by triadconservative_5yodkx August 2, 2023August 2, 2023 Gaetz: The House Can Grant Trump Immunity Trump Share: Post navigation « How Joe Biden Worked the SystemProfiting Off Transgender Treatments in North Carolina » 6 thoughts on “Gaetz: The House Can Grant Trump Immunity” TC: This is novel but I have read 18USC subpart b and don’t see where it could help Trump . Explain. I don’t think I can explain; and it does seem too good to be true, Fred. Gaetz advanced the theory, and I hope he has a firm basis for doing so… I don’t know but I don’t think so because he’s already been indicted. The de facto immunity power of congress occurs if and when a witness refuses to answer because of a Fifth Amendment claim. Then, Congress moves to force the witness to testify and whatever the witness then says cannot later be used to prosecute him or her. In the Trump cases, the indictments already have been filed and whatever evidence they have will not be tainted by him being forced to testify in congress, assuming he would be called to do so, which is doubtful. That seems to make sense, Fred. I guess we will see if Gaetz pursues this further. Here’s how I read the statute. They subpoena Trump to testify to a friendly subcommittee. Trump refuses. The subcommittee chair can then compel Trump to testify by granting him immunity from prosecution based on anything he says OR any associated evidence he presents to the committee. So Trump, having already gone through discovery and seeing the evidence Smith has against him, is “forced” to testify before the subcommittee, and during this testimony he reveals all of the evidence against him and by doing so effectively neuters the entire Smith case because nothing he says or shows to the committee can then be used against him in court, except if he makes false statements. Yes, you are taking a statute whose intent is to compel testimony, and perverting it to grant immunity to Trump, but let’s be real, the only reason Trump is being charged is to attempt to prohibit him from becoming President (election interference), so in my book this is a legitimate perversion. Fight fire with fire. I can’t say whether this would definitely pass legal muster, or whether it would work. But JBK, I agree with your reasoning. If it can be done, then let’s do it… Comments are closed.