Trump Rejects Request for Impeachment Testimony Under Oath
(Bloomberg) -- Attorneys for Donald Trump rejected a request from House impeachment managers for the former president to testify under oath about his conduct on Jan. 6 when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, calling it a stunt.
The lead impeachment manager, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, said in a letter to Trump released Thursday that the former president has disputed “factual allegations” and put “critical facts at issue,” and that he should agree to testify.
But Trump impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor told NBC “no” when asked whether Trump will testify. Castor and David Schoen, another Trump lawyer, released a letter responding to Raskin, dismissing the request for testimony as “your latest public relations stunt.”
“Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: you cannot prove your allegations against the 45th president of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” the attorneys said in their letter.
Raskin, in his letter, had requested Trump's testimony either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, set to begin Tuesday. He was given until 5 p.m. Friday to respond.
“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 Jan. 6, 2021,” the letter says.
What to Know About Trump's Second Impeachment Trial: QuickTake
Raskin said the initial impeachment answer that Trump's lawyers filed on Tuesday disputed several facts about his actions on Jan. 6, including the charge that he provoked the violent assault on the Capitol when he told his supporters at a rally beforehand that “if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country any more.”
Raskin wrote that Trump has “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,” he added.
Raskin said in his letter there's no doubt that Trump can testify, pointing out that former presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both provided testimony while in office and that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Trump was not immune from the legal process while serving as president.
“Indeed, whereas a sitting president might raise concerns about distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here,” Raskin added. “We therefore anticipate your availability to testify.”
But Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close Trump ally, said it would be “just a nightmare for the country” if the former president agreed to testify. He dismissed the letter from the impeachment managers as a “political showboat.”
Earlier: Both Parties Envision Short Impeachment Trial for Trump
“Obviously, it's a political ploy on their part,” Graham said of the request. “They didn't call him in the House.”
Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware agreed that having Trump testify was “a terrible idea.” When asked why by reporters, he said, “Have you met President Trump?”
The House voted to impeach Trump Jan. 13 on a single charge of inciting an insurrection related to his attempts to overturn Joe Biden's Nov. 3 victory with baseless claims that the presidential election was stolen.
Constitutional Question
Trump's legal team is arguing that the Senate has no constitutional authority to hold an impeachment trial now that he's out of office, and that his speech to the crowd on Jan. 6 was protected by the First Amendment and didn't cause the insurrection that followed. Trump's rights also were violated by the snap impeachment, his attorneys said in their filing.
“There was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did,” the lawyers said in their 14-page reply. “Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in America, especially in the Congress of the United States.”
Raskin and the other eight House impeachment said in their almost 80-page brief filed Tuesday that the trial is constitutional because Trump was still in office when he was impeached by the House, and he can't escape a trial because he left office. They also rejected claims that the impeachment violates Trump's free speech and due-process rights.
©2021 Bloomberg L.P.
-
The Economic Imperative: Analysing The Material Driving Force Behind India-Canada Strategic Reset
This economic complementarity is further reinforced by deep institutional investment ties and talent mobility, which form the bedrock of the bilateral framework.
-
Medicine Pricing: Where Must Profit Stop?
India must confront excessive margins, hidden incentives and regulatory gaps that threaten the integrity of medicine.
-
Why Amazon And Flipkart Are Struggling To Beat Meesho In India's Smaller Cities
With 274 million users and lowest-cost logistics, Meesho is defending its value commerce crown against giants like Amazon and Flipkart.
-
High US Salaries, No Green Card Certainty: The Financial Calculation Facing Indian H-1B Families
The suspension of PERM processing at eight technology employers does not cancel existing H-1B visas. What it does is force a question many Indian families have been avoiding: is the US salary worth tying your career and family plans to one employer?
-
Swiggy vs Eternal: Food Delivery's Two Rivals Are No Longer In The Same Race
Eternal is building a private AI assistant, dark.ai. Swiggy is still working out how to make Instamart pay, with an operating loss of Rs 895 crore in the July-September quarter while Blinkit stayed profitable.
-
Where You Live Shapes How You Get To Work | The Reason Why
Two-wheelers are the most popular way to get to work in India, accounting for nearly 43% of workplace commutes.
-
Unhedged Position: Can India See An Indonesia-Style Time Correction?
The Nifty is trading below levels it first clocked in 2024. Is there, then, as I have suggested in the headline, potential that the current time correction drags on painfully for the next three-five, even ten years?
-
Navigating Friction And Energy Realities: An Analysis Of Marco Rubio's October Visit To India
Occurring at a critical juncture marked by stalled trade negotiations and escalating geopolitical pressures over global energy supplies, the visit offers a profound window into modern US-India relations.
-
India Exports Capital. Why Not Export Trusteeship?
The big question, then, is whether India can build an institution that global borrowers, investors, banks, and lawyers can trust, even without an Indian connection.
-
France's Economy & Politics Are In Crisis | The Reason Why
Let's look at how the French economy and politics evolved under Nicolas Sarkozy, Franois Hollande and Emmanuel Macron.