Fauci, the Fifth, and the Pardon: Can He Have His Cake and Eat It Too?

As many of you in Blog-land may recall, at the end of President Biden’s term, Dr. Anthony Fauci received a pardon for any federal crimes he may have committed during the covered period (2020-2025). 

After a diary attributed to Fauci reportedly came to light, questions arose about whether it showed evidence of wrongdoing or whether he may have provided inaccurate testimony to Congress. 

When Fauci later appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment, several legal questions emerged: What protections does the Fifth Amendment provide, does a pardon eliminate the right to remain silent, and can someone still be accused of lying to Congress if they have already received a pardon?

This is actually an interesting constitutional problem (if you're into these sorts of things) because it sits at the intersection of executive pardons, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, congressional oversight, and perjury statutes. 

There are also some factual premises in our hypothetical that need to be separated from the legal analysis: whether a particular diary exists, what it says, whether it proves a crime, and whether a pardon covered particular conduct are factual questions. The legal principles, however, are fairly well established.

Let's walk through it. 

1. What is the Fifth Amendment, and what was it designed to protect?

As it relates to the issue at hand, the relevant language of the 5th Amendment is:

“No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

This is the "self-Incrimination clause" of the Fifth Amendment.  The historical purpose was to prevent the government from using coercive interrogation practices to force people to convict themselves. 

The Framers were reacting in part to practices in England where religious and political suspects could be compelled to answer accusatory questions under oath, even when those answers would lead to punishment.

The basic idea here is that the government has the burden of proving guilt. It cannot force the accused to help build the case against himself.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the privilege protects human dignity, autonomy, and the accusatorial nature of our criminal justice system.

I'd like to point your attention to a few major cases as they relate to this issue:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384, U.S. 436 (1966)

This is the famous "you have the right to remain silent" case.  The SCOTUS held that custodial interrogation requires warnings because people must be aware of their Fifth Amendment rights.

The important point here is that Miranda is only one application of the Fifth Amendment. The underlying privilege is much broader. 

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)

The SCOTUS held that prosecutors cannot tell a jury: "The defendant didn't testify, so that proves guilt."

Consequently, the government cannot penalize someone for exercising the privilege. 

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)

This is probably the most relevant case to our 2nd question.

In Kastigar, the SCOTUS held that a person may be forced to testify if they receive immunity that is at least as broad as the Fifth Amendment protection.

In other words:

• The Fifth Amendment protects against being forced to incriminate yourself.
• If the government removes the possibility of prosecution, the reason for the privilege disappears.
• Therefore, immunity can replace the privilege.

That becomes important with pardons. 

The case law about immunity is important because a pardon functions in a similar way to immunity when analyzing the Fifth Amendment.

Let's unpack that.

The Fifth Amendment says:  A person cannot be forced to testify if the testimony could be used to incriminate them.

The key word here is "could."  The person does not have to prove they will be prosecuted. They only have to show a reasonable possibility that their answers could expose them to criminal liability.

For example, if Congress asks "Did you knowingly falsify documents?"

...and the witness responds, "If I answer yes, the government could prosecute me for that."

...then the Fifth Amendment applies.

But now let's change the facts.  The president grants that person a valid pardon covering that exact conduct.  Now the witness says, "If I answer yes, the government could prosecute me."

The government responds, "No, it cannot. You have already been pardoned."

That is where Kastigar v. United States becomes important.

The principle from Kastigar is that the Fifth Amendment exists because testimony can lead to criminal punishment.  If the government removes the possibility of criminal punishment through immunity, the person can be compelled to testify.  As such, a pardon can serve a similar function because it removes criminal exposure for the pardoned conduct.

So the logical chain is:

1. Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination;
2. Self-incrimination requires possible criminal consequences;
3. Pardon removes criminal consequences;
4. Fifth Amendment privilege may disappear.

2. If someone receives a pardon, can they still invoke the Fifth Amendment?

This is where it gets interesting and the short answer is usually, no.  A valid pardon generally removes the Fifth Amendment privilege for the crimes covered by the pardon.

Why?

Because the Fifth Amendment protects against being forced to provide evidence that could later be used to prosecute you.

But if you cannot legally be prosecuted for that conduct, there is no criminal exposure.

The Supreme Court addressed this in Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964).

The SCOTUS explained the rationale behind the privilege: it exists because compelled testimony could expose a person to criminal liability.  Remove the possibility of prosecution and the privilege generally disappears.

