Jack Smith and his team may have to hold off on the bubbly to ring in 2024. In response to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s request for a proposed trial date for United States v. Trump (the District of Columbia version), they suggested January 2. It’s the kind of proposal that says the prosecution means business. They have no plans to take off the month of December and then ease back in to the new year. Instead, they’ve asked for a schedule that will keep them working through the Thanksgiving holiday. Their proposed calendar would have Trump filing his pre-trial motions on November 13, with the government’s responses due on November 27. That could add up to a lot of motions with prosecutors only allowed 14 days to respond and with the Thanksgiving holiday landing in the middle of their allotted time.
Now each of us needs to contact the DOJ and the Judicial Conference of the US (forms are online if you Google each agency) to ask that this trial be televised live and streamed live so that the public can see that the rule of law applies to each of us, that Trump will get a fair trial, and so each of us can hear and evaluate the proceedings without having to depend on reporting that can only include snippets of the process. Plus public access could limit the damage caused by distorted, inaccurate, and deceptive reporting, by Trump's allies especially.
Televising and streaming will also preserve a record of the trial that will limit revisionist interpretation. A fixed camera, as on C-Span, that doesn't show or identify the jurors, will minimize/eliminate the sensationalism that some people fear. The case is United States v. Trump, and it is Americans who are the United States.
well there should be a court transcript that will preserve the record quite as well. But I have two good reasons, in my opinion, for televising the trial. One is that I'm quite sure the magas who didn't watch the Jan 6 hearings will watch the trial to see their hero either vindicated, or railroaded. And that leads to the second reason. If the trial is televised there is no way Trump will not take the witness stand. No matter what anyone says, Trump won't be able to resist the allure of the camera and allow his supporters not see him in action. And all of his bravado will vaporize on the witness stand and the result will be Captain Queeg twisting himself into knots, and wringing his hands--perhaps even flying out of his seat. A publicly viewed trial will destroy the allure of Trump like nothing else could because he absolutely will not be able to not testify if its on TV.
And I really don't think the need to protect the witness' identities is relevant, despite NY Times. Every witness will be public anyway, and we probably know almost all of them already. And at that point intimidating their testimony will be moot, and many of the prominent ones may see it as an opportunity to merge as heroic in the same way many who testified publicly at Jan 6 hearings did.
I think the “Trumpet zombies” won’t watch. The guy who sits quietly subdued in in a courtroom is quite different from their imagined stage managed hero of the rally extravaganzas (which have taken lately to concentrating any younger red hatted fans in front, with the majority white haired folks relegated out of camera range) .
For me that’s one of the biggest benefits of televising the trial: to clearly show the braying ass who lied his way through an execrable tenure as fraud president humbled before the facts and law. I don’t think he would dare testify in court, which his ridiculous cult will be demanding he do, because in his core he is a pathetic terrified bully. And a trapped bully.
He might be so distraught he has a stroke on camera. Not that I’d wish such a thing on anyone, but a bully who cannot run away implodes.
Of course they'll watch. And Trump will insist on testifying, and you can be sure it will be in spite of what his lawyers advise him. He may think he can just plead the 5th whenever there's a question he doesn't want to answer, but if he chooses to testify he will be waiving his 5th amendment right not to self incriminate.
Jen, agree with implosion. Others have pointed to the fact that the endgame of narcissism is implosion (I'm not a mental health practitioner, just repeating the words of others on this blog who are licensed mental health practitioners such as social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrist). We do not welcome nor wish this - it is just the outcome for one who has pushed a narcissist agenda. My concern for publicizing the trial is that (I believe) witnesses are required to give their residence address. It's too dangerous for them to have to state this publicly given the state of mind of many Trump followers. Attorneys: could one please weigh in on whether witnesses are required to state their home address?
I think the trial should be televised but it will not be easy going for the country. We are likely going to see a lot of spectacle outside covered by the media either way, but it will be worse if televised: imagine big screens in bars and airports! More revving up. Confrontations. Sales of t shirts and hats, costuming from the cultists as their hero gets exposed.
