Raskin sent letter to Trump asking for testimony under oath!

[servermsh]

Wow

Breaking: Today, Lead Impeachment Manager Jamie Raskin sent a letter to former President Donald Trump requesting that he provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, about his conduct on January 6.

Link to tweet

Further:

Raskin to Trump: "Two days ago, you filed an Answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment ... In light of your disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath."

EDIT: Thanks to a poster below, here is a link to the letter:

https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/president_trump_letter.pdf

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

1. This will be interesting...

Of course it will probably be “ReQuest Denied”.

[Yonnie3]

3. 45** should do it!

Only he can fix this!

If he is acquitted, perjury charges could follow.

[TwilightZone]

4. I suspect he has about a zillion people trying to talk him out of it right now.

I have no doubt he would love to testify.

[Yonnie3]

6. and he always follows peoples advice.

Right?

That said, it's likely he will refuse to testify under oath, as is normal for him, perhaps citing that illusory "perjury trap."

I can imagine him getting questioned and attacking the questioner. He's done that when given a softball question almost any politician would slam dunk.

[TwilightZone]

8. I can't imagine his lawyers letting him.

He could refuse to testify under oath, but that's not going to fly so I don't think he'll show up.

As far as how he'd testify, I think he'd just spout the same nonsense he's been spouting since the election.

In fact, his lawyers could get him to agree not to do that and he'd likely still do it. Off-script is his thing. He can't help himself.

[malaise]

5. He can show up between February 8 - 11

and they want an answer by tomorrow.

Fucker will be subpoenaed - take that to the bank.

[PRETZEL]

11. I agree,

he'll end up being subpoenaed.

this is really going to make for an interesting argument before court,

if he fights it using executive privilege, then his non actions could be argues as grounds of him violating his oath of office to protect the country.

If he fights it on grounds as a presidential candidate, then I would argue that under that capacity, he's acting as a "private" citizen seeking elected office,

My opinion is that in the first instance, that makes the case for conviction greater. In the second instance, it opens him up for federal crimes.

[malaise]

14. Fucker is cornered

PHEW!

[demmiblue]

7. The letter:

https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/president_trump_letter.pdf

[servermsh]

9. Awesome! I will add this to the post.

[malaise]

15. Thanks for the letter

[awesomerwb1]

10. So he shows up, "under oath", and

starts lying like he always does. Then what? The QOPers got away with it the past 2 years. No repercussions. What am I missing?

[servermsh]

12. I'm not an expert, but I assume lies would open him up to perjury charges in a court.

I really don't know though.

IMHO, it is a brilliant move to put Trump on the defensive.

[Captain Zero]

13. Then it's a perjury trial afterwards.

Right?

[Wicked Blue]

16. Oh, to be a fly in the room when Trump reads it! nt

[SheltieLover]

17. Excellent! 👏👏👏👏