A pardon operates similarly to immunity. 

A classic example of this can be found in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915).

This case involved a newspaper editor who refused to accept a pardon.  The SCOTUS recognized something important: A pardon is not simply a gift; it carries an implication that "you are forgiven because there was something to forgive."

That is why a pardon can have consequences beyond just wiping away punishment. 

But here is the catch:  A pardon only protects against the crimes covered by the pardon.  It does not create a magical shield against every possible question.  

For example, President Biden pardons Fauci for "Any federal offenses committed from 2020 through 2024 relating to COVID-19 policy."

That might eliminate prosecution for those crimes.  But if Congress asks "did you lie under oath during this hearing last month?"

That is a different question.  A pardon cannot cover a future crime that has not happened. 

The problem that exists is that if you look at the wording of many of Biden's pardons, they almost all refer to all or any related crimes suggesting that people are pardoned for things that did happen or may yet happen. So, how does this jive with our statement that: A pardon cannot cover a future crime that has not happened.

The short answer is that a president can issue a pardon that covers past conduct that has not yet been discovered, charged, or prosecuted, but a president cannot pardon a person for conduct that has not yet occurred.

The key difference is unknown past crimes versus future crimes.

When a pardon says something like "all offenses against the United States which the person may have committed or taken part in during a certain period," it does not mean anything this person might do in the future.  It means if this person committed a federal crime during the specified past period, whether we know about it today or not, that crime is forgiven.

The classic example is Richard Nixon. When Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardon covered:

"all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed..."

The purpose was to prevent a situation where prosecutors later discovered additional Watergate-related crimes and argued that those were not covered because they were not known at the time.

The Supreme Court has recognized that a pardon can cover offenses that are unknown at the time of issuance. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the SCOTUS described the pardon power as extending to offenses already committed, whether known or unknown.

But there is a constitutional limit.  A president cannot say "I pardon John Smith for any crimes he commits in the next ten years."

Why? 

Because there is no "offense" yet.  A pardon forgives an act; it does not create advance immunity for future criminal behavior.

Think of it like this:

Valid:  "I pardon you for any federal crimes you committed between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2025, whether known or unknown."

Not valid:  "I pardon you for any federal crimes you commit from January 1, 2026 onward."

The reason many modern pardons sound extremely broad is because lawyers drafting them are trying to capture the first category: unknown acts that already happened.

Where it gets complicated, and where our question about Fauci fits, is that a broad pardon can create a practical problem. 

Suppose a pardon covers "any federal offenses relating to COVID-19 policies, research, or responses between 2020 and 2025."

That might protect someone from prosecution for undiscovered crimes in that category. 

But then the next question becomes does that same pardon protect against a separate crime, such as lying under oath to Congress, if that lie occurred during the same period?   

That depends on the language of the pardon and how courts interpret whether the false statement itself is one of the "offenses" covered. 

3. Does a pardon eliminate the Fifth Amendment privilege entirely?

Short answer: No, and this is the subtle part.

A pardon removes Fifth Amendment protection only where the pardon eliminates criminal exposure.

Suppose Fauci was pardoned for:

• fraud related to COVID research
• false statements from 2020–2024
• conspiracy related to pandemic response

But Congress asks:  "Did you commit tax fraud in 2025?"

The pardon does nothing.  He could still invoke the Fifth.

The analysis is always could this answer expose me to criminal prosecution?

If yes → Fifth Amendment may apply.

If no → Fifth Amendment generally unavailable. 

4. Can Fauci still be accused of lying to Congress after  receiving a pardon?

Another short answer: Yes.

A pardon does not erase history and this is a common misunderstanding.

A pardon does not mean "The person did nothing wrong."  Rather, it means the government will not prosecute this person for covered offenses.

The SCOTUS made that clear in United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833) when Chief Justice Marshall described a pardon as an act of forgiveness, not a declaration of innocence. 

So if Congress determines "You lied under oath," the pardon does not stop Congress from saying that.  Rather, the pardon mainly prevents criminal punishment for the pardoned offense. 

5. But can Fauci be prosecuted for lying to Congress if the underlying conduct was pardoned?

This is where the distinction gets important.

There are two separate crimes here.

Crime #1:  The underlying conduct.  Example:  "You hid information about a government program."

Crime #2:  The false testimony.  Example:  "You lied under oath when Congress asked about it."