I don't know how many hard core zombie Trumpets we have, but there may be wide unrest and we should be ready for it. Maybe they are few that just travel around.
I hope I am overblowing the probabilities.. but we should see this trial. It's a lesson, very worthy.
Let's not cave to the bullies or MAGA crowds. Not televising/streaming the trial out of fear of riots or criminal behavior is caving. The first rule of resisting tyranny is, "Do not obey in advance," per historian Timothy Snyder (ON TYRANNY- TWENTY LESSONS FROM THE TWENTIETH CENTURY). The US Constitution requires public trials. ALL federal trials should be public (perhaps w/ rare exceptions for national security) - this one especially.
We have to televise it (or provide full audio) also because if we do not it leaves openings for fabrications and misrepresentations of what went on. This will be attempted anyway, but there will be video clips to counter and play in response. This will not be a peaceful situation.
a la Bobby Seals '68 (trial was later by 3-4 years,) .Part of the Chicago 8 until Seales was totally removed. First the judge handcuffed him to his seat, then gagged him before severing him. It still remained a circus. I don't think Chutkan's going to let that happen.
Trump will have a leg up on threatening witnesses and the trial will turn into a zoo if it is televised. Not televising will keep a lid on most of the craziness from the MAGA crew. Trump will implode before he has an opportunity to testify.
Two very good lawyers yesterday presented strong arguments that having TV in the trial will harm the witnesses, whose identities and personal information will be exposed through questioning, putting them in danger from the Trumpscum.
I read the NY Times article and he did make some valid points. I believe the two most important points were protecting identity and truthfulness of witnesses and not giving trump the ability to mock the proceedings from within. On the first point, the witnesses will be identified and testimony made public by the press. On the second point, trump will mock and propagandize the trial whether he's in the courtroom on on his Liar Social app. In either case the truth will be told and, hopefully, trump will be convicted. Whether I see it or read it, I really don't care - so long as he spend his last days poor, broke and rotting in a jail cell.
The big constitutional issue is the freedom of the press. Unless the court orders some testimony to be closed to the public, it is considered public even without TV cameras, and the news media has the right to cover the trial and report on the proceedings in print and on TV.
Could there be a kind of hybrid viewing - so that witnesses would have their personal addresses blocked? No one needs the kind of endangerment giving an address poses. Trump has secret service protection, while most witnesses do not.
How is that an issue? The relevant part of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." How does a court's ruling about, e.g., televising court proceedings qualify as an act of Congress?
The 6th Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a public trial (Trump and his team don't seem to care much about "speedy"), but SCOTUS has ruled in the past (e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966) that this isn't absolute, that existing factors can be taken into consideration. The circumstances in this particular case are, to put it mildly, unusual if not unique, so I'm guessing the judge has considerable leeway in deciding what "public" looks like.
As I understand it, the "public" in "public trial" is there to contrast with "private" -- the sort of trial beloved of authoritarian regimes, where there are no independent observers and whatever counsel the defendant gets has probably been appointed by the state.
There seems credible fear of retaliation to jurors or witnesses, while recording provides an accurate account , which WE could hear /see after the verdict , the acts of retaliation are proven political fallout. And, the radicalized base is highly capable of carrying and acting on their grudge. The hook and line will not sink with the fisherman, most of their pride will not follow his fall. It’s a factor for later reckoning. Account ability will need time and consistent oversight.
They can easily do this by audio and alter the witness's voices. But to the point above, the media is going to release their names. So this whole thing is a charade. I wrote to the DOJ & federal court asking that they sort the way forward. We deserve the right to hear these federal cases in real-time.
TC, Thank you for posting this comment. I, too, heard the same arguments which have weighed heavily over the past 24 hours and on the heels of my having signed several petitions calling for a televised trial.
We could certainly have the audio streamed and their voices changed. Having worked in Communications for nearly 30 years and done 100s of videos, webinars, livestreams etc. I know this to be the case. The public deserves to hear these cases in real-time.
