![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
What's the probability that Covfefe will refuse to testify under oath for the Mueller investigation?
I'd say that it's greater than 50% because:
1) both he and his lawyer are aware of his tendency to lie habitually, even when it's totally unnecessary;
2) he's already declaring the investigation being unfair ("the greatest political WITCH HUNT in American history.");
3) there's no upside in testifying because an honest testimony won't bring him any additional votes;
4) his closest allies are warning him about the dangers of impeachment;
5) there's an advantage in dragging out the testimony until after the House elections in 2018.
A rational actor would not testify unless compelled by law or out of fear that his co-defendants would testify against him (The Prisoner's Dilemma). I'd bet 3 to 2 that Covfefe will either not testify at all or refuse to answer key (need to specify) questions until at least the end of 2018. The rational actor would argue that the focus of the investigation should be on the alleged Russian hacking, not obstruction of justice; therefore there's no need to testify.
I'd say that it's greater than 50% because:
1) both he and his lawyer are aware of his tendency to lie habitually, even when it's totally unnecessary;
2) he's already declaring the investigation being unfair ("the greatest political WITCH HUNT in American history.");
3) there's no upside in testifying because an honest testimony won't bring him any additional votes;
4) his closest allies are warning him about the dangers of impeachment;
5) there's an advantage in dragging out the testimony until after the House elections in 2018.
A rational actor would not testify unless compelled by law or out of fear that his co-defendants would testify against him (The Prisoner's Dilemma). I'd bet 3 to 2 that Covfefe will either not testify at all or refuse to answer key (need to specify) questions until at least the end of 2018. The rational actor would argue that the focus of the investigation should be on the alleged Russian hacking, not obstruction of justice; therefore there's no need to testify.
no subject
Jan. 16, 1998: Starr contacts Attorney General Janet Reno to get permission to expand his probe. Reno agrees and submits the request to a panel of three federal judges. The judges agree to allow Starr to formally investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case.
Aug. 17, 1998: President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
http://www1.udel.edu/POSCISR/jpika/timeline.html
The alleged crime: 9 words "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/laurence-tribe-perjury-about-a-blowjob-is-not-nearly-as-serious-as-perjury-about-russian-meddling/
no subject
no subject
Ken Starr set two important legal precedents:
1. The ability to indict a sitting president.
2. The ability to nullify the executive privilege when forcing president's aides to testify to the grand jury.
March 20, 1998: President Clinton decides to formally invoke executive privilege.
May 5, 1998: Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson rules against President Clinton's claim of executive privilege.
June 1, 1998: Clinton's defense team decides to drop the appeal on the executive privilege ruling.
no subject