Jamie Raskin Tries To Humiliate Ted Cruz, INSTANTLY REGRETS IT as Harvard Lawyer DESTROYS His Career

.
.

The Constitutional Reckoning: Ted Cruz Exposes Jamie Raskin’s Systematic Abuse of Power

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the self-styled defender of the Constitution, faced a devastating political and legal reckoning when Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) systematically exposed Raskin’s record of constitutional violations and abuse of congressional power.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, ostensibly about constitutional oversight, became the platform for the takedown. Raskin, 72, a former constitutional law professor who had led the second impeachment of Donald Trump and served on the January 6th Committee, opened with a prepared attack, accusing Cruz of enabling authoritarianism.

“You, Senator,” Raskin charged, his tone dripping with academic superiority, “are a danger to American democracy.”

Cruz, a Harvard Law magna cum laude graduate who clerked for the Supreme Court, merely smiled. “Congressman Raskin, thank you for that lecture. Very professorial, very sanctimonious.”

Cruz immediately pivoted: “Now I’m just a simple country lawyer from Texas… But since you brought up the Constitution, let’s discuss your record on constitutional matters. Specifically, how you’ve systematically abused it.”

The battle lines were drawn: the constitutional law professor versus the Supreme Court veteran.

The Impeachment Fiasco: Constitutional Invention

Cruz began with Raskin’s leadership of the second impeachment of President Trump, which took place after Trump had already left office and was a private citizen.

“Tell me, as someone who taught constitutional law, where in the Constitution does it authorize impeaching someone who no longer holds office?” Cruz challenged.

Raskin attempted a defense based on broad scholarly interpretation. Cruz countered with absolute precision: “There is no precedent for what you did. The Constitution is explicit about impeachment’s purpose: removal from office and disqualification from future office. You cannot remove someone who’s already gone. That’s not constitutional interpretation. That’s constitutional invention.”

Cruz further detailed the procedural abuses:

Speed: The impeachment was “rammed through” in seven days—a haste unprecedented in U.S. history—with “no real investigation, no due process, no witnesses for the defense.”
Denial of Rights: Raskin denied the accused the ability to confront his accusers and call witnesses.

“Every element demonstrated that this wasn’t a constitutional remedy being carefully applied, but a political weapon being fired in haste and aimed with malice,” Cruz asserted.

He reinforced the point with devastating testimony from a prominent liberal scholar who agreed that Raskin’s second impeachment was “constitutionally indefensible.” The scholar noted that Raskin, having taught constitutional law, knew this but proceeded anyway, permanently damaging the solemnity of the impeachment power.

Weaponizing Process: The January 6th Committee and Due Process

Cruz then targeted Raskin’s role on the January 6th Committee, framing its actions as systematic violations of fundamental due process rights.

Cruz detailed how the committee was structured from its inception to ensure a predetermined conclusion, not objective truth:

Composition: Speaker Pelosi rejected the minority party’s choice of members, shattering a two-century-old norm of congressional investigation.
Show Trial Procedures: The committee operated without any adversarial process, compelling witnesses to testify in secret depositions with transcripts selectively edited before release.
Destruction of Evidence: “The committee systematically destroyed evidence, video recordings deleted, documents shredded, electronic files permanently erased… You destroyed evidence before anyone could review it,” Cruz charged, labeling the committee’s work a “show trial.”

The pain of the committee’s abuses was laid bare by witnesses. A man accused by the committee of helping plan violence testified that he was “never allowed to explain, never allowed to provide the full context, never allowed to defend myself.” His life was destroyed—he lost his job, and his reputation was gone—all because Raskin’s committee accused him without due process.

Cruz concluded that Raskin had corrupted not only the impeachment process but also the investigative process, using congressional authority to harass political opponents and create a chilling effect on political opposition.

Economic Warfare: Subpoenas as Punishment

The final layer of the exposé addressed Raskin’s alleged systematic use of congressional subpoena power against political opponents—an act Cruz called “economic warfare.”

Witnesses testified to the chilling effect of Raskin’s subpoenas:

Targeting Attorneys: A defense attorney testified that Raskin’s committee subpoenaed him, demanding attorney-client privileged communications, forcing him to spend over $200,000 in legal fees fighting the demands. “You subpoenaed me anyway to send a message: represent anyone associated with Trump and we’ll destroy you financially.”
Targeting Accountants and Businesses: An accountant testified that Raskin’s committee subpoenaed her firm’s records, effectively crippling their business and forcing partners to leave, all because they provided professional services to a Republican consultant who had no connection to January 6th.

Cruz highlighted the double standard: Raskin targeted Republicans, while ignoring potential corruption involving Democrats, such as the business dealings of Hunter Biden.

“That’s not oversight,” Cruz said flatly. “That’s weaponizing government power to isolate political opponents, to make it impossible for them to function, to cut them off from normal professional services.”

The Constitutional Accountability

In his final summation, Cruz methodically stacked the counts: “Two impeachments, one rushed through on weak grounds, one unconstitutional on its face. An attempt to remove a candidate from ballots without due process. Systematic abuse of congressional subpoena power.”

“You claim to defend the Constitution while systematically violating it,” Cruz concluded, his voice carrying the superior weight of his credentials. “You violated the Constitution to fight someone you claimed violated it. The fact that you taught constitutional law makes it worse, not better.”

As Raskin walked toward the exit, stripped of his sanctimonious certainty, it was clear that the constitutional law professor had been schooled by the constitutional law practitioner. The damage was done. Raskin’s influence was dramatically diminished, and the fight for constitutional due process was stronger than ever.

.