To anyone upset that Hope Hicks isn't testifying in public, consider this

[StarfishSaver]

There is no legal basis for Congress to compel any witness to testify in public. They can demand they appear before the committee to provide testimony but if a witness agrees to appear to give testimony but doesn't want to testify in public, Congress has no legal basis to force them to appear in public.

Of course, Congress could hold out and insist that she testify in a public hearing, and, in the meantime get nada.

Or they can subpoena her to testify in public and, when she refuses, take her to court.

And the short and sweet hearing would go something like this:.

HOUSE: We're here to ask you to enforce our subpoena requiring Ms Hicks to testify in public.

JUDGE: You're saying Ms Hicks refuses to appear before the committee

HOUSE: No, not exactly your honor Miss Hicks has agreed to appear in front of the committee but she won't do it testifying public.

JUDGE: Excuse me?

HOUSE: She's agreed to testify but she won't testify in public.

JUDGE: Has she greed to testify?

HOUSE: Yes, Your Honor

JUDGE: Has she agreed to testify on the record?

HOUSE: Yes, Your Honor

JUDGE: Has she agreed to have her testimony transcribed?

HOUSE: Yes your honor

JUDGE: Has she agreed to allow you to release the transcription to the public?

HOUSE: Yes, Your Honor

JUDGE: Then, what's the problem?

HOUSE: We'd like the public to watch her testify on television.

JUDGE: Get the hell out of my courtroom! And if you waste the this court's time like this ever again I'll hold YOU in contempt

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Has she been scheduled to testify yet?

I'm assuming she's still refusing to talk about her time in the WH, because executive privilege "might" be invoked...that's what they should take her to court on.

[StarfishSaver]

2. Yes. She's agreed to testify and is scheduled to do so next Wednesday.

But some here are upset that she's not testifying in public and are accusing the committee of wimping out. I'm trying to explain why such criticism is off base.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. I'm more concerned that she thinks she can pick and choose what to testify about nt

[Hoyt]

3. To me it's not a big deal. If the witness has something earth shattering to say, we'll hear about it

If not, probably good it was in private.

Truthfully, if I had to testify on something like this, I’d want to avoid all the grandstanding by House members.

[LonePirate]

4. She is "testifying" with a WH lawyer present to object/overrule any question they wish.

Her “testimony” is worth less than used toilet paper.

[StarfishSaver]

5. Lol

People demand the House force her to testify. But when they do, the reaction is "Meh! Who cares? She doesn't have anything new or important to say and she'll have lawyers with her, so what's the big deal?"

[tableturner]

6. I disagree....she has no veto power over hearing procedures.

If she were subpoenaed, she would have to show up and testify, irrespective of whether it would be televised or not. A person subpoenaed cannot say to a federal judge "It's okay to ignore the subpoena because the hearing will be televised. The fact that it is televised nullifies the power of Congress to enforce the subpoena." Again, she has no say over hearing procedures.

And as to whether or not the private nature of the testimony negatively affects the power of the testimony to affect public opinion, it definitely does. Look....are the masses who did not read the Mueller report going to read tons of pages of Hicks' testimony? No! We need this to be dramatized in the living rooms of America to move the impeachment needle. This would be no better than the Mueller report.....what she is going to say is already in the Mueller report that 99% of the public has not read!

If this does not change, then her testimony will harm Trump no more than the Mueller report has.....meaning that it would not harm Trump's standing enough to get the masses behind impeachment. If it's private, it will be a disaster relative to moving the impeachment needle!

[StarfishSaver]

7. Not true

No court is likely to hold a witness in contempt for refusing to testify in public of they've agreed to testify in a private setting - which means Congress has no way of enforcing witness to appear in public hearing if they're willing testifying private.

And since the point of the testimony is to get the information it elicits, going to the mat in order to try to force the testimony to be done in public - resulting in getting no testimony at all in the meantime - is rather foolish.

[tableturner]

9. It IS true! Go to.....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212183624

You will see, with citations, that it is true.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Ok. Whatever

[uponit7771]

11. I Read the link posted, the poster does have a point, congress makes the rules in their purview

The courts have ruled on this already

[StarfishSaver]

13. Actually he doesn't have a point

Among other things, Congress' "broad discretion” to conduct investigative proceedings and to decide what aspects of such proceedings are to be made public" doesn't mean a court will order a witness who is willing to testify to do so in public. There's a difference between deciding what part of someone's testimony will be made public and forcing someone to testify in television.

I'm not in the mood to argue the law and congressional procedure with people who don't understand either, I'll leave it at that for now.

But in the meantime feel free to produce precedent for a court enforcing a contempt citation against a witness willing to testify under oath and on the record because they refused to do so in a public hearing.

[jayfish]

14. "I'm not in the mood to argue the law and congressional procedure with people who don't understand"

Ummm... This is your thread. You were "in the mood" to make assertion that she can't be compelled to testify in court using nothing other than banter from a fictitious court proceeding. It is incumbent on you to explain and back your claim.

[StarfishSaver]

15. I've explained it repeatedly

But as much as I enjoy arguing and often do argue with people who don't understand the law or congressional procedure, I'm not in the mood right now to argue with people who don't know what they're talking about just because they want me to.

If what I've already explained in considerable depth in this thread and elsewhere isn't enough for anyone and they want me to give them more, that's not my problem.

[jayfish]

16. You have explained nothing in this thread.

You have backed your "explanations" with even less and I've never even seen your handle before let alone another post by you.

[msongs]

12. body language and tone are nearly as important at lying words. those cannot be

determined from a transcript