The rules? What are they? Does the majority of the Ethics Committee decide? If the Republicans didn’t want such an investigation, for whatever reason, could they refuse? What are the rules regarding testimony, can the Committee compel testimony from his accuser? Under oath?
What if she says “No, I don’t want to.” Again, for whatever reason. Can she refuse?
I am taking this out of the context of the ongoing argle-bargle because I want that specific information. And cannot find it. The traditional internet approach is to state something as a fact and await contradiction, but I’m taking this route.
My own take: No, he can’t insist on an investigation, but the committee probably takes that into account when making a decision. She can be compelled to appear (via subpoena) but she doesn’t waive her 5th amendment rights by doing so.
But the 5th Amendment protects you from self-incrimination. If she’s not the one being investigated, and she has committed no crime, she would have no grounds to assert her 5th Amendment rights. Could they compel her testimony under such circumstances?
Ask the Hollywood Ten about the consequences of refusing to answer the questions of a Congressional Committee.
As a general matter, someone could assert 5th Amendment rights if answering a question would incriminate them on a matter connected with the matter about which they are being questioned (even if the matter they are being questioned about, in and of itself, involves nothing that could incriminate them).
But in this context, considering the two accusations Tweeden has made (about a stage kiss and about a photo), it’s difficult to see how anything connected with the kiss, or connected with having been lying there asleep while a photo is taken, could be something that would be incriminating. So it would be rather bizarre if she were to refuse to answer questions by invoking her 5th Amendment rights.
I don’t know what your objection is. Are you saying she can’t plead the 5th? As for consequences, there are often consequences from pleading the 5th, but the US is a different county than it was 70 years ago. I don’ think what happened to the Hollywood 10 is informative of what would happen to someone today.
Sherrerd: I agree about Ms. Tweeden, but based on posts in the other thread, perhaps the OP is talking about the State Fair Accuser.
Nope. I am somewhat suspicious of Ms Tweeden, as I am likely to be of anyone who goes on TV to publicly praise Sean Hannity’s incisive and brilliant views.
And I thought it odd that she is quoted as being very much in a forgive and forget mode recently, compared to her vehement accusations. If I thought it was from Christian acceptance, might be inclined to applaud.
On the other hand, it might be that she does not want to be called to testify for other reasons. So far as I know, she has only spoken into sympathetic ears. Never mind perjury, she might not wish to face uncomfortable questions. Lotta those Congressgits are lawyers, you know…
As I’ve said in other threads, the kiss is something we might argue about, especially since none of us has seen the script. It could be an issue of mistaken impressions. The photo, though, does not need to plead the 5th.
But who knows. The Democratic Senators might try to slut shame her during her testimony, and that might work. Or not.
Not sure of the answer to the OP but there WILL be an investigation. Sen. Franken knows that.
He also knows he has been crude in the past. He has acknowledged it is inappropriate and expressed shame for what he did.
The expected flood of subsequent accusers hasn’t materialized.
The GOP is salivating about this for good reason. Franken has acknowledged past crazy behavior while on SNL including rampant drug use. By everyone around, more or less.
Franken knows what he has and hasn’t done. He has signaled he will cooperate with an ethics investigation. This attitude is pretty much unheard of.
