During an appearance on MSNBC, Nancy Pelosi questioned former President Donald Trump’s manhood. When asked whether she believes that Trump will agree to testify before the Jan. 6 committee, Pelosi said she didn’t think he was “man enough” to do it.
“I don’t think he’s man enough to show up,” the House speaker told host Jonathan Capehart in an interview that aired Sunday.
On Friday, the committee subpoenaed the former president, writing, “We recognize that a subpoena to a former President is a significant and historic action. We do not take this action lightly.” The committee gave Trump deadlines of Nov. 4 to comply with the panel’s request for documents and “on or about” Nov. 14 to testify. On the same day the committee issued the subpoena to former president, a Trump-appointed judge sentenced his ally, Steve Bannon, to four months in prison and a $6,500 fine for criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to testify before the committee.
Pelosi went on to say that Trump’s attorneys may also oppose him testifying because he would be under oath, thus exposing him to potential perjury charges if he is not entirely truthful. “I don’t think his lawyers will want him to show up because he has to testify under oath,” she said. “But I don’t think he’ll show up. I don’t think he’s man enough. We’ll see. Let’s see if he is man enough to show up, and the public should make their judgment.”
“No one is above the law,” she added.
But Trump may still try to dodge the subpoena. According to The New York Times, there is no Supreme Court precedent on whether Congress can compel a former president to testify, and if Republicans take over the House in the midterm elections, he may only need to delay his testimony until Democrats are out of power, since the GOP will likely shutter the committee if given the opportunity.
“We are in a constitutional gray area here where there is no clear guidance as to exactly what should happen,” Mark J. Rozell, a George Mason University professor, told the Times. “That gives the former president some leeway to put forward various creative legal arguments and ultimately delay the process until it doesn’t matter anymore.”