Those are separate offenses.  A pardon for Crime #1 does not automatically pardon Crime #2 unless the pardon language covers it.

The SCOTUS has long recognized that a pardon must be interpreted according to its language.

A person cannot generally say "I was pardoned for stealing money, therefore I cannot be prosecuted for lying about stealing the money"...unless the pardon covers both. 

6. So does Fauci get to "have his cake and eat it too"?

The answer depends entirely on what the pardon actually covered.

The scenario describe above raises a legitimate constitutional tension:

• A pardon removes criminal exposure.
• Removing criminal exposure usually removes Fifth Amendment protection.
• Therefore, a person who has been fully pardoned generally cannot refuse to answer questions about the pardoned conduct.

Congress could potentially argue that a person cannot invoke the Fifth because they have already been protected from prosecution.  If Fauci refused anyway, Congress could consider contempt proceedings.

However, there is another wrinkle.  

A witness does not get to simply say I was pardoned, therefore I must answer.  The witness can still invoke the Fifth if answering could expose him to another crime not covered by the pardon.

Courts often resolve this through a process called a "Kastigar hearing," where the government must show that the testimony cannot be used against the witness.

In a Kastigar hearing:

• Government Proof: Prosecutors present evidence, case files, dates, and witness testimony showing how they found their proof before the defendant spoke, or through separate investigative work.
• Tracing Evidence: The government traces the timeline of its investigation to demonstrate zero contamination or "taint" from the immunized statements.
• Defense Challenge: The defense attorney cross-examines government agents and argues that certain evidence wouldn't exist without the protected statements.
• Judge's Decision: The judge decides if the prosecution met its high burden. If the state fails, the tainted evidence is thrown out, or the whole case may be dismissed.

So, the "upshot" of a Kastigar hearing is essentially: The government does not get to give you immunity with one hand and then use your compelled words against you with the other. If it wants your testimony, it must give you protection equivalent to the Fifth Amendment.

I guess the moral to this story is that the Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves, but a pardon may remove that danger by eliminating the possibility of prosecution for the pardoned conduct. 

The REAL question is whether Fauci's pardon was broad enough to cover everything Congress is asking about; if it was, refusing to answer in a Congressional hearing becomes much, much harder to justify.  

 

 

 

The Constitution under Attack

I gotta wonder what is going through the minds of the SCOTUS justices sometimes.  I mean, Trump, Trump, Trump aside, it's amazing how they find the time to muck up the Constitution so much.

What?  Muck up the Constitution?!  What'd the SCOTUS do this time?!? 

Back in 2021, police in Anaconda, Montana received a 911 call from William Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend saying he was suicidal and might try “suicide by cop.”  

Important to note: His EX girlfriend (whom I am sure only had his best interests in mind) called the police.  Thing is, I've had ex-whatevers and they NEVER have my best interest in mind.  Heck, tell me I'm wrong but are there any EX's out in people-land who aren't out to screw you the first chance they get?!?

Anyway, and moving on, officers arrived at Case's residence and start looking in windows but saw no immediate emergencies.  Waiting another 40 minutes outside the house (during which time they called their supervisor to assess what, if any, risk they might have if they were to break down the door under the pretext of an emergency discussing whether or if Case might ambush them.

NOTE: they were seeking advice as to what risk/emergency THEY might have if they broke down the door - not whether there was any risk to Case.  Yeah, so very altruistic they were. 

Note also that in all that 40 minutes, they never tried to get a warrant to break down the door (which they could have) nor did they have probabe cause (because of the presumed emergency). Police eventually broke down the front door with rifles in hand and ballistic shields.  

Confronting the defendant, Case emerged holding an object (believed to be a gun) and an officer shot him.  Case was later convicted of assaulting an officer and challenged the admissibility of evidence, arguing the entry violated the Fourth Amendment.

So, let's recap:  

1. Police are called saying defendant is going to shoot himself (can you say swatting?).
2. Police wait 40 minutes before entering.
3. Without probable cause (as is generally necessary under the 4th Amendment), police enter without a warrant (you know, because of emergency), 
4. Police confront and shoot the defendant and arrest they guy they're supposed to be helping for assaulting a police officer.

Yeah, sounds like something police would do.

Anyway, Case loses at the trial and appellate levels.  The SCOTUS also rules in favor of the State (of Montana) in Case v. Montana, No. 24-624.  In their holding (written by Justice Kagan), the court held that police can enter a home wihout a warrant to render emergency aid if they have

"an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside is seriously inujured or facing serious harm."

