, committee chair Kristin Robbins sent a formal request seeking documents and communications related to the matter.
Robbins criticized Omar's decision not to testify or respond to the committee's requests, arguing that elected officials have a responsibility to cooperate with oversight efforts and explain any involvement their offices may have had. According to Robbins, the committee has received no response despite repeated attempts to obtain information.
The article concludes by questioning why Omar has declined to participate in the legislative inquiry. It argues that appearing before the committee could provide an opportunity to address the concerns that have been raised and respond to questions about the references contained in the court exhibits. The article presents that position as the author's opinion while acknowledging that the available court records do not, by themselves, establish criminal liability.
House PASSED It - President Trump Just WON - Announcement Horrifies Democrats
83% of Americans Support Voter ID Including 72% of Democrats – So Why Are Elected Democrats Against It?
The poll numbers are in, and they don’t leave any room for the usual excuses. Eighty-three percent of registered American voters support requiring photo ID proving citizenship before someone can register to vote. Seventy-seven percent support requiring it before casting a ballot.
Among Democrats — the very voters their own party claims would be harmed by voter ID — support stands at 72% for registration and 62% for voting.
Hispanic voters back it 85%. Voters under 30 back it 82%. The demographic groups Democrats most love to invoke when attacking voter ID as racist voter suppression are supporting voter ID by overwhelming margins.
This isn’t a Fox News talking point. This is a Fox News poll — conducted July 17 through July 20, right after Trump’s primetime address on election integrity, and covering over a thousand registered voters across the political spectrum. The numbers are so lopsided that Bret Baier called them “pretty overwhelming” on live television and Ben Domenech of The Federalist — a conservative commentator, not a party operative — expressed genuine bafflement that Republicans aren’t hammering this issue in every district in America.
“I don’t know why Republicans aren’t going around the country and talking about it more,” Domenech said. “This is classic Republican politics. You find 80/20 issues and you lean into them as hard as you can. This is stuff the American people believe is rational and reasonable.”
He’s right. And the answer to his bafflement lives in the United States Senate, where the SAVE America Act has been stalled since a cloture vote failed 53-47 on March 26 — seven votes short of the 60 needed because the filibuster threshold that John Thune refuses to touch protects Democratic obstruction of a bill that 72% of Democratic voters support.
Let’s state that contradiction as plainly as it deserves to be stated. Democratic senators are blocking legislation that their own voters support by enormous margins. They are maintaining that voter ID is racist voter suppression in the face of polling that shows 85% of Hispanic voters disagree with them. They are protecting a position that is politically, demographically, and morally indefensible — and they’re only able to do it because John Thune won’t use the tools available to him to end the obstruction.
Senator Roger Marshall’s (R-Kansas) proposal is exactly right: force separate votes on voter ID, proof of citizenship, and mail-ballot restrictions. Make every Senate Democrat go on the record against requirements supported by 83% of Americans. Make them explain to their Hispanic constituents why they’re voting against something 85% of Hispanic voters support. Make them justify to voters under 30 why they’re blocking something 82% of young Americans want.
May you like
That’s not difficult politics. That’s a layup.
The SAVE America Act passed the House 218-213. The public supports it overwhelmingly. The polling is historic.
