In most situations I’ve been in, I’d have said it may not be wise for the President to make allegations in public in what could become a case later on.
For instance, where in America can the defendants find an impartial jury when the President has already declared that he sees them as guilty of treason?
But we also know that there’s a lot of maneuvring going on and this may be just one more maneuver.
If I were to jump to a conclusion based on the bits and bites we get, I’d have to be going for what Michael calls “profile.” Nothing else would induce me to make superficial connections and have firm opinions in an exceedingly fluid situation.
It’s extremely difficult to reach conclusions in an environment where you know a whole structure is being taken down as we speak. How are we to interpret news in such a setting? Whose voice is authoritative?
All that said, I still can’t believe his team would allow the President to make such a potential mis-step unless it served the plot. Plea agreement that the accused would help the Alliance? Agreement to allow the Alliance to use them as examples to spook the rest?
Thanks to Brian.