Dahlia Lithwick of Slate reviews Rep. Jamie Raskin’s impeachment trial summary on Friday:
Impeachment Manager Jamie Raskin responded by first noting Van der Veen’s earlier observation that he was having a miserable time at the impeachment trial. “Counsel said before, ‘this has been my worst experience in Washington,’” Raskin said. “And for that, I guess we’re sorry, but man, you should have been here on January 6th.”
Then he went on to make a serious point:
Counsel for the president keep blaming the House for not having the evidence that’s within the sole possession of their client, who we invited to come and testify last week. We sent a letter on February 4th. I sent it directly to President Trump, inviting him to come and to explain and fill in the gaps of what we know about what happened there. And they sent back a contemptuous response just a few hours later. … But in that letter, I said, you know, if you decline this invitation, we reserve all rights, including the right to establish a trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference. What’s that? Well, Justice Scalia was the great champion of that. If you don’t testify in a criminal case, it can’t be used against you, that’s the fifth amendment, but if it’s a civil case and you don’t show up, then according to Justice Scalia and the rest of the Supreme Court, you can interpret every disputed fact against the defendant. That is totally available to us.
Raskin continued:
So for example, if we say the president was missing in action for several hours and he was derelict in his duty and he deserted his duty as commander-in-chief and we say that as inciter in chief, he didn’t call off the dogs and they say, no, he was really doing whatever he can. If you’re puzzled about that, you can resolve that dispute, factual dispute, against the defendant who refuses to come to a civil proceeding. He will not spend one day in jail if you convict him. This is not a criminal proceeding. This is about preserving the republic, dear Senate. That’s what this is about. Setting standards of conduct for the president of the United States so this never happens to us again. So, rather than yelling at us and screaming about how we didn’t have time to get all of the facts about what your client did, bring your client up here and have him testify under oath about why he was sending out tweets denouncing the vice president of the United States while the vice president was being hunted down by a mob that wanted to hang him and was chanting, in this building, ‘hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence, traitor, traitor, traitor.’
The day has, to be sure, been a slog. But Raskin’s was a pretty bracing reminder that even though his lawyers are behaving as though this is a witch hunt targeting an unknowable and mysterious man-ghost, they have recourse beyond screaming at the house managers. The president could testify, and explain what he was doing while a violent mob hunted his vice president. That silence should speak volumes. Raskin reminds us that it does.
Raskin summarized in under five minutes that preserving the republic is at stake in this impeachment trial, Donald Trump’s second. Raskin needed little more time. The entire Senate knows who and what Trump is.
Republicans were warned in Trump’s first impeachment trial that if they failed to stop him, he would commit high crimes and misdemeanors again. And he did. All but one Senate Republican lacked the spine and the character to stop him in 2020. There is little evidence many others learned from having their hands burned twice and their lives threatened once.
Let your U.S. senators know what you think about Rep. Herrera Beutler’s statement RIGHT NOW! And if their office won’t pick up (it’s Saturday), free e-fax them.
For a review of Friday’s Trump defense follies, see below.