I fear it will just give Trump another platform for attention. Good or bad, he loves to be watched and play the victim. He's going to lie about it and spin it either way. Without an audience they may be able to proceed without distractions and outbursts.
Personally I don't need to "see" Trump anymore....... Televising would be just an opportunity for him to exploit....again.... I think his EGO will suffer more with no televising
There is a visceral need to see #45 finally suffer legal accountability for damaging our country as he did. I absolutely agree. However, perhaps we are indulging in blood lust by wanting to watch every second of what we feel will be comeuppance. Yes--he is a miserable human. Yes--he has caused needless agonies for many during his miserable life. No--I do not need to glue myself to the TV day after day, watching him, for any reason. I've had quite enough of his face and his voice. He will be held accountable, whether we "see" it or not. Frankly, thinking about him has taken up quite enough of my life already. I'd rather take a walk with my dogs, enjoy nature, and feel the stress of living in a world with people like him fall away. Happy to read about the trial right here, thank you.
Done. I referenced you and what you wrote above (giving you full credit), as you expressed what I think with far more eloquence than I could have. Hope that was OK. Thanks for encouraging us to write to the DOJ and the Judicial Conference of the US. Always happy to learn! Thanks again.
"This new tone is a positive development. Trump isn’t entitled to any special deference. He is a private citizen, not a president. Being a candidate doesn’t immunize him from accountability. Prosecutors came right out and said it:"
Maybe Judge Cannon in Florida with learn something as she observes how citizen DT gets treated in DC.
All judges learn a lot during their first 5 to 10 years on the bench. It's not just about knowing the law, it's also how to manage a courtroom, manage the judicial process, manager a docket and manage the personalities of the lawyers and litigants.
The difference here is that Trump appointed a bunch of judges who had little or no courtroom or trial experience, and whose only credential was membership in the federalist society. Cannon Is one of those judges, from what I've been able to see of her biography, I'm not sure she even saw the inside of a courtroom before she was appointed to the bench.
So her learning curve will take a lot longer. Because she did not come to the bench with trial in court. Remix experience that 1 would normally expect from a federal trial court judge. Trump seemed to appoint a number of those, reasonably bright people that know how to grasp the law and re members of the federalist society with a conservative agenda, but lacking in real world trial skills. If you don't have real world trial skills, it's going to be incredibly difficult to manage the trial process and play referee from the bench.
So I agree with you, we expect judges to know the law when they are appointed but it takes years to develop a skilled trial judge period in addition, I agree with you that this judge has demonstrated a serious bias in her past rulings with an inappropriate deference towards the former President. Thank goodness we have a pallet cords to exercise oversight on the trial courts.
Pallet cords (or straps) are used to secure pallets to the sidewalls of a truck so that they do no shift during transit. That is obviously what Jim was referring to, and it's a darn good point. We can't have our merchandise being damaged before it even gets to your local Walmart.
She might also learn how to act like a judge. Follow the law and quit fawning over the tool that put you there. You got the job you can get off your ****s now.
Great piece, thanks. I really hope Judge Chutkan goes for it. Over 40 years and 106 jury trials as an Assistant Federal Public Defender I’ve had four jury trials starting in early January, including two document-heavy fraud cases, and both sides just had to put all holiday-making activities aside. Period. I resented it the first time it happened, but since then got used to it and other such inconveniences - another trial was held within weeks of my second son’s birth, and another was recessed for one day so I could attend my boss’s funeral! - it doesn’t happen every year, and accepting some level of personal inconvenience is what professionals do. Thanks for glimpses into life in the big city.
In my 40 years as a court stenographer, I routinely was "caught" during the holidays whether covering depositions on the eve of Thanksgiving or Christmas (missed lots of Christmas parties!) or needing to have the completed transcripts available on the day after. I always thought that it just came with the territory.
The mechanics of life go on every day, regardless of holidays/weather/etc. 30 years as a cop taught me that. Homicides happen during holiday times. Fatal house fires on Christmas morning. Suicides on Thanksgiving and the 4th of July.
