“I don’t think he can invoke the 5th amendment.
But he can simply refuse to answer any questions.”
He sure as hell can. They can only compel testimony IF they grant him immunity. And he is already in the middle of a criminal case so every word in his testimony would be available to prosecutors. And Stone alone gets to decide if discussing something could potentially expose him to prosecution.
He must appear, but then he can indeed invoke his 5th amendments rights.
He doesn’t have to appear unless he is compelled to, and we haven’t reached that point yet.
His reply to Nadler’s request states “I have elected not to participate. I’m executing my Fifth Amendment right given the fact that I’m facing this legal proceeding in Washington,” he said. “I have no intention of going before this committee or supplying any documents whatsoever.”
Now Nadler can take that as his final offer and move on. OR Nadler could subpoena him and force him to appear, but to what end if Stone’s already said he’s not talking?
Vindictiveness?
Maybe, but politically it wouldn’t look good to anyone but the most rabid Leftists.
Personally I think Nadler will move on. Nothing to see here.
He doesn’t have to appear unless they subpoena him. And then, even, he can challenge the validity of the subpoena before he shows his face before Nadler’s committee. At that time, Nadler will have to show his hand and if he’s on a fishing expedition he’ll have to say it. Of course, before a like minded judge, which they will make sure they get, Stone will probably lose, initially. But he can continue to keep fighting until it reaches SCOTUS, for all it matters.
And, if he’s forced to show up, then he can plead the 5th.
However, I’d love to see him show up and then start playing Candy Crush on his phone and not say a damn word.