Brilliant!
Just in case there’s anyone who doesn’t get the reference …
Right- including Trump makes it all about him, all the time. Not about what he DID, but about him and what he’s saying and doing in the moment. I can completely see the committee not wanting that level of disruption while they try and carefully show what happened.
If only the media had shown such restraint.
Stranger
The thing about comments made by Trump, Giuliani and others is that they seem to differ substantially when made under oath. It remains to be seen how much Trump is hurt by these revelations as he seems to have survived a thousand troubling details, and still has many supporters and substantial influence, but some important Republicans seem to have been affected.
I have no idea if he can be made to testify but one would think the Committee would do this if they could. Trump is a gifted speaker with a good understanding of some audiences, but prefers sympathetic ones to otherwise. He does not want to speak before this Committee.
Trump is constitutionally incapable of talking to anyone who can challenge him. (See what I did there?) He couldn’t even stand his own toady staff politely telling him he was being delusional. He will never appear anywhere unless dragged in by federal marshals.
Actually, he might be deliriously happy at the spectacle. Which is another of ten thousand reasons the committee won’t ever do so.
We don’t need to hear any more of his posturing.
If Trump wants to appear in front of the committee and have his say, isn’t he free to do so? Go on Trump, head on down there and give them what for! What do you mean your lawyers say you shouldn’t? That means you should! Show them who is really in charge! If they get in your way do the same thing to them that you did to your Secret Service detail! How is everyone supposed to know the truth unless you get yourself over to Capitol Hill and tell them? Liz Cheney is basically murdering you in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and you’re supposed to be the only one who can get away with that!
Can you imagine how argumentative and disruptive trump would be if he was actually brought to trial?
Yes. Oh yes. He would be his own worst enemy.
For his security Trump would need to sit in a bullet proof glass enclosure next to his lawyers. It’s just a coincidence that it’s also soundproof.
Maybe they can get Erlich Eichman’s old booth.
Make it airproof as well and we have a deal.
I think you mean Otto Adolf Eichmann?
(Erich Eichman is an editor at Wall Street Journal.
Erlich Bachman was a fictional Silicon Valley entrepreneur.)
Exactly.
He is not. But in most cases, just an arrest and indictment can ruin there career. Not in trumps case, exactly the opposite.
More and more evidence, trotted out in public (evidence that trump cannot deny in person at the hearings) is making it more and more likely we can get an indictment that will result in a conviction.
Right.
Liz Cheney is a Democrat?
Yes, but the fallout from the new Roe decision is gonna bite them in the ass, I am thinking.
Cheney (and Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger) both agreed to serve on the committee in defiance of McCarthy’s instructions to his entire caucus, to boycott participation on said committee.
So, yes, McCarthy did “yank all the Republicans off the committee,” but those two Republicans subsequently told McCarthy to pound sand.
Oops 
Of course, we should expect this very point to be offered with a straight face by his defense team. “The mountains of detailed evidence showing the whole country the overwhelming guilt of our client makes it impossible for him to get a fair trial! Motion to dismiss.”
Well, of course, it’s not a trial, despite what Trumpers are claiming (“Kangaroo court!” “No representation!” “No cross-examination!” “Why is this happening, if it’s not a trial?” And so on).
No, I think the reason that Trump has not been called is because the committee knows him and his habits. He demonstrated those well enough in his debates with Joe Biden and in Town Halls. So, imagine this:
Ms. Cheney: So, Mr. Trump, at the rally at the Ellipse, you said –
Mr. Trump: Now, wait a minute, Liz. You’re gonna tell me hearsay. I said nothing there that had anything to do with a riot.
Ms. Cheney: Mr. Trump, you said, "We’re … "
Mr. Trump: I said a lot of things that day. What are you finding a problem with?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Trump, please let Ms. Cheney finish her question. And you will address her as “Ms. Cheney,” or as “Representative Cheney.”
Mr. Trump: Sure, fine. Liz, finish your question. I’d be happy to answer it.
Ms. Cheney: Thank you, Mr. Trump. Now, you said, “We’re …”
Mr. Trump: Sure I said, “We’re.” Why? Because we’re all Americans . And I’m fighting for America and Americans. Why, Liz, are you not?
Ms. Cheney: [Takes her glasses off, drops her head on her notes, and is heard saying, “I can’t deal with this asshole.”]
I’d suggest that that’s why Trump has not been summoned before the committee: because he’d do nothing but interrupt, deflect, and obstruct. Best to keep him out, let real evidence be presented, and by keeping him away, only let him wish that he could speak in order to interrupt, deflect, and obstruct.
Yes this seems to be the consensus of this thread. I maintain that it’s wrong though.
If a trump appearance would be such a slam dunk for him why hasn’t he volunteered to testify at this, or his impeachments? Why haven’t his lawyers or other advisors suggested he do so?
Why do people like Navarro, who seem to enjoy running their mouths on TV, not relish the chance to do the same at these hearings but instead do everything to dodge an appearance?
It’s because they all suspect, as I do, that they would be torn to shreds having to answer formal questions under oath and on the record. Or, at the very least, the risk of self-incrimination is far too high.
Add to this how yuge the ratings would be: even if trump only appeared for 30 minutes, I’m sure more Americans would be watching the whole hearings.
I’m sure that the committee would have interviewed Trump (and others) if they could have. Trump was wise (feels weird typing that) to not do so.
You’re leaving out the part where Trump’s appearance would be acknowledging that the committee has any right to exist, let alone question him, the current president of the United States.
And you’re leaving out the part where we’re arguing that his guilt or innocence is entirely irrelevant, that only his face on camera spurring on his base is what the committee wants to avoid.
And you’re leaving out the part where these hearings are not a trial or a deposition but a carefully staged public relations exercise, a payback for the uncountable hours during his term when Trump dominated every day’s news cycle with gibberish and misspelled tweets.
We’re disagreeing with you because we think you are missing the entire point of the hearings. They are not what you seem to think they are.