I'm guessing we will hear lots & lots of (forgive me) pissing & moaning & whining from the melonhead's faction of lawyers. The shock of djt having to actually do what he's told? Should be interesting. Honest - I am so freaking tired of every day seeing his face or hearing his voice - remember that so brief moment after the 2020 election - having a "vision" of NOT seeing or hearing that crap? Obviously, it likely only lasted maybe 5-10 minutes, but there was hope, right?
I worked years ago with a court reporter who was the "new guy" and just as everyone went home for the Christmas recess, he was ordered to go to the county jail and record the confession interview of a serial killer.
BRAVO! Well done, Joyce. I'm certain there aren't any of us here who wouldn't want tomorrow to be a good outcome for the Prosecution with respect to the protective order from the Judge. The bigger question is what will the Judge do the very next day or even the same day when trump loses his diaper over the order? He is bound to blow a gasket and there better be more than a wagging finger to spank that 3 yr old with. I hope it is a couple of days in the DC slammer. That MIGHT just teach him something about respect, etc. Probably not, but hey, i am okay if he has to spend multiple trips to the DC jail, which might make a great Foghorn Leghorn cartoon for all of us to watch....I mean, come on, son..... carry on
...surrounded by taxpayer provided Secret Service, a grifter wherever he goes.
So, big tangent, Joyce...with a perhaps not so fanciful question that in the past would be the stuff of fantastical suspense novels (but nowadays seems almost standard): in the event TFG attempted to take off for an authoritarian state in, say, his jet or that of a friend, would the Secret Service be compelled to protect him en route and after he landed? What would be the role of his Secret Service officers in this admittedly far-fetched scenario?
And, another question on same subject, if he is convicted and sent off to prison, will the Secret Service be required to protect him in prison? There is no precedence. In the time period when the Constitution was written, traitors faced the firing squad.
Well, since our Supreme Court prides itself on "originalism", perhaps we should be guided by what our founding fathers would have intended. Any appeal would likely end up before that court.
Yes, the Secret Service would protect a former president in prison. No, it won’t be difficult. Prison is a controlled, consistent environment. The agents would have less to do than usual. Two at a time, at the door to his cell or walking with him wherever, would be adequate. Maybe a few others to patrol with the guards, keep out reporters. Not a big deal.
Keep in mind that trump personally would be considered a non-violent offender. He’d be at a low security prison like Danbury, among other nonviolent lawbreakers.
Thank you, Joan. I appreciate the information. I am sorry for any Secret Service agents assigned to such duty. I'm not concerned about trump's safety. That slob will survive anywhere like the cockroach he is. I am also sorry our tax dollars would continue to support him, but then we have to support him in prison too. Good thing he likes orange.
Not so sure I would consider a trapped narcissist non-violent. Could be an explosion of frustrated ego the likes of which we’ve never seen. And with secret service, he would not have the “Epstein” out. Desperation pushes boundaries beyond expectations.
The courts are supposed to focus on past behavior. Since it's a long time since Donny personally threw rocks at anyone, he would not be jailed with men in there for being physically violent.
That remark about reporters was just me being flip. The law says former presidents get Secret Service protection. It doesn't say that changes if the former president is a crook who has been put in jail. Having a few agents on rotation near said crook's cell will be less expensive for taxpayers than having them constantly overcharged to protect him as he travels around and stays at his clubs and hotels.
Yes, but even unincarcerated former presidents only get 2 secret service agents. Trump would already have personal security, so to speak. Why spend taxpayer money to guard a convicted felon who tried to destroy our government? It defies logic.
The founders could have never envisioned a time that the United States would be in this situation. That people would have been stupid enough to vote for someone like TFG, so there is no blueprint. I still don't think he will ever be behind bars.
I agree, never in their wildest imagination could they conceive a villain like Trump. As to prison, I don't know either, I just hope he serves at least 5 years, loses all his assets, and Melania returns to Europe taking Barron with her.
