Split Thread A second impeachment

[Stacyhs]

Further...

“House Mgr Raskin sets a 5p Friday deadline for Trump to respond to invite to testify: "Whereas a sitting President might raise concerns abt distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify."

I don't know if he'll be able to find the time. I'm sure his golf schedule keeps him pretty busy.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The Raskin letter:

 

[Stacyhs]

It might not have been a good idea to mention that Clinton testified at his impeachment. After all, that's what got him in real trouble: he perjured himself under oath when he declared "I did not have sex with that woman".

I love how the oh, so principled Republicans voted to remove Clinton from the Presidency for lying about having oral sex, but they won't vote to convict Trump for inciting insurrection to keep him from running for the Presidency again .

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Further...

“House Mgr Raskin sets a 5p Friday deadline for Trump to respond to invite to testify: "Whereas a sitting President might raise concerns abt distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify."

Are they prepared to drag him in? Because they will have to. Another letter isn't going to cut it.

Once sworn in, he's going to be unable to recall anything. He won't recall his own name or anything he may have done in his last job. He won't recall. Do they have a plan to jog his memory besides asking nicely if he could please do a perjury for them?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Are they prepared to drag him in? Because they will have to. Another letter isn't going to cut it.

Once sworn in, he's going to be unable to recall anything. He won't recall his own name or anything he may have done in his last job. He won't recall. Do they have a plan to jog his memory besides asking nicely if he could please do a perjury for them?

I don't think it's expected that T**** will testify.

It's expected he won't and more of his (once) followers will feel betrayed that he isn't standing up to the deep state.

 

[dudalb]

He might also not get a chance to be allowed wiffle-waffle. He would be appearing before the Senate, not a judge. He could quite likely be told very firmly to stop drifting from the topic and answer the questions as put. Which would sting him badly because he hates being told he has to do anything, and this would very likely happen in public. And once stung, he is liable to say stuff that would...harm his own defence immensely, possibly increasing the likelihood of actual conviction instead of exoneration (which he believes he deserves).

House managers ask Trump to testify.
They probably can't compell Trump buecause the would violate the US rule that someone cannot be forced to testify against themsleves, but it puts pressure on Trump.

 

[dudalb]

Are they prepared to drag him in? Because they will have to. Another letter isn't going to cut it.

Once sworn in, he's going to be unable to recall anything. He won't recall his own name or anything he may have done in his last job. He won't recall. Do they have a plan to jog his memory besides asking nicely if he could please do a perjury for them?

They might not able to compell him. Most legal experts are saying that would be a violation of the basic rule of US justice that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. And am much I despise Trump, I think it would be a bad precedent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think it's expected that T**** will testify.

It's expected he won't and more of his (once) followers will feel betrayed that he isn't standing up to the deep state.

This ^ may be the actual Democratic goal rather than Trump appearing.

I'm sure Trump doesn't want to face any legislators since he lost his bid to get reelected and his bid to stop certification of the EC votes. He has to stay above it all as he plots his revenge. It would be humiliating for him to face any Senate inquisition in person.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump has responded to the Dems request to appear at the Senate trial: NO

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump's lawyers call it a 'stunt' and say that they cannot prove their case.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

They might not able to compell him. Most legal experts are saying that would be a violation of the basic rule of US justice that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. And am much I despise Trump, I think it would be a bad precedent.

As was made VERY clear during the last impeachment, this is a political process, not a judicial one. Congress can (theoretically) haul his ass in to testify about whatever it damn well pleases, it's not a court and he's not a witness.

 

[stanfr]

well of course it was a stunt (asking him to testify) since they knew full well he would refuse, but it was a smart stunt because Trump surely is frothing at the mouth wanting to testify, and surely his lawyers are having to beat him over the head to keep him quiet.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump quickly rejects impeachment managers' request for testimony at impeachment trial

The House impeachment managers on Thursday requested Donald Trump testify at his upcoming Senate impeachment trial, in a dramatic move to try to get the former President on the record about his conduct surrounding the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

But Trump's legal team quickly responded by rejecting the invitation in a terse response to the House impeachment team, putting the decision back on the Democrats over whether to try to compel Trump's testimony with a subpoena.

