Should Donald Trump Testify in the January 6th Investigation and Beyond?
With the January 6th investigations and impending trials looming over former President Donald Trump, a critical question arises: Should Trump be asked to testify?
Prospective of Conviction
The argument for Trump to testify is resolute. Simply stated, it would be the finishing touch to his prison sentence. Given Trump's typical bombastic and hyper-aggressive demeanor, a testimony would only serve to further cement his culpability.
When a defendant decides to testify, they waive their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. They cannot selectively answer questions during cross-examination, and they can be compelled to answer specific questions about events and conversations. Any lie from Trump would be fodder for the prosecution in summation. If Trump lies, the prosecution can argue that he did so in light of other evidence suggesting dishonesty, potentially erasing any reasonable doubts in the jury's mind.
Typically, a trial has strict limits on admissible evidence, which must pertain to the case at hand and not generally attack the character of the defendant. However, when a defendant testifies, the boundaries change, allowing the prosecution to introduce issues that might challenge the credibility of the defendant as a witness. This shift can be damning for Trump if Justice Merchan does not rule against such tactics.
The Case Against Testifying
Conversely, there are reasons to argue against Trump testifying. If he does, it will significantly damage his credibility. Testifying under oath can muddy his previously-held position of reasonable doubt. Even without the defense's recommendation, the prospect of Trump tarnishing his image and conceding guilt is a real risk.
Michael R. Burch, a staunch critic, highlights this concern, noting that Trump's typical behavior on TV would only aid the prosecution's case. Burch describes Trump as likely to endorse his actions as 'perfect,' despite their criminal nature. Overall, the risks and drawbacks of testifying far outweigh the potential benefits.
Narrative Conspiracies
Some voices, like Glenn Kirschner, have suggested that the insurrection narrative is a fabrication, citing video evidence supposedly withheld by Democrats to prove it was the left that incited the events. This sentiment is echoed in the broader political sphere, where conspiracy theories abound, attributing the riot to various political groups.
Essentially, if Trump were to testify, it would directly contradict his denial of involvement. However, the prosecution could easily paint his testimony as a stark admission of guilt, undermining any previous efforts to exonerate him.
Conclusion
The decision for Trump to testify lies in the eyes of his supporters and detractors. For Trump loyalists, a refusal to testify could be seen as protecting the narrative of a wronged leader. For those who seek justice, it may be a moment of reckoning. Nonetheless, the smart legal strategy would be to avoid the potential of self-incrimination. Whether Trump follows this advice or not, his testimony, or lack thereof, will undoubtedly shape the narrative and results of his upcoming trials.