A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/05/raskin-trumps-decision-not-to-testify-is-evidence-of-guilt/
...The statement was a conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that such a refusal to testify cannot be used against an accused party...
...There appears no price too great to pay to impeach or prosecute Trump. If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than a raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.
...It is true that this is not a criminal trial. It is a constitutional trial. The Senate should try an accused according to our highest values, including respecting the right to remain silent without "inferences" drawn from the fact that (like prior presidents)Trump will testify