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin sent a letter to Trump's attorney Thursday requesting that Trump testify before or during the upcoming impeachment trial, which begins on Tuesday, arguing that his testimony was needed after he disputed the House's allegations that he incited the insurrection at the Capitol.

"Two days ago, you filed an Answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment," Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, wrote. "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."

Trump's lawyers quickly responded to Raskin's request on Thursday, writing back in a three-paragraph letter, saying the request was a sign the House could not prove its allegations against Trump.

"The use of our Constitution to bring a purported impeachment proceeding is much too serious to try to play these games," wrote Trump's attorneys, Bruce Castor and David Schoen.

Trump adviser Jason Miller confirmed that Trump was rejecting the request, telling CNN, "The President will not testify in an unconstitutional proceeding."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/04/politics/impeachment-trial-trump-testify/index.html

 

[Stacyhs]

well of course it was a stunt (asking him to testify) since they knew full well he would refuse, but it was a smart stunt because Trump surely is frothing at the mouth wanting to testify, and surely his lawyers are having to beat him over the head to keep him quiet.

I don't think it was a stunt at all. If they didn't invite him, Trump, his lawyers, and his supporters would then claim he was never given the opportunity to defend himself. Of course, the fact that he could have appeared without being invited by the Dems would never be mentioned. They would just scream that he was not allowed to appear by the Dems.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

well of course it was a stunt (asking him to testify) since they knew full well he would refuse, but it was a smart stunt because Trump surely is frothing at the mouth wanting to testify, and surely his lawyers are having to beat him over the head to keep him quiet.

Plus, when the matter of the intent of Trump’s words comes up, Trump’s lawyers will certainly raise doubt as to what he might have meant. The Democrats can continue to hammer the point: “There’s no need to guess what your client meant - we can ask him. If he claims his intent was other than to incite, it’s not too late to get him on the stand. What are you afraid of? What is HE afraid of?”

And the work on the best way to call Trump a *****, without actually calling him a *****.

 

[dirtywick]

I don't think it was a stunt at all. If they didn't invite him, Trump, his lawyers, and his supporters would then claim he was never given the opportunity to defend himself. Of course, the fact that he could have appeared without being invited by the Dems would never be mentioned. They would just scream that he was not allowed to appear by the Dems.

They claimed that anyway in the last impeachment despite refusing to participate in any way

This is just the same playbook again. Trump only has one playbook

 

[Stacyhs]

They claimed that anyway in the last impeachment despite refusing to participate in any way

This is just the same playbook again. Trump only has one playbook

Of course they did. But like last time, they will be called on it because, in fact, Trump was invited to defend himself:

And for the past couple of months, Republicans in Congress have been demanding that Trump have the opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings.


“I find it unconscionable that they have not allowed the president to defend himself on the House side,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.).

“Will he be able to defend himself?” demanded Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“He has no way to defend himself,” said Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).

But White House counsel Pat Cipollone, in his letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler ((D-N.Y.) on Friday, undermined both complaints: The letter served as a formal answer from Trump refusing the Democrats’ invitation for him to defend himself in the House proceedings, and it instructed Democrats to hurry up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

well of course it was a stunt (asking him to testify) since they knew full well he would refuse, but it was a smart stunt because Trump surely is frothing at the mouth wanting to testify, and surely his lawyers are having to beat him over the head to keep him quiet.

I don't think so. "No" was of course his answer. He would have no control there and he'd have to face people he lost to.

He might fantasize all the things he would "tell them" but in reality he knows that will not be what happens.

 

[bruto]

Agreeing with above, I don't think it counts as a "stunt." If an action is an appropriate part of the process, the fact that the other party scorns it does not make it a stunt.

 

[Joe Random]

I can't believe people are still stuck on the upcoming impeachment while ignoring the far more important topic : Trump resigns from SAG.

"I no longer wish to be associated with your union," Trump wrote. "As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resigning from SAG-AFTRA."

He added: "You have done nothing for me."

SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris and National Executive Director David Whit released a statement, shortly after Trump's resignation from the union.

"Thank you," they wrote.