The Court reasoned that probable cause is rooted in criminal investigations and ill-suited to non-investigatory welfare checks (which is total BS!).  Because the officers reasonably believed Case might have shot himself or was in immediate danger, their entry was constitutionally valid.

A few problems stick out for me.

Before Case, the generally understood standard for police entering a person's home was that warrantless entry into a home usually required:

1. Probable cause

2. Exigent circumstances

After Case, in cases of "emergency aid" or "welfare checks," Police only need:

“Objectively reasonable belief” that someone is seriously injured or in danger.  This is a significantly lower threshold than probable cause.  Consequently,  civil liberties groups argue the decision:

• blurs the line between exigent circumstances and welfare checks

• makes home entry easier to justify after the fact.

A few other problems I see is that why do courts seeminly ALWAYS (that's "always" as in every bloody time) give deference to police holding out a objective standard based on how a cop perceives a situation.  Turns out, I'm not the only one thinking this as many legal scholars have raised exactly the concern.  Critics argue the standard:

1. Allows post-hoc justification

If officers can articulate any reasonable emergency theory later, courts often accept it.

2. Encourages pretext

Police could enter homes under a “welfare check” theory even whether or not they suspect a crime is being committed.

3. Weakens the home’s constitutional protection

The Supreme Court historically called the home the “core of the Fourth Amendment.”  Lowering the standard will definately erodes that.

4. Creates escalation risks

Situations like this one can become violent precisely because police enter.  However, a bigger problem where critics point to is:

1. Someone falsely reports a suicide threat.

2. Police perform a welfare check.

3. Officers claim they believed someone inside was in danger.

4. Forced entry occurs without probable cause.

Because the standard is objective reasonableness, courts will often (that's "often" as in every bloody time) defer to what officers say they perceived at the time.

How might this play out?  Picture it, an ex-girl or boyfriend or a Karen of a neighbor or a political opponent decides to swat someone they don't like and calls the police filing a fake report.

Police respond, break down the door and, later, claim to have seen a gun or some other weapon and charge everyone inside the house with crimes that are trumped up to ensure the police aren't later sued and lose their precious qualified immunity.

 

We didn't need Case for this to happen because it happens all the time.

Wait, what?!  You're saying there are instances where people had someone file a false claim against them, police break down their door and then charge them with crimes that didn't happen or were trumped up?

1. Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 (2025)

Facts:

• FBI agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on the wrong house in Atlanta.

• They broke the door, threw a flashbang, and handcuffed the residents, including frightening a child.

• Agents later realized they had the wrong address.

2. Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989)

Facts:

• Police arrested a man and charged him with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

• At trial he was acquitted of the resisting arrest charge, the more serious charge.

Legal significance of this case is that the court allowed a malicious prosecution claim, noting that police sometimes add unsupported charges.

The court warned that allowing this practice would permit officers to add unsupported serious charges with impunity.

Why this matters: Courts recognize that officers sometimes add charges like resisting arrest or obstruction to justify an encounter.  

3. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958)

Facts:

• Police broke into a home without properly announcing authority or purpose.

• The defendant reacted by attempting to close the door.

Holding:  The Supreme Court ruled the arrest unlawful because officers failed to follow required procedures before breaking in.  The Court emphasized that the home has special constitutional protection.

6. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)

The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest can be lawful even if the officer cited the wrong crime, as long as probable cause existed for some crime.

Why this matters:  This rule allows officers to arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

The underlying situation here is that courts see that civil rights litigation frequently shows a pattern:

1. Police enter a home (sometimes the wrong house).

2. Residents react (confusion, refusal, self-defense).

3. Officers charge them with:

   • resisting arrest

   • obstruction

   • assault on an officer

4. Charges are later dismissed, but the encounter is legally justified by the arrest.

Courts often analyze these cases under: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (civil rights lawsuits), Fourth Amendment unlawful search, and false arrest / malicious prosecution.

Under Case, however, much of these protections will be tossed in favor of a tyrannical police force who are legally able to

• lie to people to get them to admit to things they didn't do,
• arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

Probably the BIGGEST problem with all this (and what the SCOTUS blew past) is that police are, by their very nature, seemingly have a tyrannical streak and will ALWAYS (that's "always" as in every bloody time) look for reasons to break the law. 

You read that right - break the law.  Police do it all the time (not every time but a lot of the time). 

