Which is to say, the single best non-stop campaign ad Trump could devise is a televised DC trial. Also probably a GREAT way to sow more political violence.
Democratic lawmakers and news outlets also asked the policymaking body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference, to grant an exception to the broadcasting ban so that the Trump D.C. trial could be televised. However, at a meeting last month, a committee of that conference said that it lacked authority to grant an exception and that changing the rule would take years.
In short, nobody who can, wants to change the rules just for Trump.
Or consider that this "defense" won't be allowed in Chutkan's courtroom:
Trump forcefully backs drive to telvise his DC trial, signals plan to relitigate claims of 2020 election fraud. Ex-prez says TV will expose 'travesty' of charges
A) It's irrelevant to the charges, because there is not an “I thought I could rob the bank because I thought it was a corrupt bank" defense. As the Special Counsel has already pointed out in motions filed before the court on Trump's Motions to Dismiss.
B) Trump has to present evidence, not just assertions based on Twitter or his own wishes about what reality was/is not.
C) How much of even that "I thought I could!" defense depends on Trump testifying? Best evidence rule says Trump has to put on evidence showing his state of mind. Sane criminal trial practice says he has to do that without actually testifying himself. That ways lies doom, given how poorly he did in the NY Fraud case, and how well he told everyone he did. But without it, who does present that defense? Put on the lawyers who told him it was okay? Aren’t they all indicted themselves, or have already pled guilty to following such advice themselves?
D) All of this is in-line with his "I relied on the lawyer's" defense. As Glenn Kirschner points out, there is no "advice of drunk counsel" defense (Rudy); no "I relied on my instincts" defense (and, again, that would require Trump's testimony to establish); and most of Trump's legal counsel are now convicted/indicted co-conspirators in Georgia (and uncharged co-conspirators in D.C.). So Trump either has to testify himself (say goodnight, Gracie), or he has to rely on defenses he simply won't be allowed or be able to assert before a jury.
And, as I say, Trump is not getting this case on TeeVee. Chutkan can't override that, and the Supremes aren't going to bother looking at it.
Sometimes it helps to ignore the summation of the article on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment