Could Melanoma be subpoenaed about Traitor45/putin secret talks?

[tikka]

She was there for two talks. I don't know if this would violate the prohibition of a wife testifying against her husband. She would be testifying about the conversations and not against Traitor45. I would love to see her lie in her testimony and get jail time just because she is as evil as Traitor45.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

1. I don't see why not,

guilty as sin?

[Turbineguy]

2. She can't be made to testify against her husband

presumably.

Of course she might want to. OK, small might.

[thucythucy]

4. Doesn't that only apply to a criminal trial?

I would think Congressional testimony would be a whole other matter, but I don't know.

[In It to Win It]

9. Does this not only apply to conversations between the spouses?

Doesn’t that go out the window when a 3rd party is present?

Is there a distinction between spousal conversations between Trump and the wife, and conversations between Trump and whoever else?

Is this really a testifying against Donald Trump? ...as opposed to testifying about a conversation between Trump and Whoever else?

[2naSalit]

3. I would imagine she could.

I think that in her unique case, she is a possible co-conspirator so.

Now you have to differentiate between testifying before Congress and testifying in a criminal court as I think the thing you refer to is relative to courts and not necessarily Congress.

[clementine613]

5. It's a shame there's no way to annul the marriage...

... removing the immunity.

[mackdaddy]

6. Can Melanoma speak Russian?

I know she was born a Soviet Citizen, but do not know which languages she speaks.

I was wondering if she might not have been a sort of translator for the giant head.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Gotta love lay permutations of legal theories.

There are two general privileges/incompetencies that can influence whether a wife can be compelled to testify against her husband.

1. Marital privilege (pretty universal). This protects confidential communications made during the marriage (in order to protect the sanctity of marriage by removing the risk of full disclosure with one's spouse). The privilege can be exercised by the non-testifying spouse in perpetuity to prevent the other to testify about any confidential communication that were made during the marriage.

These communications are made during the marriage - but since Putin was present, they are not confidential - and not subject to the privilege.

2. Spousal incompetence (I'm not sure this is as universal - this is the Ohio version). With limited exceptions, a spouse is deemed incompetent to testify against the other spouse during the marriage in a criminal matter. The testifying spouse holds the privilege - so if she wants to testify, she can. If she doesn't, she is incompetent.

Assuming the applicable law is similar, she can't be forced to testify against him in a criminal matter as long as they are married.

(Note: This precise presumption of incompetence is not in the same location, at least, in the rules of federal evidence - I haven't looked to see if it has a parallel later)

[tikka]

8. Thanks for the clarifications