House Dems call for Trump trial to be televised

[mystery-ak]

House Dems call for Trump trial to be televised
by Nick Robertson - 08/03/23 10:35 PM ET

A group of 38 House Democrats penned a letter Thursday to the body overseeing federal courts requesting that former President Trump’s election fraud trial be publicly televised live.

“It is imperative the [court] ensures timely access to accurate and reliable information surrounding these cases and all of their proceedings, given the extraordinary national importance to our democratic institutions and need for transparency,” the group wrote.

Trump was arraigned Thursday on four federal charges alleging that he attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. A trial date is expected to be decided at an Aug. 28 court appearance.

Cameras are generally not allowed in federal courtrooms.

“Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a  more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings,” the group continued.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4136901-house-dems-trump-trial-televised/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think a lot of people don't realize how much a particular judge can impact the course and perception of a trial.

If we're talking about viewers forming perceptions based on this trial, then it wouldn't matter if the verdict is eventually thrown out because of judicial bias and errors.  Or even because the court of appeals concludes that the prosecution's theories are legally invalid, and the case should never have been brought.

What people are going to remember is the conduct of the trial itself, and the judge stacking the deck against Trump is going to make him look bad no matter what.   The appeal wouldn't be completed and ruled upon until long after the election anyway, so that kind of vindication is irrelevant when it comes to public opinion.

Anyone who was looking at this trial is an opportunity for Trump to put on all the evidence to support his theories a fraud are going to be disappointed. This judge isn't going to let that happen, And she won't even care if a conviction is subsequently reversed.

If I were Trump, I tried delay that trial as much as possible, and would fight against televising it.

[Kamaji]

I think a lot of people don't realize how much a particular judge can impact the course and perception of a trial.

If we're talking about viewers forming perceptions based on this trial, then it wouldn't matter if the verdict is eventually thrown out because of judicial bias and errors.  Or even because the court of appeals concludes that the prosecution's theories are legally invalid, and the case should never have been brought.

What people are going to remember is the conduct of the trial itself, and the judge stacking the deck against Trump is going to make him look bad no matter what.   The appeal wouldn't be completed and ruled upon until long after the election anyway, so that kind of vindication is irrelevant when it comes to public opinion.

Anyone who was looking at this trial is an opportunity for Trump to put on all the evidence to support his theories a fraud are going to be disappointed. This judge isn't going to left that happen, And she won't even care if a conviction is subsequently reversed.

If I were Trump, I tried delay that trial as much as possible, and would fight against televising it.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The trial should be televised, so, We The People, can be the real jury.

[libertybele]

The trial should be televised, so, We The People, can be the real jury.

I think most have already made a determination about the ongoing witch hunts against Trump.  It doesn't need to be televised IMHO -- the DEMS are only doing this to humiliate Trump at this point.  The MSM would make a bundle off of the trial; this will be more watched than the OJ trials.

[Kamaji]

Televising the trial would be a mistake.  The democrats would draw out the trial as long as possible, and the footage would dominate all of the news cycles between start and the 2024 election, effectively starving any other contender for the GOP nomination of oxygen.

Biden's re-election would be more or less guaranteed, even if he is in a persistent vegetative state like Feinstein is.

[DefiantMassRINO]

It needs to be televised so each and every American has an opportunity to witness the arguments, the evidence, and the testimony - unfiltered by pundits.

If not televised, FoxNews, One America News, NewsMax, and other MAGA megaphones will drive a false narrative to benefit Trump and to snuff truth.

Ideally, trials are the search for truth.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The trial should be televised, so, We The People, can be the real jury.

It needs to be televised so each and every American has an opportunity to witness the arguments, the evidence, and the testimony - unfiltered by pundits.

If not televised, FoxNews, One America News, NewsMax, and other MAGA megaphones will drive a false narrative to benefit Trump and to snuff truth.

Ideally, trials are the search for truth.

It's going to be a stacked deck.  Just realize that up front.  Also realize that the vast majority of people are not going to have the time/opportunity to watch the entire trial, and are most likely to watch those particular witnesses whose views most closely align with their own.  That means that those people are going to be relying on the particular excerpts shown by the media anyway.  And the excerpts shown by the mass of the media are most likely going to be those most favorable to the prosecution, and least favorable to Trump.

I'd feel differently if he'd drawn a different judge.

What is really needed in this case is for Trump to have the right to file an appeal on the legal sufficiency of the indictment itself so that charges that ultimately go to protected conduct can be dismissed.  But you normally can't do that.

[Kamaji]

It's going to be a stacked deck.  Just realize that up front.  Also realize that the vast majority of people are not going to have the time/opportunity to watch the entire trial, and are most likely to watch those particular witnesses whose views most closely align with their own.  That means that those people are going to be relying on the particular excerpts shown by the media anyway.  And the excerpts shown by the mass of the media are most likely going to be those most favorable to the prosecution, and least favorable to Trump.

I'd feel differently if he'd drawn a different judge.

What is really needed in this case is for Trump to have the right to file an appeal on the legal sufficiency of the indictment itself so that charges that ultimately go to protected conduct can be dismissed.  But you normally can't do that.

Agreed.

It is a shame that one cannot generally appeal an adverse ruling on a challenge to an indictment or information until after the trial has concluded and a judgment rendered; that, IMO, should be an exception to the general rule against interlocutory appeals.

[corbe]

  It will be another farce just like the OJ trial.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is just more proof he won't get a fair trial, despite all his mistakes.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Agreed.

It is a shame that one cannot generally appeal an adverse ruling on a challenge to an indictment or information until after the trial has concluded and a judgment rendered; that, IMO, should be an exception to the general rule against interlocutory appeals.

It gets interesting legally if you game it out under the usual practice that interlocutory appeals aren't permitted.  Suppose this judge were to time things out -- deliberately -- so that Trump would have to be in court during the RNC.  Or during Presidential debates.  Is it really possible that one federal district court judge has essentially unreviewable authority to torpedo an election?

I just don't know federal criminal law and precedent well enough to know if there is a mechanism to have it reviewed before then.  But I certainly would be looking into it.  I'm guessing that there are a crapload of conservative lawyers around the country who are just trying to come up with those kind of arguments themselves.

[Kamaji]

It gets interesting legally if you game it out under the usual practice that interlocutory appeals aren't permitted.  Suppose this judge were to time things out -- deliberately -- so that Trump would have to be in court during the RNC.  Or during Presidential debates.  Is it really possible that one federal district court judge has essentially unreviewable authority to torpedo an election?

I just don't know federal criminal law and precedent well enough to know if there is a mechanism to have it reviewed before then.  But I certainly would be looking into it.  I'm guessing that there are a crapload of conservative lawyers around the country who are just trying to come up with those kind of arguments themselves.

It really should be part of criminal justice reform to allow a defendant to have the indictment or information tested, up through the appellate level, before having to undergo a trial, particularly for charges that are salacious or embarrassing.  Oftentimes, people who have been charged with various crimes will agree to plead out to a lesser charge, even though they are convinced - with good reason - that they are innocent of the crimes charged, because they simply don't have the stomach - or the finances - to go through an entire trial on the counts charged.

To my way of thinking, that represents a miscarriage of justice, and a flaw in the system that prosecutors routinely use to their advantage to get convictions they have no right to, via guilty pleas, just to pad their win/loss record and increase their next performance review (and bonus).