Democrats say they do not need Trump’s testimony

(CNN) – The Democrats in the House of Representatives are suing as fiscal in the case against Donald Trump signaling a private and public manner that is likely to avoid a dramatic confrontation with the president and is likely to emit a citation to testify.

The Democrats believe that there is evidence of sovereignty, videos and other facts, that demonstrate Trump’s clear intention to incite his parties to overthrow the Capitol, as he leads the deadly deaths of January 6, without his testimony. Planean argues that his negatives testify to his guilt. And he has no appetite for a possible judicial support if Trump neglects to comply with a Senate citation in order to testify, at a time when many Senate Democrats are anxious that the letter should be passed to others.

All of them, say the Democrats, mean that it is likely that the tax authorities will issue a citation to the President.

“His negative intermediaries will testify to all this and will clearly establish an adversarial adversary who repulses his fault,” said Judge Jamie Raskin, head of political justice at the time, pointing out the possibility of issuing a citation to issue his will .

Trump refuses to testify in his political trial 0:48

Todavia has not yet made a final decision on how much he wants Trump to testify and whether he will issue a citation, say Democrats. Moreover, the Democrats have not yet decided to declare a testimony. However, there is always an expectant mayor who does not act, in part because all the senators are experimenting with what he sees as this day and the evidence in video can tell the story of how to live.

How long can political juicing last?

The Democrats themselves are debating how long it will take for them to last. The fiscal juices of the judiciary consider that the procedure may take up to two weeks. While so many of the Senate’s Democrats are pushing for a short term, there are some familiar facts about it.

It seems more likely that the verdict will be announced in the week of February 22, because the Democratic Democrats will approve the package of aid to the covid-19 before they finalize the month.

The structure of the juiciness has been discussed, but it is hoped that it will be shorter than Trump’s juiciness in 2020. This will take about three weeks. Among the bastards, the leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, and his aides are involved in extensive discussions on a package that establishes the basic rules of procedure. It is hoped that this package will be known in advance as it conveys the juice of the martyrs, say the fountains.

The Senate tends to approve the basic rules, and both parties hope that they will be adopted by a bipartisan majority. This is a change with respect to 2020, when the package of rules was adopted following the party lines after a discussion that was extended more than the median of the day of the opening of the trial.

Una decision unspeakable

In the last instance, senators tend to take the decision to oblige or not to testify, and that a simple majority should issue a citation to declare. Sondeverbod, some Democrats are reluctant to look into Trump’s testimony. It is argued that it is not necessary and that it should be converted into a secondary spectacle.

“I believe it’s a terrible idea,” said Judge Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware. When the plea was explained, Coons replied: “Did you know President Trump?”

¿Someter a juicio político A Trump is constitutional? 1:15

The Senate Democrats are conscious of the fact that they have the possibility of a condensation that requires thirteen votes. To launch this umbrella, 17 Republican senators tend to declare Trump guilty. As a matter of fact, 45 of the 50 Republicans of the Senate are holding a referendum session last week to decide the juice on the basis of which it is unconstitutional to appoint a president.

What plans do Democrats have to argue?

In support of a skeptical jury in Senate, Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to argue that Trump is the only one responsible for inciting the deadly deaths of January 6, despite his lies and conspiracy theories. robaron les azuzaran azuzaran a sus partidarios para que tataran de impedir de manera violente de certification de parte del Congreso de la victoria electoral delectore Joe Biden. The fiscal policy juvenile plan will use evidence in video to show Trump’s speech motivating the agitators. Also to show will declare that acting in the name of Trump while sacking the Capitol.

Presentan arguments for political juicing. This is dicen 2:11

Senembargo, to solicit Trump’s testimony — including if he did not succeed — the Democrats met with a plausible argument from Trump’s defense team in the sense that the House of Representatives acted as quickly as possible to accuse him of failing to testify.

The antecedents of the first political trial against Trump

In Trump’s first political trial, Democrats will seek a citation to test Trump Trump’s National Security Exorcist. This is a controversial vote in the Senate. This time, the Democrats control the Senate, which means that they tend to vote to authorize a citation. But this step should be postponed until the juvenile court issues that expire in the courts and return the juices a little longer.

The Trump administration sent the bases to deliver a citation to the tribunals, combining all the solicitations of the Chamber of Deputies investigations into tribunals over the past few years. This includes a case that was in litigation and it was alleged that his ex-wife of the White House Don McGahn testified before the Congress during these cases.

Trump called for the repetition of the repetition and the repetitions of ‘absolute immunity’ para él y sus principales exasesores. It is included when the tribunals signal that the child has been sentenced to be allowed. During Trump’s first political juicing process, the administration ignored various testimonials and testimonials from the administration.

In the case of a more personal character investigation, Trump, with private attorneys, worked in various tribunals intending to obtain tax information and his business. However, in the case of McGahn, this litigation has not been resolved.

Katelyn Polantz de CNN contributes a good reporter.

Source