Turley: One of Raskin's Claims About Trump Was 'Breathtaking' and 'Chilling'

[mystery-ak]

Turley: One of Raskin's Claims About Trump Was 'Breathtaking' and 'Chilling'
Cortney O'Brien

Posted: Feb 16, 2021 9:30 AM

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley followed last week's impeachment trial against former President Trump very closely. Turley was the only witness called by Republicans to participate in the first trial against Trump in 2019, when the president faced charges after discussing the Bidens and corruption on a phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. At the time, Turley explained that "impeachment has to be based on proof, not presumptions."

Turley found several more glaring holes in the Democrats' arguments last week as they tried to convict him on inciting an insurrection. One argument in particular Turley found to be "breathtaking" and "chilling" - when lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (MD) suggested that Trump was guilty because he refused to show up and testify.

“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,” Rep. Raskin wrote to Trump, essentially arguing that the former president needed to testify or his silence equals guilt.

On his blog, Turley explained that Raskin was misleading senators because Trump's decision is not unprecedented:

"Presidents have historically not testified at impeachment trials.  One reason is that, until now, only sitting presidents have been impeached and presidents balked at the prospect of being examined as head of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch. Moreover, it was likely viewed as undignified and frankly too risky.  Indeed, most defense attorneys routinely discourage their clients from testifying in actual criminal cases because the risks outweigh any benefits. Finally, Trump is arguing that this trial is unconstitutional and thus he would be even less likely to depart from tradition and appear as a witness."

more
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2021/02/16/turley-one-of-raskins-claims-about-trump-was-breathtaking-and-chilling-n2584741

[Jimino]

Seems congress still hasn't figured it out. The "insurrection"  wasn't an insurrection. It was 75 million voters upset that congress didn't take their concerns over voter fraud seriously. If it had been an insurrection (they certainly had the numbers) and security was unprepared, there would have been a lot more damage and loss of life. The protests in DC should have been a wake-up call!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Seems congress still hasn't figured it out. The "insurrection"  wasn't an insurrection. It was 75 million voters upset that congress didn't take their concerns over voter fraud seriously. If it had been an insurrection (they certainly had the numbers) and security was unprepared, there would have been a lot more damage and loss of life. The protests in DC should have been a wake-up call!

Actually, the peaceful protest was made up of some of the 75 million voters requesting Congress take their concerns over voter and election fraud seriously.

The "insurrection" was another riot caused by Antifa and BLM infiltrators.  I'll say again:  the leadership in Congress, both Houses, knew the infiltrators were coming and would be violent --- and let it happen.   

Welcome to TBR @Jimino   

[catfish1957]

House Manager's little Hollywood production was hokey and disingenuous.

Too bad they didn't configure in the form of a Movie Trailor......   At least the hoax could be lampooned.   

[LMAO]

 Can anybody recall when was the last time anybody was convicted for inciting insurrection?

[Right_in_Virginia]

This wasn't an "insurrection".  This was another ANTIFA/BLM riot sanctioned by members of our Congress.