Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Will the four subpoenaed witnesses "take the 5th"? [View all]
Or will they claim "executive privilege"?
Or will they answer the Committee's questions?
Or will they challenge the Committee's authority and not even show up?
It's a good bet that the Committee has plenty of questions to ask each of these conspirators. Taking the "5th" will not stop them from asking their questions. It only stops the witness from having to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate him. The same portrait can be painted with or without the witness answering the questions. The viewer will infer what they wish from the questions.
I think we may be getting close to Merrick Garland time?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
68 replies, 2999 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That would be interesting since he has the strongest claim of the four for executive privilege
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#60
Democrats are like the Colonial soldiers against the Americans in the Revolutionary war.
johnthewoodworker
Sep 2021
#11
Exactly which "antiquated laws" are Dems fighting with, which ones do you think should they ignore
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#27
If they don't show up, there's no need for the Sergeant-at-Arms to get involved
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#19
Thanks. Though rarely done I thought the Sergeant At Arms could arrest and detain people who
Tadpole Raisin
Sep 2021
#29
Trying to use the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest people is very complicated and probably won't ever work
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#48
If they defy the subpoena and don't have valid grounds (executive privilege or 5th Amendment)
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#20
That's my fear; that this will end up in court and take a year or two to process.
Midnight Writer
Sep 2021
#32
I understand. But in reality, the courts have moved very quickly and fairly in most of these cases
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#39
This seems like it would be a very high profile and "politically prickly" case...?
kentuck
Sep 2021
#42
That's why I said that it's possible that the US attorney would seek Garland's approval
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#44
I don't see him ever getting publicly involved in a contempt of Congress prosecution
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#50
If he refused without exerting a privilege, yes, that would be a big deal
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#59
I say a little rendition trip to a black site in the mideast and a little waterboarding
Hotler
Sep 2021
#46
Is the committee issues a contempt of Congress citation, the U.S. Attorney will no doubt enforce
StarfishSaver
Sep 2021
#53