In this case, what Case does is give police another bad reason to violate the Constitution and break down doors to private residences under the pretense of an emergency or welfare check.

I mean, do you really (that's "really" as in pull your collective heads out of your collective backsides and face reality) believe police will only kick down a door when they think there is an emergency?

Hells Bells, police will use Case to kick down doors with reckless abandon if it so pleases them.  You know it, I know it and the police know it. 

And the reason for this is because Police are like politicians - always looking for ways to muck up the Constitution.  Police will always be looking for ways to arrest and terrorize people because, otherwise, what are they going to do with themselves?  Get fat on donuts?!

Well, yes, police do (seemingly) have a donut fetish but the bottom line to all this is that cases like Case only do one thing: undermine the rights of we the people.  

As long as courts continue to defer to what is reasonable to the police/government in every (that's "every" as in every bloody time) situation, the rights of we the people will continue to errode.

Regardless of whether you are Republican, Independent, or democrat, it behooves everyone the necessity to stand up against these blatant attacks on the Constitution and fight against cases like Case and their ilk.  

 

An Ode to Intolerance

 

So, I'm watching the news the other day and there's a protest going on with people holding signs saying things like "You're Special" and "Your Voice Matters."

Of course, the protest all fell apart when it came upon a group holding signs saying "Let's Make America Great Again" and the hateful rhetoric started flowing, people screaming, swearing, throwing tomatoes and rocks and police got called and it all broke down into utter mayhem.

Eh, the point to all this is how many people say they are tolerant of differing points of view but aren't.  I mean, yeah, they want to sound inclusive and helpful but are "they" really all that inclusive? 

Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh going on The View.  Dang but talk about an intolerant back and forth.  Better yet, let's pick someone they really hate like Mr. 47 himself -  Donald J. Trump.  Could you image the intolerant hash fight between DJT and the broads on The View!?

THAT would be a pay-per-view episode I'd pay to watch!

Anyway, not clear on how to spot intolerance?  After some research on the subject, I've discovered a few tell-tale signs someone is being intolerant (even though they scream they are tolerance).

1.  People who say "I'm just saying."  What we're looking at is a comment meant as a soft jab.  Like, "I'm just saying socks with sandals are a bold fashion statement..."  which IS a bold statement but, well, maybe s/he needs to consult their mother before going out wearing white socks and black sandals.  I'm just saying...

2.  People who say "No offense, but..."  Yeah, you hear this and the next thing out of their mouths is going to offend you - unless it's a joke, in which case it's probably satire.  I'm just saying...

3.  People who say "I'm not racist, but..."  Turns out, I'm not racist - I hate everyone ... which is something I say a lot but does race always translate to intolerance?  Maybe it did 30 years ago (so, anything up through the 1990s) but the only time I see race being an issue is when someone spouts it out when they're losing an argument.  I'm just saying...

 4.  People who say "I don't see color..."  Thing is, everyone sees color (unless you're actually color blind) and those that use this are the biggest offenders.  I remember one interview I had with  the Library of Congress.  There where three people interviewing me over the phone (two guys and a lady).  The thing with phone interviews is that you can't see anyone so you can't really know who's who or what's what.  

Anyway, at one point, the lady says:  "I identify as an angry black woman!" which I suspect she meant it as a joke but it didn't come off as such as the two other guys were clearly uncomfortable with the remark.  Note:  I didn't say that - she did - which, looking back is funny as the term "angry black woman" is rather derogatory and mean and if she's going to go around and saying that about herself, I'd think that's a pretty self-depricating thing to say about yourself.  I'm just saying...

5.  People who say "I'm just playing devil's advocate" This is actually a fun one and helps with most any situation where a put down is actually helpful, like:

• I'm just playing devil's advocate, but do you think maybe they didn’t invite you because you’re always late?
•  I'm just playing devil's advocate here but are we sure this plan isn’t going to backfire?
•  I'm just playing devil's advocate, but what if she wasn’t actually trying to be rude?
•  I'm just playing devil's advocate here but isn’t it possible he got the promotion because he worked harder?
• I'm just playing devil's advocate, but maybe the issue isn’t with them - maybe it’s how we're handling it.
• I'm just playing devil's advocate but could it be that you're overthinking this?
• I'm just playing devil's advocate here but what if you're the one who misunderstood what was said?
• I'm just playing devil's advocate but what if calories only count if someone sees you eat? 
• I'm just playing devil's advocate but sure, let's take life advice from someone who identifies as a traffic cone (or peaked in high school).
• I'm just playing devil's advocate but nothing says 'I care' like a passive-aggressive text two weeks later.
  
