No. But they will be the ones making decisions as to what comes into evidence.

For a congressional hearing - governed by the Federal Evidence Code, not FL. She can testify as to acts she witnessed. They have to be relevant & not more prejudicial than probative. Unless she saw him molesting someone probably not coming in. The statements he made are protected during the marriage

She can't testify that she made the statement on direct. I can't really think of a scenario that shows relevant state of mind as to her.

Technically it can be offered to show what a person did next if they believed the statement and what they did next was relevant to the action. Most of the time we are trying to get it in and counting on the fact that the jury won't get that distinction.

It's saying something to those who are actual lawyers and judges.

Not the point. Congressional hearings are very different the court of law hearings. There is a bias, interest, and motive in congressional hearings. Courts of law are theoretically there to have unbiased finders of fact. That is not a congressional role.

It has to do with the likelihood of Congress respecting the assertion of privilege in this context. Whether or not any Congress respects the assertion of the privilege in any context depends on who is in power.

This Congress is not going to subpoena her. It is a Republican pro Trump Congress.

Unsettled. There has yet to be a case where it was asserted and there was a refusal to answer that then went to a higher court.

Not true. See CA Evidence Code 980