PDF Summary:Unthinkable, by Jamie Raskin

Tragedy and political turmoil intersected in Unthinkable, Jamie Raskin's personal account of persevering through grief after losing his son Tommy while fervently defending democracy during the January 6th Capitol insurrection. Raskin details both his anguish at Tommy's passing and the dangerous insurrection that rattled American democracy, revealing how Tommy's ideals and his family's harrowing experiences fortified his resolve to uphold constitutional principles.

As lead House impeachment prosecutor against President Trump, Raskin chronicles the team's meticulous strategy, examining constitutional vulnerabilities and presenting searing evidence of Trump's culpability. He assesses the lasting scars of January 6th and warns that escalating political violence and undemocratic tactics imperil core American values. If unaddressed, these threats risk permanently undermining public faith in elections.

(continued)...

• The assertion that the former President used various strategies to alter the 2020 election results could be challenged by emphasizing the legal right to pursue election challenges through the courts and other legal avenues.
• The pressure on election officials and legislative bodies could be interpreted as an exercise of political speech and advocacy within legal bounds, rather than an attempt to subvert democracy.
• The reliance on the Electoral College and the Twelfth Amendment as part of Trump's strategy could be defended as a legitimate use of constitutional mechanisms available to any candidate.
• The criticism of the Electoral College might be countered by arguments that it is a foundational component of the federal system, designed to balance the interests of populous and less populous states.
• The claim that political turmoil was exacerbated by Trump could be met with the argument that political division and unrest have multiple sources and cannot be solely attributed to one individual or administration.
• The undermining of safety measures at the Michigan State Capitol could be seen as a failure of local security planning rather than the direct result of presidential rhetoric.

The author's role as a prosecutor during the second impeachment proceedings against Trump is examined in the book, highlighting the strategies and rationale behind the development of the legal strategy.

Raskin narrates his role as the lead impeachment prosecutor, describing the challenges he encountered while building a case amid the politically charged environment of the Senate's trial proceedings. He details their strategy for crafting a persuasive narrative of the incitement of violent insurrection by the former president, substantiating it with solid evidence, and effectively refuting the baseless claims made by him.

A diverse group of individuals, including those with prosecutorial experience, was brought together to serve as the House's impeachment managers.

The book details the formation of a group consisting of nine individuals tasked with managing the impeachment, each member contributing extensive expertise from their backgrounds in legal and public service positions. He emphasizes the importance of building a cohesive group committed to delivering a uniform narrative regarding the conduct of Trump that justified his impeachment.

The author’s emphasis on low ego and high performance, with a focus on telling a unified story

Raskin emphasizes the importance of creating a team that prioritizes collective efficiency and collaboration over self-promotion and individual advancement. He emphasizes their shared objective to present a persuasive and unified narrative of Trump's role in provoking the Capitol attack, while avoiding protracted or dull explanations that could lead to a loss of attention from their listeners.

Jamie Raskin presents a compelling narrative that emphasizes the role played by Trump in inciting a violent insurrection.

Raskin carefully details their approach to crafting a robust case, emphasizing the thorough compilation of verifiable data and strict observance of legal principles in challenging Trump. The aim was to demonstrate the peak of Trump's continuous actions that resulted in the January 6th insurrection, as he utilized his power and influence to incite his supporters to commit unlawful acts.

The display skillfully utilized video footage to highlight the behavior and inaction of Trump during the events of January 6th.

Jamie Raskin highlights the profound influence of Trump's declarations alongside the disturbing images of the attack, thus creating an undeniable and persuasive record of his incitement. They employed video footage to demonstrate how Trump's address on January 6th, followed by the assaults on the Capitol, clearly illustrated the impact his words had in provoking the subsequent violent behavior, highlighting the fervent response of his audience to his summons to fight.

Challenging Trump's baseless claims and his approach to the law.

