Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Can’t Congress just eliminate Fauci’s Federal Retirement?

Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:29 am
Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
17376 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:29 am
It’s not a criminal charge. You’ve got no right to the 5th Amendment in civil proceedings.

Just hold some hearings, eliminate it and see what happens.

They did it to Judge Porteous. And he got impeached for shite he did on the state bench.

If he lied to Congress and funded the pandemic, let’s just get rid of his $450k/ yr. Make him go sue to get it back or something.

Do some civil forfeiture on the shite he profited from starting the pandemic and killing people with Remdesivir. Every cent. Make him sue to get it back.

Put the burden on him
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
83337 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:31 am to
No.

That would be a bill of attainder and they are unconstitutional.
Posted by SWINC
Member since Sep 2022
615 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:32 am to
his Federal retirement is nothing compared to what he's made over the years by hook or crook
Posted by Houag80
Member since Jul 2019
20001 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:33 am to
Sure they can do it. They won't because collectively they have no balls in their elitist club.

We serfs have no say in this.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
16951 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:33 am to
The impeached the judge BEFORE his retirement.

Can’t strip a pension after retirement.
Posted by SelaTiger
Member since Aug 2016
21914 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:33 am to
Most of Congress turned a blind eye to what was going on when everyone with half a brain saw through the BS from the start. frick Congress and their grandstanding.
Posted by NineLineBind
LA....no, the other one
Member since May 2020
8768 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:33 am to
quote:

unconstitutional.

This seems to only work one way.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
170526 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:37 am to
Yeah, remember when Fauci had 5 litters of kittens when Trump cut off his secret service detail? Now the little smelly goblin has the money for his own detail.

Did you see that one guy behind him, he made Shaq look like Kevin Hart.
Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
17376 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:50 am to
So was shutting down churches and it didn’t seem to stop anyone.

Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
17376 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 8:59 am to
Or there’s this. . . (From the law already governing his pension)


LINK


quote:

An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, refused or refuses, or knowingly and willfully failed or fails, to appear, testify, or produce a book, paper, record, or other document, relating to his service as an employee, before a Federal grand jury, court of the United States, court-martial, or congressional committee, in a proceeding concerning—

(1) his past or present relationship with a foreign government; or

(2) a matter involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States.


So, Dr. Fauci, what exactly was your relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Posted by BozemanTiger
Member since Jul 2020
4988 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 9:00 am to
Who in the absolute Fphuc k is downvoting your post?

You all get a gay participation trophy for the day,

Congratulations.

Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
83337 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 9:10 am to

That could work. That law is aimed at a class of people, not a named individual.

Although the SCOTUS test for a bill of attainder does not necessarily require a named individual. The test is:

-Specificity: The law targets an easily identifiable person or a specific group by name or characteristic.

-Punishment: It inflicts a penalty, deprivation of property, or a block from employment, rather than just imposing a regulatory burden.

-Lack of Trial: The punishment is forced directly by the legislative text without any court proceeding.


Interesting, I wonder if the law you cited could be challenged as a bill of attainder.



Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
17376 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 9:12 am to
It’s been in existence since the 50s. It’s why his pension is so high anyway.

frick that weasel.

He deserves all the scorn that could ever be heaped upon him.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
83337 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 9:23 am to
quote:

He deserves all the scorn that could ever be heaped upon him.



He's lucky the conservative population isn't stacked with Luigi Mangione types like the violent left is.
Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
17376 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 9:26 am to
It isn’t stacked with people who are creative and apply the rules that were applied against them, either, unfortunately.

We don’t need a bunch of Luigi’s - we just need a some people with the stones and the brains to dole out lawful consequences
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram