HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should Democrats demand t...

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:52 AM

Should Democrats demand that Donald Trump testify under oath?

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?

19 replies, 1947 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should Democrats demand that Donald Trump testify under oath? (Original post)
kentuck Dec 2019 OP
CanonRay Dec 2019 #1
Iliyah Dec 2019 #2
RKP5637 Dec 2019 #8
Voltaire2 Dec 2019 #3
kentuck Dec 2019 #6
Voltaire2 Dec 2019 #18
Phoenix61 Dec 2019 #4
greymattermom Dec 2019 #5
mr_lebowski Dec 2019 #9
RKP5637 Dec 2019 #7
UniteFightBack Dec 2019 #12
Baitball Blogger Dec 2019 #10
rickford66 Dec 2019 #11
UniteFightBack Dec 2019 #13
Historic NY Dec 2019 #14
crickets Dec 2019 #15
kentuck Dec 2019 #16
crickets Dec 2019 #17
kentuck Dec 2019 #19

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:54 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:56 AM

2. Yes.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:09 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:57 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 05:47 PM

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

I kind of doubt he is going to comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:59 AM

4. No. There is nothing that would keep him

from lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:01 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:14 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:09 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:42 AM

12. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:18 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:41 AM

11. Were his written answers to Mueller under oath ?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 01:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crickets (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 03:35 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 05:38 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crickets (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 05:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread