Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Prosecution Vs Federal Pardon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Idaho committee introduces resolution saying federal pardon for Dr. Fauci doesn’t bar state prosecution
Summary
Representative Tanner introduced RS 32,005 asserting that a federal pardon for Dr. Anthony Fauci would not prevent state prosecution for state crimes; the House State Affairs Committee introduced the resolution and sent it to the second‑reading calendar with a do‑pass recommendation.
Representative Tanner introduced RS 32,005 in the Idaho House State Affairs Committee, a resolution asserting that a presidential pardon for Dr. Anthony Fauci’s alleged federal conduct does not preclude state‑level investigations or prosecution for state crimes. The committee voted to introduce the resolution and send it to the second‑reading calendar with a do‑pass recommendation.
“Like the good Chairman stated, you have before you RS 32,005 and this is a resolution. This resolution deals with Doctor Fauci and his pardon, for his federal crimes,” Representative Tanner said when presenting the resolution. Tanner told the committee the resolution seeks to emphasize the separation of federal and state jurisdiction: “just because he received this federal pardon does not mean that he cannot be prosecuted from within Idaho.”
Tanner criticized public‑health policy choices made during the COVID‑19 pandemic, saying federal guidance had led to statewide business closures, mask mandates and “suppressed, lifesaving drugs” — assertions he presented as part of the rationale for the resolution. When asked directly by Representative Skogg whether Tanner had “any reason to suspect that there's some kind of criminal” conduct, Tanner said he had not seen specific allegations presented to the committee and noted that pursuing state prosecutions would typically involve county prosecutors and might require legislative action to change enforcement priorities.
A committee motion to introduce RS 32,005 and place it on the second‑reading calendar with a do‑pass recommendation passed in committee. The hearing transcript records two members—Representatives Achilles and Morley—asking to be recorded as voting no; the committee chair said the motion was carried.
The resolution as presented focuses on jurisdictional principles and the effect (or lack of effect) of a federal presidential pardon on state authority. The committee did not record any immediate state‑level investigations or filed charges related to the resolution; Tanner said she was not aware of specific criminal allegations presented in committee.
RS 32,005 will appear on the House calendar for further consideration on second reading, where members may debate and vote on the resolution or related motions.
