Resolves YES if Trump provides testimony for the Jan 6 congressional committee. Obtaining his testimony at deposition would be sufficient for YES. It is not necessary that the testimony be made live or be made available to the public. Resolves NO otherwise when the committee formally closes.
Background:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63251303 "January 6 panel votes to issue subpoena for Trump testimony"
Mr Trump - who has lambasted the inquiry as a ruse designed to distract US voters from the "disaster" of Democratic governance - is widely expected to refuse to testify and fight the subpoena.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/oct/14/trump-testimony-jan-6-hearing-subpoena-midterms-debates "Trump reportedly wants to testify before January 6 committee – live"
Ex-president privately tells aides he wants to speak before the House committee live, reports say, after subpoena issued
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/14/trump-testify-letter-jan-6-committee-00061859 "Trump doesn’t say whether he’ll testify in letter to Jan. 6 committee"
Former President Donald Trump, in a winding 14-page letter to the Jan. 6 select committee on Friday, declined to divulge whether he’d comply with the panel’s subpoena and testify before it
Related
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ297 | |
| 2 | Ṁ27 | |
| 3 | Ṁ10 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 | |
| 5 | Ṁ5 |
People are also trading
“dissolved when the newly elected House took office on January 3, 2023” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack)
@yaboi69 (FWIW this seems to be an unsourced statement; maybe it’s self-evident for Congress wonks, I don’t know.)
@yaboi69 they've issued their final report. https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection
@jack please resolve this market.
tldr: Unless there are any objections, resolving NO even though technically this market should probably stay open slightly longer
@yaboi69 I think you're right that it's unsourced and after looking into it I believe that technically it hasn't happened yet. @CromlynGames Issuing a final report is not the same as the committee formally closing.
E.g. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3803002-end-of-jan-6-panel-opens-new-chapter-for-department-of-justice/ says "The select committee’s investigation, which effectively ended with the culmination of the last Congress" - effectively is not the same as formally.
On the other hand, the committee itself clearly has wrapped up their work in expectation of the committee being dissolved after the new House came into session.
I think it's >99.9% safe to resolve NO, although technically the committee does not appear to have closed yet, it's good to unlock people's mana. I would be happier with resolving NO now if Manifold allowed re-resolving in the future if a weird unexpected situation came to pass: /jack/will-it-be-possible-to-undochange-t .
@jack It's formally ended, not just effectively. All business from the 117th is ended officially and must be resubmitted to be considered still open. There is no resolution creating the committee and making the rules for it's operation. Since it wasn't bipartisan it didn't even have full committee status, it was technically a special committee that only the Speaker has the power to create so it is definitely more than "effectively" over, it's nonexistent. The co-chair isn't even a member anymore. The last order of business was actually to cancel Trump'e supeona.