He's not going to prison. I said from the day he came down the escalator that the best we could hope for is that he would be tied up in lawsuits until he died. As for Melania? She signed on for this and is just as bad. The minute she divorces him, which I don't see happening either, they lose spousal privilege. I live in NYC, we told everyone who he (and his family since the dawn of time) was, but we're just liberal snowflakes, that along with California, foot the bill for the country's issues.
Does the Secret Service still do his driving? I would hope that they would refuse to take him to the airport - like on Jan. 6 when the driver wouldn't drive him from the rally to the Capitol but instead drove him back to the White House.
We are all quite sad (my friends and I) that the Secret Service is unable to refuse to drive Trump to the airport. If they could do so, and because Trump has his passport, he could fly away to a country that does not extradite. Sorry, but we are stuck with him for now.
No other country is taking him, he's of no use to them now. And he's too narcissistic for that, he's enjoying the spotlight because he doesn't think there is ever going to be any accountability. And that I also tend to believe.
Then watch this space! The orange scumbag has betrayed his oath to the Constitution AND the American people, and we talk about treating him with deference AND giving him a security detail. Have we collectively lost our minds? I would give greater consideration to a murderer and rapist... (Which I suppose he is)!
No supposing about rape: please see WaPo, July 19, 2023. Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll by the jury trial that awarded her $5 Million. She stated in an interview that day or the next (with her attorney Robbie Kaplan present) that Trump indeed had raped her. Trump protested and filed his protest with the court. The judge then made his response to Trump that 'you raped her.' The judge explained that the New York definition of 'rape' is narrow, but the jury found that 'you raped her.' It says so right here in this WaPo link (I am only giving the gist of it above). Following this explanation from the judge, Robbie Kaplan filed for an increased award amount - sorry I do not have the link for that. I believe Ms. Kaplan requested an additional $10 Million.
Joyce, I'm fairly new to your blog and haven't commented before. I really appreciate these posts that clarify what is going on for those of us without any legal background, but who have great interest in what's going on with this case (actually, ALL of TFG's cases). As an older person with some cognitive issues due to illness, I'm often boggled by what I read and hear, so your well-written clarifications are much appreciated! Just wanted to say Thank You!
I am impressed by Jack Smith (and would hate to be on his wrong side)! I just wish this could all be done without having to hear the TFG whining, and lying and acting so arrogant about what most of us watched on TV and heard all of his "wilding", "maybe he deserves it" (about Pence), " who he loves on any day" (white nationalists or Kim Jon Un)! At least I don't have to see that face since I listen to the news. Joyce, you can't imagine how great it feels in places like Louisiana to know I belong to a like-minded group! Thank you and all your posse!!!
Cathy, I agree about listening to the whining and other nonsense. I no longer have to see it on tv, because I quit watching it shortly after January 6. All my news comes from print - NYT, Washington Post, Substack and Joyce’s podcast - Sisters-in-law. I just couldn’t stomach the spin and what aboutism and the msm giving trump so much free air time. However, I did make an exception for the J6 hearings and I will again if this trial is televised.
Dianna, I also highly recommend the Jack podcast with Andy McCabe and Allison Gill who each week dissect the most recent Jack Smith developments. Last week they read the entire 45 page indictment. I was riveted, even though I had previously read it myself.
Merrick Garland should resign, he's a disgrace. He waited 15 months to bring Jack Smith on board and is affiliated with the Federalist Society. Perhaps he might have made a good SCOTUS, but he's a lousy prosecutor.
There are a lot of people who thought Garland didn't know what he was doing but I have since joined his team with a huge hurrah! Read this and then answer back.
He’d rant and rave as usual, like the irresponsible psychopath he has always been! I’m sure the DJT team will be actively be trying to identify who on the selected jury might lean in his direction! Plus, he’s going to keep trashing every official who holds him accountable! For the good of public interest, the trial should be televised!
Thank you for your concise, easy to understand explanations. I am so tired of all things political that I could scream. I was so hoping that when Biden won he would just fade away (I am a dreamer) but do depend on You, Heather, Dan, Steve and Glenn to keep me informed and sane.
