Not mutually exclusive, of course.
Yes, but how is that different from / better than where we are right now? Do we think that perjuring himself will suddenly wake the Trumpistas? Or that he will ever be convicted of anything to the point of serving time?
Not any better. Purely a tit-for-tat, as the Republicans opened the door for bringing former presidents in to testify.
She sounds like someone having a nervous breakdown. Which is probably the case.
Trump, like Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men, is so convinced that what he is doing is the correct and only way to do things, that a skilled questioner, with carefully prepared questions, might prompt a “You can’t handle the truth!” moment. But Colonel Jessup—er, Jack Nicholson—is following a script. Trump doesn’t. So there are no guarantees on that.
Trump isn’t going to testify under oath anywhere, including Congress and especially if it’s a “democrat” Congress.
Not because he knows the dangers. He doesn’t know anything about Law. It’s all baby gets to whine and get his rattle.
But ‘under oath’ means nothing to this man, and he surely doesn’t understand it. This is a person that has lied every day of his life, cheated everyone including his wives, and relatives.
Telling the truth and paying taxes is for those other people.
It means nothing to him but it does mean something to his lawyers. And he’s always been advised to avoid testifying under oath - because they all know he’s fundamentally incapable of telling the truth.
He’ll avoid testifying under oath to Congress for the same reason. Not because he understands it but because his legal advisors will tell him there’s no benefit and only risk to it
Now I want a bad sit-com where this is the catch phrase.
And she’s been canned.
Avoid it and has too are different things.
Can he avoid it if he is ordered to testify under oath?
Good for her. Now she can collect unemployment while she tries to heal her soul.
You can’t collect unemployment if you’ve been fired
“Ordered” is kind of a nebulous thing when it comes to Congressional summons. Jim Jordan still hasn’t appeared for the Jan-6 commission despite the subpoena.
But suppose he shows up anyway. In those situations, he’s also generally been advised to plead the 5th. One’s appearance can be compelled (for a given value of ‘compelled’) but not self-incriminating testimony.
The main issue ultimately boils down to one of the known potential failure points for a democracy - people can knowingly still vote for a corrupt, incompetent boob despite (or because) the knowledge he’s not worthy or capable of the job.
Yes you can. Not if you quit.
I hope she has a case for improper dismissal.
I suspect this one won’t be that black and white:
Three guesses what the government’s position will be in this case.
Do we know how the Fifth Amendment works with congressional hearings? In nongovernmental criminal cases, you can’t take someone’s invocation in establishing a person’s guilt, but a civil case doesn’t have that same latitude.
Which rules apply for congressional hearings?
They aren’t criminal proceedings but you can certainly invoke your 5th Amendment rights at a Congressional hearing, if you think your testimony will lead to criminal charges.
Recent examples I can recall include Martin Shkreli (the Pharma Bro) invoking his 5th Amendment right several times in front of Congress. And in a more directly related example, Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers have indicated she intends to do so as well - the skeletons we know about are already bad and we can all but conclusively verify she was involved in worse. Hillary Clinton famously did not invoke the 5th in her several hours long grilling by Republicans over Benghazi.
I may be overthinking this, but if the president can do no wrong, as SCOTUS has explained, he has no criminal charges to face, ever, therefore he can’t plead the fifth. He has nothing to fear. Except for his reputation, whatever that means in his head.
Which, in an ideal dreamworld, could lead to criminal charges. Later. Much later.
I doubt he has that much life left in him.