Things are taking a predictably dramatic turn in the impeachment hearing. As you are aware, House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin asked Trump to testify earlier today.

“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.”

“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 mean, dudes, is this inflammatory language? It’s not even tepid. Somnambulant would actually characterize it. But not to Trump/Jeffrey Epstein attorney David Schoen. He read this in an entirely different light.

Now at that time, a little over an hour ago at the time of this writing, Schoen was not saying that Trump refused to testify. However, something changed in the interim and now Trump will not testify at all.

Now the ball pings back and we’ll see what Raskin’s pong will be.

 

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

6 COMMENTS

  1. Somebody must have managed to get the fact that lying under oath = time in jail (and the idiot couldn’t tell the truth to save his life)

  2. Just as well, he would only have grandstanded for the TV audience about the stolen election, and I doubt the Senate would stifle him (see Alice in Wonderland).
    They can draw a lot of inferences about his silence though. And they will.

  3. The House managers sure won’t subpoena him (and Schumer isn’t that good a majority leader) – they’re not very good at that stuff. You have to make it clear that not showing up gets you hauled in by guys with handcuffs and firearms.

  4. I can certainly understand why his lawyer(s) wouldn’t want him to testify. Has that mouth ever done anything but get him, and us, in trouble?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here