WASHINGTON – House accusation directors on Thursday made a surprise request for Donald J. Trump to testify in his Senate hearing next week and made a lengthy effort to question the former president under oath about his behavior on the day of the riot in Capitol. It was quickly rejected by his lawyers.
Representative Jamie Raskin, the chief prosecutor of the House, said in a letter to Mr. Trump said the former president’s response to the House’s charge of inciting an uprising on January 6 disputed critical facts about his actions and demanded further explanation. .
“Two days ago, you submitted a reply in which you deny many factual allegations in the article of indictment,” he said. Raskin, Democrat from Maryland, wrote. “So you tried to state critical facts, despite the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional violation.”
He suggested that Trump be conducted “on a suitable time and place for interviews” between Monday and Thursday. The trial is set to begin on Tuesday.
But Mr. Trump’s attorneys, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wasted little time waving the invitation away. They said that Mr. Trump wants no part of a process that they insist is ‘unconstitutional’ because he is no longer in office, calling Raskin’s request a ‘PR’.
“Your letter only confirms what is known to all: you can not prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” they wrote in a letter to Mr. Raskin.
Mr Schoen and another adviser from mr. Trump, Jason Miller, later explained that the former president did not intend to testify voluntarily before or after the trial began. Instead, his defense team intends to argue that the case should be dismissed on constitutional grounds, and that Mr. Trump does not plead guilty to the dual charge of ‘incitement to insurrection’ in which the House alleges that he provoked a mob with unfounded claims of voter fraud to attack the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from losing formalize.
The decision will, if applicable, be likely to be useful to both sides. Since the Republicans of the Senate have already acted to kill Mr. Trump’s acquittal for the second time in just over a year could jeopardize the defense of the testimony of a famous apolitical former president who still falsely insists he won the election.
Democrats may have benefited from the testimony of Mr. Trump, but his silence also allows the House of Representatives to tell senators sitting in the verdict that they are at least Mr. Trump was given the opportunity to have his say. Perhaps more importantly, they quickly – despite the defense’s protests – claimed that his refusal was a ‘detrimental inference supporting his guilt’, meaning that they would cite his silence as further proof that their allegations were true.
“Notwithstanding the rhetoric of his lawyers, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the United States Government should welcome the opportunity to testify openly and honestly – that is, if the official has a defense,” the mr. Raskin said in a statement Thursday. evening. “We will prove during the trial that President Trump’s behavior was indefensible.”
Mr. Raskin can still try to get evidence from Mr. To sue Trump during the trial. But to do so will require the support of a majority of the Senate and a tangled legal battle could be waged over claims to executive privilege that could take weeks or longer to come to rest, setting the agenda of President Biden and Democrats usury. Members of both parties who have already demanded a speedy trial on Thursday indicated skepticism about Mr. Trump to call.
“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Senator Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat and one of Mr. Clare’s closest allies. Biden, said that Mr. Trump takes the witness stand. Asked to explain his reasoning, he replied, “Did you meet President Trump?”
“I do not think it will be in anyone’s interest,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president’s allies. “It’s just a nightmare for the country to do that.”
The managers said that their invitation to Mr. Trump to testify was mainly cited by his lawyers’ official response to the indictment filed with the Senate on Tuesday. In it, Trump’s lawyers completely deny that he incited the attack or intended to disrupt the counting of the Congress’ votes, despite the clear and pronounced focus of Mr. Trump on using the process to reverse the results. They also denied that a speech to a crowd of his supporters just before the attack in which Trump urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” against the election results, suggesting that Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence’s power to change the outcome, “had something to do with the actions at the Capitol.”
The team of mr. Trump argued that the former president could not be blamed for these statements, or for the falsehoods he spread about election fraud, because they were protected by rights for the first amendment, as he believes he was the real winner.
In his letter and subsequent statement, Mr. Raskin did not indicate whether he intended to testify against Mr. Trump or any other witnesses try to sue when the trial begins.
The question is a difficult question for the nine home managers. Because they only quickly went to accuse Trump a week after the attack, they did not find out any meaningful facts before they charged him, and they left their evidence behind. One of the most striking has to do with how exactly Mr. Trump carried him when it became clear that the Capitol was under assault on January 6th.
The president sent a few tweets that carried the crowd along and called for peace during the time, but as the Home Rulers made clear in their 80-page hearing order submitted to the Senate this week, they have little more direct evidence of how Trump responded. . Instead, they relied on news reports and reports by lawmakers who were desperately trying to reach him to send in reinforcements from the National Guard, indicating that he was “delighted” with the invasion.
Testimony by Mr. Trump or other White House or military officials can make that clear. But in this case, a greater understanding would almost certainly extend the trial by weeks or longer. Republicans do not agree with Trump’s actions, but for Democrats, the cost of their ambitions to accept coronavirus relief and the rest of Mr. Biden’s cabinet installs – with very little chance of finally getting the verdict of the trial.
Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York and the majority leader on whom the decision is likely to rest, indicated that it would be comfortable to proceed without witnesses.
“We will continue with a fair and speedy trial,” he said Thursday. ‘The Home Managers will state their case. The former president’s lawyer will set up a defense, and senators will have to look deep into their consciences to determine if Donald Trump is guilty, and if so, ever again capable of holding an office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. to enjoy. ”
The calculation for mr. Trump’s legal team is much simpler. In addition to the alienation of Republican senators who are reluctant to convict a former president who is so popular in their party, Mr. Trump is putting himself in legal trouble if he testifies. He tends to declare falsehoods, and it is a federal crime to do so before Congress.
Mr Schoen accused the Democrats in the House and Senate of conducting an unfair trial. He said they did not even have to share basic rules, such as how long the defense would have to state its case.
“I do not think anyone who is charged will show up during the proceedings which we believe are unconstitutional,” Schoen said in a text message.
He and mr. Castor also rejects the argument of Mr. Raskin that Trump’s failure to testify would strengthen their argument that he is guilty.
“As you certainly know,” they write, “there is no negative inference in this unconstitutional process.”
But the managers also seem to be appealing, at least in part, to the impetus of Mr. Trump for self-defense, and bet he could defy the advice of his lawyers not to speak. Throughout Trump’s presidency – first during the Russia investigation and then in his first indictment – he was eager to tell his side of the story, convinced he was his own best spokesman.
During the investigation by the special advocate, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump insisted his legal team want to sit down and answer prosecutors’ questions. This desire unnerved his lawyers, who believed that Mr. Trump would almost certainly make a false statement and get bigger legal consequences. One member of his legal team stopped talking about the issue.
Finally, Mr. Mueller refused to file a subpoena for the testimony of Mr. To ask Trump and accept written answers from him that later led the special counsel to ask whether Mr. Trump was true.
Hailey Fuchs contribution made.