For the first time perhaps in his life I do believe Trump will be held subject to the structure of a federal prosecutor’s reasoning and the quality of his evidence. Let this be a deterrent for those who underestimate the judiciary once its officials understand they have met the burden of proof.
The trial ought to be completed BEFORE the election, BECAUSE its outcome may affect the vote. Aren't voters entitled to know whether one of the candidates is a felon? How can we make an informed choice if we're kept in ignorance?
I love your question because it slyly implies the answer :)
Because he knows that he has a really good chance of being convicted? I think for perhaps the first time in his long criminal con man life...Trump is frightened. I think he is terrified. And his only hope is to become President again.
Of course, next week may move his terror to another level. If Fani Willis nails him in Georgia, he can't pardon his way out prison.
He knows he will be convicted, and not just because he is guilty. To prove—and after the prosecution puts in its case he will have to prove—his innocence he will have to testify. And there’s no way he lets himself be cross-examined.
I don’t know about any other American but this one has absolutely nothing going so I’m going to make sure I will be available to park myself in front of my tv and enjoy justice being served upon the criminal Donnie Trump Sr. et al
In 5 months anything is possible including tv coverage in a Federal Courtroom that is and will be in the public’s best interest and to show the tRumpies that they too are witnesses to justice as our founding fathers meant it to be. In instances like this I like to use a phrase that I learned in the 1980’s “BOHICA”
tRump that stands for “Bend Over Here It Comes Again”
Federal courts do not allow cameras or televised proceedings. They have the technology to conduct hearings by zoom, including testimony from witnesses at remote locations. , but there is a long-standing policy against allowing televised proceedings.
Several legal commentators have authored opinion piece's publicly advocating for this trial to be televised, Given its public interest. It remains to be seen how that will be embraced by this trial court.
Now each of us needs to contact the DOJ and the Judicial Conference of the US (forms are online if you Google each agency) to ask that this trial be televised live and streamed live so that the public can see that the rule of law applies to each of us, that Trump will get a fair trial, and so each of us can hear and evaluate the proceedings without having to depend on reporting that can only include snippets of the process. Plus public access could limit the damage caused by distorted, inaccurate, and deceptive reporting, by Trump's allies especially.
Televising and streaming will also preserve a record of the trial that will limit revisionist interpretation. A fixed camera, as on C-Span, that doesn't show or identify the jurors, will minimize/eliminate the sensationalism that some people fear. The case is United States v. Trump, and it is Americans who are the United States.
well there should be a court transcript that will preserve the record quite as well. But I have two good reasons, in my opinion, for televising the trial. One is that I'm quite sure the magas who didn't watch the Jan 6 hearings will watch the trial to see their hero either vindicated, or railroaded. And that leads to the second reason. If the trial is televised there is no way Trump will not take the witness stand. No matter what anyone says, Trump won't be able to resist the allure of the camera and allow his supporters not see him in action. And all of his bravado will vaporize on the witness stand and the result will be Captain Queeg twisting himself into knots, and wringing his hands--perhaps even flying out of his seat. A publicly viewed trial will destroy the allure of Trump like nothing else could because he absolutely will not be able to not testify if its on TV.
And I really don't think the need to protect the witness' identities is relevant, despite NY Times. Every witness will be public anyway, and we probably know almost all of them already. And at that point intimidating their testimony will be moot, and many of the prominent ones may see it as an opportunity to merge as heroic in the same way many who testified publicly at Jan 6 hearings did.
I think the “Trumpet zombies” won’t watch. The guy who sits quietly subdued in in a courtroom is quite different from their imagined stage managed hero of the rally extravaganzas (which have taken lately to concentrating any younger red hatted fans in front, with the majority white haired folks relegated out of camera range) .
For me that’s one of the biggest benefits of televising the trial: to clearly show the braying ass who lied his way through an execrable tenure as fraud president humbled before the facts and law. I don’t think he would dare testify in court, which his ridiculous cult will be demanding he do, because in his core he is a pathetic terrified bully. And a trapped bully.
