This is what his supporters are already hearing, just minus any rebuttal because they aren’t watching the hearings.
If it’s not to help Americans understand what happened, then let’s not bother to televise the hearings.
Now, any response to the points I put in my last post?
Naw, slowly fill it with water every time he lies.
I’ve been to a few sermons over the years. I don’t remember a single one in which the priest/minister/rabbi said, and now we’ll have the Devil come up and speak because we’re 100% positive that you’ll hear for yourselves exactly how wrong he is.
That sounds like confirmation bias 
And then if he is indicted, they had damn well make sure he’s in a court run by an Obama or Clinton appointee. Then when he does this nonsense you describe of not calling people by their right names, not answering the question, etc… he can be held in contempt by the judge. Which would almost certainly happen IMO.
Of course, that assumes he will take the stand in his defense. I’m sure he’d want to but I suspect if he has competent counsel, they won’t want him on the stand. I predict he’ll go through several lawyers in the course of a single trial.
The fact that Trump is apoplectic about the hearings is the alpha and the omega for whether they are a net positive.
When did Trump ever have competent counsel?
And his previous lawyers are still waiting for payment for their work. Any lawyer that would represent him now would have to be even crazier than Rudy.
So is he going to have to ask for a public defender?
Begin the thawing of Bruce Cutler!
Trump was incensed about the Mueller probe, then the impeachments too. We’ve done this.
This time around it would have been better to get all the trumpists to watch, and, as a side effect, a set of hearings that the whole American public was talking about might be the pressure Garland needs to wake up.
Expecting the Trumpists to watch anything but Trump’s face is delusional wish-fulfillment. Expecting a televised spectacle of Trump spittle to do anything other than make it politically impossible for Garland to act is also delusional.
The same folks lived through the Mueller report, not one but two impeachments, and this stuff here, but this time, yes this time, it’ll be different if we have Trump on hand.
Trying the same thing 10 times and expecting a different result is the definition something something
So take a page from their playbook. Start a Q-Rumor that Trump is going to deliver a special message to his followers showing proof of election fraud, Max Headroom style, at some point during the televised proceedings. They will all be rivited.
That’s when they start counting syllables or whatever and conclude the commission is actually double secretly in favor of Trump and it’s some kind of 19th level chess match against the pedophile lizard people in charge of DC.
And I wish I was not serious about that but they buy into that stuff.
Yes, it’s baffling. Mijin is using his own argument to refute his own argument.
Yes it is indeed baffling. I’ve explained how a significant difference this time would be significant.
I’m not the one suggesting trying the same thing and expecting a different result. I’m the one saying the opposite of that.
You’re saying that seeing Trump personally there will do… what? Get the members of his cult of personality to abandon him? Get the Republicans who boycotted participation in the committee to join in? Get the censure of Liz Cheney by her state party reversed? Make Fox News start criticizing him? Reduce the attendance at his rallies? Stop the contributions to his phony charities? Keep people from voting for the candidates he endorses? What will his face at the hearings do?
You say this is the same. It’s not. This time it is very different. Trump and his abetters are not in attendance. That’s the huge difference. You want to make it the same, for reasons unexplained and unexplainable.
Wat?
You must have watched very different impeachment trials to the ones I saw. The ones I saw didn’t include any testimony by any significant Republican figures, nor them answering any questions, indeed both times the party explicitly issued statements of non-compliance.
And again, is anyone going to take a stab on why no significant Republicans have volunteered to testify on this occasion, if it’s such an obvious win for them?
Nice way to avoid the hard questions.
Just for the record, I remember this thing called the Senate that seemed to be heavily involved in the overall impeachment process.