Special counsel Jack Smith opposes televising Trump federal election subversion trial
Special counsel Jack Smith opposes televising Trump federal election subversion trial
Special Counsel Jack Smith opposes televising the election subversion trial of former President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, according to a filing late Friday.
Special counsel Jack Smith opposes televising the federal election subversion trial of former President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, according to a filing late Friday.
Prosecutors wrote that federal courts are expressly prohibited from allowing proceedings in a courtroom from being broadcast or even photographed and that although the public was allowed to access some proceedings through teleconferences during the Covid-19 pandemic, the exception ended in September for criminal trials.
In a long-shot attempt, a group of media organizations, including CNN, asked the federal judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, for permission to broadcast the trial given its historic nature. In a separate petition to the judge, NBCUniversal Media argued that the long-standing rule against cameras in federal criminal trials, which dates to the 1940s, is outdated and would violate the First Amendment if strictly enforced in the Trump case.
Smith has set up the cleanest legal shot possible against Trump, removing as much complexity as possible from all aspects of the prosecution. He is against cameras because they introduce unforeseeable complexity.
62I would prefer the cameras be there, but only being released after the conviction gets returned. This would give the necessary transparency without any circus from it being publicized real-time
Doesn't have to be HD.
30Imagine if debates weren't aired live either. It would just serve as proof as to what fools politicians made of themselves in order to provoke a reaction. Imagine if the only way to know about what's going on in a debate was to read the transcript or read commentary from the press. If the recorded video of what happened during the debate is only released after elections are over, it disincentivizes making the debate into an entertainment shitshow.
11
Trump and his Nazi hoarde gain power by working in the spotlight, this takes away their ability to be on air 24/7/365, and will also serve to protect the court employees who would be singled out and targeted should their faces ever make it into frame. I'm completely ok with this.
36I totally agree. I wish I could watch so bad but I think it's the right move. People really started coming around to Hitler after his trial was broadcast.
7
Trump's trials need to, to the extent possible, follow the normal rules and procedures of the courts in which they are held. These are not political prosecutions, there is sufficient evidence to support all of the indictments that Trump has been charged with, but he is still a former President. Even if the prosecution decisions are not political there is an unavoidable political element to these trials, especially in terms of media coverage and public perception, which must be zealously guarded against. I do think that the prohibition on pictures and video recording should be changed but that change should go through the normal process and apply to all proceedings going forward. To make exceptions to the usual order is to invite greater politicization and distrust of the institution.
33To be honest, I don’t care what CNN and NBCUniversal have to say about their FiRsT aMeNdMeNt RiGhTs when they’re just looking for special treatment to be allowed to turn this gravely serious and historic trial into a three ring circus complete with a daily parade of clown cars driven by talking heads.
They’re going to be doing that anyway so there’s no reason to make it any easier on them by ignoring the rules and letting cameras into the court room just so they can charge high premiums for commercials. Fuck them.
27Give exclusive broadcast rights to C-Span
26I have never heard a better idea in all my life.
7PBS and C-span co-broadcast.
2
They smell profits!!! And by God they WANT them.
7They're going to be doing that anyway, so it would be better for the public to be able to see the actual trial, instead of only getting the trial filtered through the media outlet of choice.
1
The Justice Department has a long-standing policy of supporting the long-standing policies of the Justice Department.
I don’t think it’s more than that
25I'm a little confused. Don't we want this to be as transparent as possible to limit conspiracies?
16There's transparency and then there's theater.
Before CSPAN started televising Congress, members were able to make deals and pass laws. Being on TV let the GOP extremists force the Party to the Right.
29If you watch their hearings and assemblies a lot of Congress appears to be focused on trying to get sound bytes and Tik Tok clips out of what they say. The clips just seem so weird and forced when seen in context of what the topic of discussion is.
We didn't elect people to be actors on the clock, please make law and talk to the press later.
5
Permanently Deleted
7There will be full court transcripts.
6There's going to be conspiracies no matter what. That's the sort of people we're dealing with here.
6Televising a trial is always an additional risk of compromising the integrity of the court. Imagine, for example, if the camera operator captures a juror's face by accident. It's better to eliminate everything that could conceivably risk an appeal, and circus is definitely something I'm willing to give up if it means a rock solid conviction.
5
The advantage of having the trial televised is that tRump and his hack lawyers can't stand outside the courtroom at the end of each day and spew lies about what went on, as we can immediately call bullshit when we see it for ourselves.
You know Smith and his team won't say anything so tRump's lies will seem as valid to some as what reporters say actually happened.
11No it won't. They would lie while watching a video showing it is a lie. And later they would lie that any of it ever took place.
And his true believers would accept it all.
7Exactly. For his worshippers, Trump shapes reality.
2
tRump and his hack lawyers can’t stand outside the courtroom at the end of each day and spew lies about what went on
They can and they will. Anyone paying attention has already picked a side. His cult will believe him over any facts or proof so they have nothing to lose by lying. In fact, believing Trump over all evidence to the contrary is like their proof of loyalty badge.
For anyone who's not paying attention, lying about it will muddy the waters because they probably won't be watching.
3
You can dilute this down to any public trial. Don't make it a media circus. This happens ALL THE TIME. I'm this particular case I hope he's thinking of jurors and judges and not having insane followers trying to harm them.
10This is the best summary I could come up with:
Special counsel Jack Smith opposes televising the federal election subversion trial of former President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, according to a filing late Friday.
In a long-shot attempt, a group of media organizations, including CNN, asked the federal judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, for permission to broadcast the trial given its historic nature.
In a separate petition to the judge, NBCUniversal Media argued that the long-standing rule against cameras in federal criminal trials, which dates to the 1940s, is outdated and would violate the First Amendment if strictly enforced in the Trump case.
In their filing, the media organizations argued that the federal rule prohibiting cameras during criminal proceedings violates the First Amendment and that “to be meaningful in the unique circumstances of this case, that right must include a right of first-hand observation beyond those few dozen people who are able to squeeze into the courtroom.”
“(E)very court to have considered the issue has concluded that there is no constitutional right to a televised trial,” prosecutors wrote, adding that the rule is in place “to avoid the risks that policymakers have determined cameras pose to the fair administration of justice.”
“While Applicants are free to advocate their views to policymakers, this Court should decline their invitation to ignore the binding nature” of the federal rule prohibiting such broadcasting, prosecutors concluded.
The original article contains 328 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 32%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
3DAMMIT jack... what am I supposed to do with all those calls i got on jiffy pop? huh?
(/s)
0