He might be so distraught he has a stroke on camera. Not that I’d wish such a thing on anyone, but a bully who cannot run away implodes.
Of course they'll watch. And Trump will insist on testifying, and you can be sure it will be in spite of what his lawyers advise him. He may think he can just plead the 5th whenever there's a question he doesn't want to answer, but if he chooses to testify he will be waiving his 5th amendment right not to self incriminate.
He's not intelligent enough to realize that.
Indeed! What a lovely thought! :-D
Jen, agree with implosion. Others have pointed to the fact that the endgame of narcissism is implosion (I'm not a mental health practitioner, just repeating the words of others on this blog who are licensed mental health practitioners such as social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrist). We do not welcome nor wish this - it is just the outcome for one who has pushed a narcissist agenda. My concern for publicizing the trial is that (I believe) witnesses are required to give their residence address. It's too dangerous for them to have to state this publicly given the state of mind of many Trump followers. Attorneys: could one please weigh in on whether witnesses are required to state their home address?
I think the trial should be televised but it will not be easy going for the country. We are likely going to see a lot of spectacle outside covered by the media either way, but it will be worse if televised: imagine big screens in bars and airports! More revving up. Confrontations. Sales of t shirts and hats, costuming from the cultists as their hero gets exposed.
I don't know how many hard core zombie Trumpets we have, but there may be wide unrest and we should be ready for it. Maybe they are few that just travel around.
I hope I am overblowing the probabilities.. but we should see this trial. It's a lesson, very worthy.
Let's not cave to the bullies or MAGA crowds. Not televising/streaming the trial out of fear of riots or criminal behavior is caving. The first rule of resisting tyranny is, "Do not obey in advance," per historian Timothy Snyder (ON TYRANNY- TWENTY LESSONS FROM THE TWENTIETH CENTURY). The US Constitution requires public trials. ALL federal trials should be public (perhaps w/ rare exceptions for national security) - this one especially.
We have to televise it (or provide full audio) also because if we do not it leaves openings for fabrications and misrepresentations of what went on. This will be attempted anyway, but there will be video clips to counter and play in response. This will not be a peaceful situation.
How about just live audio? Anyone want to weigh in on that thought?
Even the Supreme Court allows that in important cases.
I think Trump would likely be removed from the courtroom tout suite. Now that would be a laugh.
a la Bobby Seals '68 (trial was later by 3-4 years,) .Part of the Chicago 8 until Seales was totally removed. First the judge handcuffed him to his seat, then gagged him before severing him. It still remained a circus. I don't think Chutkan's going to let that happen.
Got a point, Ken and gave me a laugh too. Thanks
Trump will have a leg up on threatening witnesses and the trial will turn into a zoo if it is televised. Not televising will keep a lid on most of the craziness from the MAGA crew. Trump will implode before he has an opportunity to testify.
Two very good lawyers yesterday presented strong arguments that having TV in the trial will harm the witnesses, whose identities and personal information will be exposed through questioning, putting them in danger from the Trumpscum.
I read the NY Times article and he did make some valid points. I believe the two most important points were protecting identity and truthfulness of witnesses and not giving trump the ability to mock the proceedings from within. On the first point, the witnesses will be identified and testimony made public by the press. On the second point, trump will mock and propagandize the trial whether he's in the courtroom on on his Liar Social app. In either case the truth will be told and, hopefully, trump will be convicted. Whether I see it or read it, I really don't care - so long as he spend his last days poor, broke and rotting in a jail cell.
"On the first point, the witnesses will be identified and testimony made public by the press." Agree, Andrew.
The big constitutional issue is the freedom of the press. Unless the court orders some testimony to be closed to the public, it is considered public even without TV cameras, and the news media has the right to cover the trial and report on the proceedings in print and on TV.
Could there be a kind of hybrid viewing - so that witnesses would have their personal addresses blocked? No one needs the kind of endangerment giving an address poses. Trump has secret service protection, while most witnesses do not.
