I recognize the futility of all of this given the corruption of the Republicans. But for history and anyone paying attention, I would have liked to see this question:
From the perspective of the former president’s defense, his conduct and statements before and through January 6, at minimum, raise serious questions regarding his potential wrongdoing.
His statements during the insurrection raise questions as to the safety and life of the Vice President, among others, and the former president’s statements about “patriots” and “a day to remember” strongly suggest that he approved of the mob’s actions.
I don’t want to hear about the House process. Given the above, why did the former president refuse to provide sworn testimony on any subject before this Senate?
Some version of this question was sort of asked. But I felt the question, and the House Managers’ response, were too parsed and legalistic — talking about “adverse inferences,” etc. Would have liked a plain question like the above, and have it put to Trump’s lawyers.
It would have been awkward, and the (non)response likely illuminating. Plus, reveal that they still rely on the dismissed constitutional argument.
But no criticism of House Managers intended. Always easy to second guess later and not have to live in the moment. Overall, they did a pretty damn good job. Enough of a job — to be clear.