Let the son of a bitch answer questions about his actions and state of mind during the leadup to January 6, and see if he can do it under oath without perjuring himself 75 times. If they put Hillary on the stand over Benghazi, why isn’t Trump being deposed by the January 6 Committee?
There’s no way to compell him if I understand it correctly.
Wasn’t there some guy who was interviewed by the January 6 committee who took the Fifth about a hundred times? Let Trump do the same. Get that on the record. Make his followers think he’s got something to hide.
One, he could/would stall it fundamentally forever, because, well, of course he would. He’d also have better standing to do so than most of the others when it came to defining executive privilege over his specific acts and actions, something that’s already been heavily involved to date, and with far less of a leg to stand on.
Second, this isn’t a court, and he could and would use it as a pulpit to spew his usual mix of lies, damn lies, and calls to action/violence, with the committee not being in a good position to effectively quiet him without making his supporters even more rabid.
So, again, why give him a change now that his internet reach has been largely limited to the goons that follow his ‘truths’. Anything directly asked of him only feeds his influence. It’s better to paint him (accurately IMHO) as a failed attempted despot, and let the DOJ get off it’s ass and follow up on all the arguably criminal actions he took.
Because, if he ends up in front of a judge (to be hoped) and ISN’T smart enough to just plead the 5th, he’s bound to get himself in trouble because, well, he’s Trump.
You’re kidding, right? His followers will admire him more for refusing to answer their questions: “See? They can’t force him to answer their tricky questions about his imaginary crimes!”
While it’s not a court, it is an investigatory body and it’s a crime to lie to them. That’s why there’s that whole “under oath” bit.
But their ability to enforce any penalties is extremely lacking, and all he’ll say is he he didn’t do anything wrong, over and over again, in a loud bombastic manner, while describing the people who took action as misled patriots who were upset over the ‘steal’. None of which are correct, but none of which are the sort of lies that get any legal action against him.
And of course, all his remarks would be carried by Fox, unlike the rest of the details. It would only be a win for him.
Of course, you’re absolutely correct if he lied about something verifiable via evidence, something might be done, but Trump rarely speaks to specifics. It’s a … talent… of his.
I believe you’re thinking of General Mike Flynn.
I don’t believe he pled the 5th “a hundred times”, but the way he did so was extremely suspicious. Almost as telling as an actual answer.
They’re handling this perfectly now. Trump is steaming furious that all the truth is coming out with nobody talking back. Nor is his face being shown 36 hours a day. Everything he hates boiled down and served live on every cable news network. Why should anyone on the committee want to interrupt that?
I have to agree with this commentary. Trump has used the courts his entire career. Go ahead and sue me. should be on his business cards.
I agree the negative news from the hearings is hurting Trump. His biggest donors are listening and I doubt they want to be associated with that craziness.
Flynn did plead the fifth, but Jeffery Clark pleaded the fifth One-Hundred Twenty Five (125) times and the Committee made a point of noting it for the record.
I don’t buy that. It implies that Trump is untouchable, invulnerable, perennially above the law. There are lots of reasons to be cynical about the judicial system but not to that degree. I also believe that most juries, if their members are fairly selected, take their responsibilities seriously and reach verdicts consistent with the evidence. Trump’s crimes are so blatant and egregious that I see no option but to indict.
He did ask a question that seemed telling, he asked if the question that was asked was requesting a legal answer or a moral one. That seemed to indicate that the 2 answers would be different which indicates that he thought the insurrection may have been moral but not legal. That is a inference however it was an answer and can be used against him.
If there was a chance he would tell the truth about anything, it might make sense to depose him, but Trump can’t tell the truth… it’s not in his makeup. So instead of letting him broadcast more lies, they let him seeth while his minions spill the beans of what really happened. The only question is whether Trump is stupid/arrogant enough to believe his own bullship or if this is all just one big con game. I know which way I would bet.
One more comment on the subject of today’s hearing.
I was very pleased that Liz Cheney was the one who handled the questioning. In my opinion she is head and shoulders above the other committee members when it comes to conducting an interview or a cross examination (and this is something of a combination of both).
I hate it when a member sort of leads the witness to a soundbite they want, and all of them have done that (Cheney the least and on the few occasions where a second question is required to get to the point she is better at it than the others). When they ask something like: “Did anyone seem inebriated at the White House?” it just sounds to me like: “Now tell us the part about what an ass Giuliani was being that night.”.
If you ask a vague question like was anyone over served, the answer could be: “Well, there is this intern who got plastered, and [someone very insignificant] had to take a cab home because they couldn’t drive.” Cheney does show a clip- “let’s see what you said about this before.”, then she asks a different but related question that allows the witness to expand their answer and hit any detail they had left out during deposition. I find it much, much more effective in both relating the material, and in seeming to allow the witness to have their say without committing a ‘begging the question’ situation where you provide the answer within the question. And apologies for not being able to phase this more concisely.
From my point of view you may both be right. One thing seems very clear however, if he ever does get on a stand-- it better be in a criminal case where the judge can order him to answer the quest and not pontificate. If he refuses he can be held in contempt, fined, detained, and to a large degree controlled. I agree that making him a witness by the January 6th Committee is just giving him a platform to call the entire thing illegitimate. But any decent state or federal judge will not take any shit off of him in a criminal trial if I am accurately informed. World of difference in my opinion and I recognize there are some here, perhaps many who are far more informed on the matter than I am. Perhaps one of them can confirm or refute my assertion.
WITCH HUNT!
DEEP STATE!
FAKE NEWS!
That’s all.
The Yekaterinburg solution looks more and more appealing.
What Monty said. Trump’s followers are moron cultists. There is literally nothing Trump can do or say, no matter how incriminating, that they will not cognitively distort into evidence of his strength and strategic genius.
This is irking Trumpists too. I’ve looked in on a right-wing message board, and they are furious that there is no cross-examination, no questions from pro-Trump lawyers, no chance to catch anybody in perjury. To use your words, nobody “is talking back,” because those @#$% Dems on the Committee won’t let them.
What they do not understand is that the Committee hearing is not a trial. There need not be any of the above at the hearing; it’s simply taking place to gather information.
But these posters don’t listen to more reasonable posts from reasonable posters. “It’s a kangaroo court, the witnesses are lying, and once those Secret Service agents that Cassidy Hutchinson claimed had to wrest Trumps arm off the steering wheel testify, she’ll be going to jail for perjury.”
Trump heads a cult.
Trumpists are morons. If they hear that Trump was deposed, they will quote it as an admission that he was removed from office illegally.