• I'm just playing devil's advocate but if the devil really needed an advocate, shouldn't he get better counsel?

6.  People who say "I have a [minority] friend..." You know, I have actually heard this one on more than one occasion.  Mostly by white folks who want to say something off but don't want to sound like they came up with it first.  It's like if they can make it sound like a black, Mexican, Polish person said it first (or agreed with them), that anything they repeat or say is (or should be) acceptable.  Yeah, maybe that's where the Karen thing came from.  I'm just saying...

7.  People who say "It's just a joke...."  When someone says "it's just a joke" after making a remark, they are usually indicating that their statement was not meant to be taken seriously and was intended to be humorous. They might be trying to: 

• Lighten the mood or defuse a tense situation, or
• Avoid responsibility for potentially offensive remarks, or
• Establish or reinforce social bonds, or
• Express something indirectly

Problem is that some people don't understand why everyone else is laughing or just want to take offense because that's their thing.  Fine, fine, if that's their thing, then probably best not read some of my other blog posts.

Best I can suggest is to keep opinions close to your vest - unless you have blog that laughs at most everyone.  In which case, it's open season and best of luck being the last person standing.  

I'm just saying...

Word of the Month for July 2025: CAVEAT

 

Have you ever noticed that it take some people several warnings to NOT do something to then not do that thing?

Shouting "STAY AWAY" or "DON'T DO THAT" doesn't seem to convey the message that it did a few years back.  These days, you need to shout STAY AWAY and brandish a weapon and call their parents and threaten legal action to get someone's attention.

Sad that.

Anyway, this month's word of the month is Caveat.  Caveat (or, a caveat) is: A warning or caution that advising someone to consider certain conditions or limitations before taking action. 

Note the "before taking actions" part.  So many times people ignore warnings simply because they fail to acknowledge the consequences or they ignore the warning them unless they are directly (or immediately) affected.

Take, for example, most every horror movie: 

• Kids putting their hands in a dark hole in the ground always get eaten.
• Teenagers getting busy at a lake house always get killed.
• The creepy house in the middle of a forest is always haunted.
• Creepy forest always has a flesh eating monster waiting to eat you.
• Signs saying DON'T ENTER are always ignored and the people are never heard from again.

I'm laughing as I'm writing this but every movie is like this.  "Don't do" is always construed as "Suggested."

Other examples of warnings that people should adhere (but  often ignore) include:

• WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals, which are known to the State to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
  
• Warning: Do not mix red bull with alcohol.
• Do not consume raw cookie dough.
• Check this box if you have read an accept the terms and conditions of the EULA.
• Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
• Do not try this at home.
• The warning on every trampoline ever that says to only allow one person on the trampoline at a time.
• Use only under supervision of an adult.
• Engineer Roger Boisjoly, who was involved with the Space Shuttle program, warned his superiors for months prior to the Challenger disaster that launching in cold weather could cause the O-rings to fail.
• In the 1800s Ignaz Semmelweis, often described as the father of hand washing, warned that infant maternal mortality could be drastically reduced by doctors washing their hands between patients.
• President George Washington, in his address when leaving office, warned against the danger of a two party system in future politics. He felt that several parties on equal footing would be better. Especially in presidential elections. The more legitimate choices, the better.
• In 2005, Courtney Love was asked what advice she'd give young, up and coming actresses. She said "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party at his Four Seasons hotel room, don't go." 

I suspect the reason most people don't adhere to warnings is because no one emphasizes the why.  Caveat: As every parent will attest, it is very annoying when you say why over and over and over.

Maybe if people were given a solid why instead of a just don't do it statement, maybe they wouldn't do (or would do) that thing?

So, on the first warning: WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals, which are known to the State to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Why?  Because birth defects and reproductive harm is/are bad and can cause your baby to die really soon.

Or  WARNING: Do not try this at home.  

Why?  Because you're likely to break bones and be subject to public ridicule and have all your friends laugh at you.

Or  WARNING: If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party at his Four Seasons hotel room, don't go.  

Why?  Because you'll probably contract a communicable or otherwise infectious disease and be publicly shamed and labeled as an easy mark.

See?  It's the "why" that helps people understand what's in store for them if they go and do the thing that warns them what not to do.

Yeah, that works for me.