Raskin details their strategic approach to actively engage with and challenge the anticipated defensive positions of Trump. They meticulously refuted the baseless assertions that a former president cannot be tried, emphasizing that Trump's statements are not protected under the umbrella of free speech rights, and that he was not merely a spectator of the January 6th events but played a role.

Countering the baseless assertions that Democrats incited the violence.

Jamie Raskin employed a range of strategies to counter these claims. They emphasized the Constitution's clear language and past examples to confirm the Senate's power to hold individuals accountable, regardless of whether they have already vacated their positions. They underscored that the protections of the First Amendment do not cover actions that provoke or instigate unlawful behavior, highlighting the common understanding that the right to free speech has its limitations. They employed video evidence to demonstrate the irrationality of attributing the chaos to Democrats and highlighted the praise that the previous president bestowed upon radical groups and their actions.

The conversation centered on the possibility of calling witnesses and officially documenting the statement made by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler.

Raskin details the internal discussions among the team about the advantages and potential hazards associated with summoning testimonies. They knew that the growing political pressure to call witnesses was partly because of the astonishing revelations from Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler about the intense conversation that took place between Kevin McCarthy and Trump amidst the chaos.

Assessing the potential advantages and hazards while managing political obstacles and pressures.

Raskin expresses apprehension regarding the potential for erratic behavior from witnesses within such a deeply divided atmosphere. The choice to call upon several people connected to the Republican Party as witnesses raised concerns that it could unintentionally bolster Trump's case, or that a prolonged process might undermine their position and result in detrimental diversions. They ultimately decided to pursue testimony from Herrera Beutler, recognizing its ability to corroborate their assertions and assured of her credibility as a witness. They came to a consensus on including her solemn declaration in the official documentation of the trial, ensuring her influential account was acknowledged, when it was evident that Herrera Beutler might be absent.

Other Perspectives

• The effectiveness of the legal strategy and the persuasiveness of the narrative presented by Raskin and his team could be questioned, as the Senate did not ultimately convict Trump.
• The diversity of the group of impeachment managers could be seen as a double-edged sword, potentially bringing a range of perspectives but also possibly leading to internal disagreements or inconsistencies in the prosecution's approach.
• The emphasis on low ego and high performance is commendable, but it could be argued that strong individual perspectives might have been suppressed, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the prosecution's arguments.
• While Raskin presents a narrative emphasizing Trump's role in inciting violence, some could argue that the connection between Trump's words and the insurrection could be interpreted as indirect or not meeting the legal standard for incitement.
• The use of video footage was a powerful tool, but some might argue that it was selectively edited or presented in a way that could bias the viewers against Trump.
• The challenge to Trump's baseless claims and his approach to the law could be seen by some as a partisan interpretation of legal principles, with others possibly arguing for a more literal or conservative reading of the Constitution.
• The decision not to call more witnesses could be criticized as a missed opportunity to gather more comprehensive evidence, potentially affecting the thoroughness and perceived integrity of the trial.
• The focus on managing political obstacles and pressures might be viewed as prioritizing political expediency over the pursuit of a full and detailed examination of the events leading to the insurrection.

Ongoing endeavors to uphold the foundational elements of American democracy in the aftermath of the January 6 attack, as well as tactics to protect the integrity of democratic institutions.

Raskin concludes his contemplations by pondering the lasting impact of the January 6th attack and the broader challenges confronting democracy within America. He emphasizes several alarming trends within the Republican Party, such as initiatives aimed at reshaping public understanding of the January 6th incidents, the party's embrace of tactics that undermine democratic principles, and actions intended to limit the ability to vote, along with the escalating threat of violence driven by politics that threatens the core of democratic electoral processes.

The Republican Party's efforts to downplay the gravity of the insurrection and alter public perception regarding the unrest.

Raskin expresses alarm over the persistent efforts by Trump's advocates and right-wing media to diminish the gravity of the January 6th uprising, minimizing the intensity of the clash and shifting blame away from the former president and his adherents. He contrasts this with the historical downplaying of the significance of slavery in the context of the Civil War, a consequence of the establishment of the Lost Cause narrative.

