1 Comment
⭠ Return to thread

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this case is of paramount importance. It's historic, in all kinds of ways, and the ability for the American public to see and hear the case presented in real time has immense value.

On the other hand, the thing that would make broadcast of trial the most beneficial is the testimony, under oath, of the former President. His deceived supporters can only break the spell he has over them by hearing him contradict all the lies he's told them all this time on the stand. The Carroll case showed that the one place to get him to shut his mouth is a court of law. He is likely to invoke the fifth at every turn and his attorneys will encourage it, because he is incapable of speaking without lying. Even the most unimpeachable presentation of mountains of evidence will be waved away by his supporters, a group of apparently over 70M people, and reinforced in their minds as a "deep state" plot if he doesn't testify.

Those of us who already know he's wrong don't need the broadcast as much as those who insist he's done nothing wrong.

Expand full comment