Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley argued that the House planning on using the fact that Trump refused to testify for them can be used against him in his impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
Really? Prof Turley all of your life and you can’t believe the Democrats would so such a blatantly unconstitutional piece of derogatory evidence against him? No lawyer encourages a defendant to testify except as a last resort.
Turley said:
“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.”
Last week, House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to Trump and his lawyers, asking that he testify before the House. Raskin goes on to say that if Trump refused to testify it will be used against him during the impeachment trial in the Senate. But in a court of law or an impeachment hearing, a defendant can not be forced to testify and if they decide to9 exercise their constitutional rights, it cannot be used against him.
No president has ever testified or even appeared at an impeachment trial. The Democrats are both ignoring the law and the constitution. They tried to pull this same crap during the first impeachment trial.
The Democrats are trying for two things. First and foremost they want to stage theater in order to score political points and secondly, they want to try to prevent Trump from running again. He scares the crap out of them.
According to Turley, Raskin’s statement also implied that “Trump needed to testify or his silence is evidence of guilt” and that “under this theory, any response other than conceding the allegations would trigger this response and allow the House to use the silence of the accused as an inference of guilt.”
Turley wrote, “The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.”
The scholar, who offered testimony during the first impeachment inquiry in 2019, noted that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declares that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
