This is just weird and incoherent. If the argument is that you think the whole probe is illegitimate, well, you’re going to lose, but at least that’s an intelligible position. “I’m gonna cooperate and produce records but testimony is a bridge too far” makes no sense.
Makes no sense as a public argument, anyway. “I’m afraid of getting caught in a lie if I testify” makes sense as a motive, it’s just not going to get you very far with a judge, and doesn’t sound great.
That said, I don’t understand anything about the reasoning behind this challenge. I haven’t done a deep dive into the legal arguments he’s making, but on face it just seems hopeless. And presumably quite expensively hopeless.