Falsehoods about "Antifa" involvement spread, accompanied by attacks on the legitimacy of accounts given by members of the Capitol Police force.

Raskin documents how the Republican Party extensively propagated baseless assertions and concocted stories about the Capitol disturbance, including the unsubstantiated accusation that "Antifa" instigated the violence and the idea that the individuals facing grave accusations are actually "political prisoners," ensnared in an unjust "witch hunt." They have placed Ashli Babbitt, a participant in the insurrection, on a pedestal as a martyr, while disregarding her active participation in the forceful attempt to breach the House chamber and the danger she posed to others nearby. Raskin emphasizes how Republicans attempted to diminish the significance of the Capitol Police's accounts by trivializing their recollections of the chaos and casting doubt on their patriotism.

After he was cleared of charges, his influence over the Republican Party grew stronger in an authoritarian manner.

Jamie Raskin conveys his disillusionment with the Senate's refusal to convict Trump or bar him from holding future political positions, an outcome that Trump saw as a victory for himself. He notes that this barrier further solidified the sway that Trump held over Republican representatives.

The relentless sidelining of opposition party members and the weakening of democratic frameworks through redistricting, obstructing voting rights, and altering the makeup of the judiciary.

Raskin chronicles the growing isolation and suppression of valiant Republican objectors, like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, who have bravely deviated from Trump's path to defend the tenets of the Constitution. He outlines the troubling escalation of initiatives aimed at hindering voter turnout, driven by baseless claims of voting irregularities, with a particular focus on impeding the electoral power of Democratic constituents, notably those from minority communities. Raskin expresses strong concerns about the deliberate shaping of voting districts by the Republican Party and their strategy to appoint judges who share their ideology, which solidifies their control and obstructs the will of the majority.

The increasing potential for political turmoil during forthcoming elections, coupled with the fragility of the presidential electoral process and the established practice of peaceful transitions of power, is a reason for alarm.

Raskin warns about the dangers posed by a GOP that increasingly embraces political violence as a tool to thwart majority rule and hold on to power. He underscores the susceptibility of our present voting mechanism to such dangers.

Essential measures to safeguard the bedrock of democratic principles include overhauling or abolishing the Electoral College system, bolstering safeguards for voting rights, and confronting the rise of white nationalist ideologies.

Raskin champions significant reforms and proactive participation by citizens to safeguard the pillars of American democracy. This encompasses considering the abolition or alteration of the system for electing the president, enacting robust federal laws to guarantee voting rights, and a concerted effort across the country to address the escalating menace of white nationalism and right-wing extremism. He perceives these issues as threats that undermine the core values and cohesion of our democratic framework.

Other Perspectives

• Some members of the Republican Party argue that their concerns about election integrity are legitimate and not intended to undermine democracy but to strengthen it by ensuring that all votes are legally cast and counted.
• There is a perspective that the Electoral College is a constitutional safeguard that ensures smaller states have a voice, preventing a tyranny of the majority where only populous states would decide national elections.
• Critics of abolishing the Electoral College argue that doing so would require a constitutional amendment, which is intentionally difficult to achieve, reflecting the founders' intent to have stable governance structures.
• Regarding the marginalization of certain Republican figures, it could be argued that political parties often experience internal disagreements and that the sidelining of certain members is a natural part of the political process reflecting the will of the party's base.
• Some argue that redistricting is a complex process that both parties engage in and that accusations of gerrymandering should be addressed through non-partisan redistricting commissions rather than federal intervention.
• Concerning the claims of voter suppression, some contend that voter ID laws and other voting regulations are necessary to prevent fraud and maintain the integrity of elections.
• It is argued by some that the term "white nationalism" is often used too broadly, potentially labeling legitimate concerns about immigration or national identity as extremist.
• There is a viewpoint that the current system of checks and balances, including judicial appointments, is functioning as intended, allowing each administration to shape the judiciary according to the mandate given by the electorate.