Should Democrats demand that Donald Trump testify under oath?

[kentuck]

Not to send a lawyer, not to send Rudy Giuliani, but to testify under oath in his own impeachment trial?

After all, Bill Clinton had to give blood for his impeachment trial. Why is Donald Trump any different? Just because he doesn't want to?

Some may argue that Democrats need to be more aggressive against Mr Trump. He can sit in the White House and twitter as the rest of the country debates whether or not he is guilty. That shows the world that he considers himself above the law.

Mueller was unable to get him to testify and eventually just gave up. He ended up with a few written questions with a lot of non-answers.

The Democrats could demand this from Donald Trump, just as he demands that the Bidens and the whistleblower testify, that Donald Trump testify in his own defense. They should portray him as a coward, looking to hide behind the skirts of others.

As a side benefit, this could force the hand of the Chief Justice, John Roberts, to state which witnesses he considers relevant and which are irrelevant to the impeachment trial of Donald Trump? This could be cleared up before the trial even begins.

Do you believe the Democrats need to be more aggressive toward the crimes of Donald J Trump? Should they try to put him on the defensive before the trial begins?

[CanonRay]

1. We should demand it, just to make him say no.

[Iliyah]

2. Yes.

Truth is beyond him. Graham wants Rudy G to testify, the fake president should too.

[RKP5637]

8. K&R!!!! n/t

[Voltaire2]

3. In the Senate they can't demand anything.

But Trump is no more likely to comply with subpoenas than his minions.

[kentuck]

6. It is a political process - not a criminal process.

They can demand whatever they wish. There are political victories and there are political losses.

[Voltaire2]

18. They can demand that Mitch McConnell demands that Trump testifies.

I kind of doubt he is going to comply.

[Phoenix61]

4. No. There is nothing that would keep him

from lying.

[greymattermom]

5. I always wonder about this.

If Donald testifies, he would contradict himself. Is saying 2 contradictory things perjury? Do you have to know the truth to convict a witness of perjury?

[mr_lebowski]

9. I would have to imagine the assertion of two clearly mutually-exclusive ... uh ... things

while under oath would constitute de facto perjury ... and that Trump would certainly do exactly that if questioned by a skilled prosecutor, like you say.

Seems well worth it to me to at least request him to show up and testify, and pillory him for not doing so.

Make him claim 'his 5th amendment right'.

And then point out he HAS NO 5th Amendment right because this isn't a criminal case. It's a JOB INTERVIEW, basically.

[RKP5637]

7. Yes!!! "Democrats need to be more aggressive against Mr Trump." n/t

[UniteFightBack]

12. +1000

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I think they are missing the boat when they compare the Clinton impeachment with this one.

Perjury did not even exist when they started their investigations. You put Trump under oath and he's finished if perjury is all it takes.

[rickford66]

11. Were his written answers to Mueller under oath ?

If so, have we ever seen them ? There could be some perjury there.

[UniteFightBack]

13. Yeah there supposed to be investigating..........

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/18/house-investigating-whether-trump-lied-to-robert-mueller-in-written-answers

[Historic NY]

14. If he wants to clear himself.....

he is eager trying to convince the press with his helicopter conferences. Why not have a nice seat in a quiet room.

[crickets]

15. His handlers won't let him, because his disjointed babble would be obvious in a quiet room.

In tweet format, Trump can fake his way through stuttering and jumping from topic to topic mid-thought, but otherwise he is incoherent. His language skills have deteriorated too much for him to pretend to string a complete sentence together any more. It's the same reason he won't be participating in any debates during the election campaign.

Based on that alone, I think it would be remarkable to get him to testify in person. But it won't happen.

[kentuck]

16. Also...

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2019, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It could be politically advantageous to put pressure on him to testify. If it put him on the defensive, then good for the Democrats.

We seem to have a difficult time thinking in a politically strategic way?

[crickets]

17. Maybe I have been unclear.

I agree with you. Put all the pressure on him; he should be under that pressure. I just don't think it will compel in-person testimony from him. Even if he were coherent, the lies are too much of second nature to let him speak. He is not coherent, however.

Sad, huh?

[kentuck]

19. My fault...

I should not have started a post with "But..."

I agree with you that it is probably not going to happen, him speaking in his own defense, but I agree it is still politically advantageous to keep him under pressure.

It's about politics.