Maybe Jack Smith's filing to deny cameras was a psychology move to induce Trump to support cameras.

Expand full comment

I say, give Trump want he wants even if he doesn't want it. Let the cameras into the courtroom so everyone sees the evidence of the case being presented to the American people.

Expand full comment

Classic R "gaslighting" by turning the topic on its head to get what Trump really wants: a (patently false) "perception" that Trump is being unfairly treated by our judicial system. The irony about this is we all agree with him!! Trump IS being "unfairly" treated with super-soft kid gloves in a manner no other Defendant would be treated in similar circumstances solely because he is a former president running for re-election as a way to avoid prosecution/imprisonment. We get it; we are not suckered into his Alice in Wonderland world. (BTW, Joyce, it's Judge Chutkan's court - see your first reference.)

Expand full comment

Show time! Give trump live tv coverage in the courtroom. It would be a grand production. Wonder if he wants "Hail to the Chief" played as he enters. Perhaps a wrestling ring where he can go head to head with the Judge. A 3-ring circus is what he really wants. Too bad we can't skip to the end and know the outcome. Carry on.

Expand full comment

Something I haven't seen discussed before is Trump's accusations toward Biden. According to Trump, Biden has "weaponized" the Justice Department against Trump.

We all know that this is not the case, but we should be clear that this is exactly what Trump would do if their places were reversed.

What Trump blithely ignores is that he has actually broken the law and committed crimes, and that's why he finds himself in courtroom after courtroom.

No one is empirically "out to get him". What is happening now is the consequence of his own misguided actions as a businessman and as a president. In the court of public opinion, he continues to claim total innocence ("it was a perfect phone call"), which he cannot claim in the courtroom, without perjuring himself.

This point needs to be stressed over and over to take up some of his oxygen.

Expand full comment

Thank you so much for your clear explanation of what is going on here. I appreciate your newsletters and admire your "big picture" view.

Expand full comment

My personal opinion is that he wants to be on record asking for camera so that when they are inevitably denied he can say the system is rigged against him and the administration that argued against camera and the court system system are trying to hide their corruption from The People. Basically it helps his sham trial narrative.

Expand full comment

It’s because the Government filed a brief opposing it. If they filed a brief in favor of cameras he would file a brief opposing. If the judge disapproves the request for cameras he’ll be the persecuted one.

The judge at the beginning of the trial should admonish trump that she will remove him from the court if he tries to behave improperly.

Expand full comment

“Trump says he now favors cameras.” Trump being Trump, I actually think he means it. He’s always been “red light Don.” His lawyers write: “this case has all the unfortunate badges of a trial in an authoritarian regime, lacking legitimacy or due process.” This sentence, like so many voiced by Trump, his lawyers and friends, convinces me these people do not know the meaning of words.

Expand full comment

I believe you Joyce. He will find some way of twisting it to his advantage if the court doesn’t allow cameras into it’s proceeding. After all, he will be in court instead of out on the campaign trail. What better way to muck it up.

Be afraid, be very afraid (said in an Elmer Fudd voice)🤣

Peace and prayers for our country and democracy☮️👏

Expand full comment

My "only" concern about cameras in the courtroom is

the jury. This applies to cell

phones as well. They must

be protected from Trump and

his MAGA. If that can happen,

then by all means, shine a bright light on this trial and

bleach our nation of this virus.

Expand full comment

"And Trump’s lawyers may have inadvertently provided Judge Chutkan with some cover by asking for cameras and claiming Trump’s due process rights would otherwise be violated." My sediment <g> exactly.

Expand full comment

For T, it's a win-win. (It's not, but that's how he sees it.)

If cameras are allowed in, his rabid base can see how he's being mistreated by an evil government. If cameras are not allowed in, it's a conspiratorial plot to hide what an evil government is doing to him.

Either way, he gets to play the victim card, which is his favorite game.

Expand full comment

Is it possible that Trump wants cameras in Judge Cannon's courtroom where she may let him get away with campaigning, whereas federal judges would not let him get away with that?

Expand full comment

As a consequence of Trump's filing last night, the legal issues pertaining to whether the court can order the Jan. 6 prosecution televised are now very different. Rule 53 absolutely prohibits broadcasting a criminal case. But as Chad Bowman argues, the First Amendment right to a public trial trumps that rule of procedure. The government responds that federal courts have universally held that Rule 53 is constitutional and its limitations are consistent with the First Amendment. But there is no reason why those limitations cannot be addressed by the alternatives suggested by the Media Coalition. Because of advances in technology, and the experience of state courts that have televised criminal trials, Judge Chutkan can easily distinguish all of the prior cases cited by the government where this issue has been addressed.

Now, on top of that, we have Trump's demand that his case be televised. I disagree with the idea that he really does not want the proceedings televised. I don't think he believes that a trial will undermine his chances of being elected. He depends upon theater to keep his constituency riled up. But even so, his lawyers certainly know that his position greatly increases the likelihood that Judge Chutkan will grant Midea Coalition's motion.

This is because Trump has now eliminated one of the most powerful arguments that have influenced the courts in the past: the defendant's due process rights. Of course, the government argues that it is entitled to a fair trial as well. Certainly, some courts have recognized such a right, but that "right" has no basis in the constitution, unlike a defendant's 5th and 14th Amendment due process rights.

Things Judge Chutkan knows:

1. This is the most important prosecution in the history of the United States.

2. The importance of the cases cited by the government pales by comparison because the country was not divided over whether the crimes took place. Nor did a large number of Americans believe that those cases were politically motivated show trials.

3. As it currently stands, everything that 350 million Americans will learn about the case will be secondhand. They will only hear accounts of the parties' opening statements, the direct and cross-examination of witnesses, the contents of documents, and the closing arguments and jury instructions from the media.

4. Those accounts will differ significantly based on the media outlet presenting them. Unquestionably, accounts by reporters and personalities working for MSNBC will be very different from those presented by Fox. Twenty years ago that might not have been so significant because people got their information from various (albeit far fewer) sources. But because of our nation's polarization, people only listen to sources that represent a particular ideology.

Based upon all of these factors, Judge Chutkan may believe that the only way to ensure the legitimacy of the jury's verdict is to televise the proceedings so that the American people will hear and see the evidence and make up their own minds.

The government argues that this is a policy decision. Not so, this is a constitutional question that is ripe for the court to consider. To the extent that prior to last night, the court had to balance competing constitutional rights, there is no longer anything to balance.

Expand full comment

Televise it. Federal judges will give him 15 seconds of his tom foolery and usual chicanery. Even Judge Cannon will have to rein him in or face future defendants and lawyers following his example.

Expand full comment