Lead House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sent a letter to Donald Trump’s lawyers on Thursday, “inviting” Trump to testify under oath at or before next week’s Senate trial, in which the Democrat said Trump should dispute “factual allegations” in person.
“In light of your disputing these factual allegations,” Raskin wrote, “I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, concerning your conduct on Jan. 6, 2021.”
Earlier today, Raskin sent a letter to Trump requesting that he testify under oath for his Senate impeachment trial. https://t.co/mvbG8mvOQT
— Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) February 4, 2021
Somewhat comically, Raskin also tossed in an “or else” threat to Trump.
“If you decline the invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
As to “somewhat comically,” 45 Senate Republicans last week voted against a Senate trial, which strongly suggested Chuck Schumer’s Senate will not be able to convict Trump.
So the question is why would Trump show up? What would he have to gain? Zero and zero.
The Democratic lawmakers told Trump he should explain why he denies inciting the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol by his supporters.
The managers suggested Trump agree to testify and undergo cross-examination early next week.https://t.co/WMzauX2FL5
— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 4, 2021
Raskin’s mention of Trump disputing “factual allegations” was in reference to the Answer to the Article of Impeachment against him, which was delivered to House managers on Tuesday. The Answer was based on the premise that Trump did not violate his oath of office and also that his speech was protected under the First Amendment.
“It is denied that the 45th President of the United States ever engaged in a violation of his oath of office. To the contrary, at all times, Donald J. Trump fully and faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at all times acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, while never engaging in any high Crimes or Misdemeanors.”
Trump’s lawyers also addressed the issue of whether or not an impeachment trial of a former president is constitutional, which has been bandied about vociferously by those who say it is not and those who believe it is. Needless to say, Trump and his attorneys agreed with those who say a Senate trial would be unconstitutional.
“It is denied that the quoted provision currently applies to the 45th President of the United States since he is no longer President. The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached.
“Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the clause shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for the clause ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment is impossible for the Senate to accomplish.”
In addition to Raskin’s “or else” threat, he also seemed to suggest Trump should agree to testify, simply because previous presidents have testified — followed by the classic “assumptive close.”
“Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both provided testimony while in office — and the Supreme Court held just last year that you were not immune from legal process while serving as President — so there is no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings. Indeed, whereas a sitting President might raise concerns about distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify.”
Again, Trump and his lawyers would have to be fools to show up. Donald Trump may be a lot of things in the eyes of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd, but a fool he is not.
Here’s the letter in its entirety.
Dear President Trump,
As you are aware, the United States House of Representatives has approved an article of impeachment against you for incitement of insurrection. See H. Res. 24. The Senate trial for this article of impeachment will begin on Tuesday, February 9, 2021. See S. Res. 16.
Two days ago, you filed an Answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment. You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense. In light of your disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, concerning your conduct on January 6, 2021.
We would propose that you provide your testimony (of course including cross-examination) as early as Monday, February 8, 2021, and not later than Thursday, February 11, 2021. We would be pleased to arrange such testimony at a mutually convenient time and place.
Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both provided testimony while in office—and the Supreme Court held just last year that you were not immune from legal process while serving as President—so there is no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings. Indeed, whereas a sitting President might raise concerns about distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify.
If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.
I would request that you respond to this letter by no later than Friday, February 5, 2021 at 5pm. I look forward to your response and to your testimony.
Very truly yours,
Lead Impeachment Manager
It should be noted that Raskin’s “threat” did not include a subpoena if Trump refuses to testify. When asked on Thursday if he would consider subpoenaing Trump if he failed to agree to testify, Raskin declined to answer.
Translation: the Democrats are fully aware that Donald Trump is not going to testify and they are fully aware that he not going to be convicted in the Senate.
So why the invitation to testify? Why Impeachment Charades 1.0 and 2.0 in the first place?
Because the Democrat Party and their liberal media sock puppets — with Nancy Pelosi as the hood ornament on the Impeach Trump clown car — still cannot wrap their TDS-riddled heads around the fact that Donald J. Trump beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016.
And they never will.
View original Post