Sure, but all people need is your name because they can google and find you.
How is that an issue? The relevant part of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." How does a court's ruling about, e.g., televising court proceedings qualify as an act of Congress?
The 6th Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a public trial (Trump and his team don't seem to care much about "speedy"), but SCOTUS has ruled in the past (e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966) that this isn't absolute, that existing factors can be taken into consideration. The circumstances in this particular case are, to put it mildly, unusual if not unique, so I'm guessing the judge has considerable leeway in deciding what "public" looks like.
As I understand it, the "public" in "public trial" is there to contrast with "private" -- the sort of trial beloved of authoritarian regimes, where there are no independent observers and whatever counsel the defendant gets has probably been appointed by the state.
Most criminal defendants can't afford a lawyer. What's wrong with court-appointed counsel?
What issue are you referring to?
Good point, Marycat.
There seems credible fear of retaliation to jurors or witnesses, while recording provides an accurate account , which WE could hear /see after the verdict , the acts of retaliation are proven political fallout. And, the radicalized base is highly capable of carrying and acting on their grudge. The hook and line will not sink with the fisherman, most of their pride will not follow his fall. It’s a factor for later reckoning. Account ability will need time and consistent oversight.
Witnesses will be seen, jurors will not. They should never be visible on camera.
They never are. You can expect the breitbarfs of the world to be desperately trying to identify them.
They can easily do this by audio and alter the witness's voices. But to the point above, the media is going to release their names. So this whole thing is a charade. I wrote to the DOJ & federal court asking that they sort the way forward. We deserve the right to hear these federal cases in real-time.
Bravo! My sentiments, exactly.
Indeed Andrew. It is paramount to protect witnesses.
TC, Thank you for posting this comment. I, too, heard the same arguments which have weighed heavily over the past 24 hours and on the heels of my having signed several petitions calling for a televised trial.
We could certainly have the audio streamed and their voices changed. Having worked in Communications for nearly 30 years and done 100s of videos, webinars, livestreams etc. I know this to be the case. The public deserves to hear these cases in real-time.
Another good point Erica.I wouldn’t put anything past them !
I fear it will just give Trump another platform for attention. Good or bad, he loves to be watched and play the victim. He's going to lie about it and spin it either way. Without an audience they may be able to proceed without distractions and outbursts.
Bill Barr's distortion of the Muller Report should be cited as the reason for complete transparency.
Personally I don't need to "see" Trump anymore....... Televising would be just an opportunity for him to exploit....again.... I think his EGO will suffer more with no televising
There is a visceral need to see #45 finally suffer legal accountability for damaging our country as he did. I absolutely agree. However, perhaps we are indulging in blood lust by wanting to watch every second of what we feel will be comeuppance. Yes--he is a miserable human. Yes--he has caused needless agonies for many during his miserable life. No--I do not need to glue myself to the TV day after day, watching him, for any reason. I've had quite enough of his face and his voice. He will be held accountable, whether we "see" it or not. Frankly, thinking about him has taken up quite enough of my life already. I'd rather take a walk with my dogs, enjoy nature, and feel the stress of living in a world with people like him fall away. Happy to read about the trial right here, thank you.
Did not know about these opportunities to push for a public trial.
As for the arguments against televising. The court has several ways to protect witnesses and the jurors from public exposure.
Done. I referenced you and what you wrote above (giving you full credit), as you expressed what I think with far more eloquence than I could have. Hope that was OK. Thanks for encouraging us to write to the DOJ and the Judicial Conference of the US. Always happy to learn! Thanks again.
So glad you contacted them. Kudos!
Trump thrives when a tV camera is on! Agree with others, protect the witnesses. Joyce, Heather, et al coverage is fine with me!
https://www.uscourts.gov/contact-us
Where's the form you're referring to on the DOJ website
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
Thank you Laurie. I found it and sent it.
I'm on the DOJ website. Where do I find the forms you're referring to?
"This new tone is a positive development. Trump isn’t entitled to any special deference. He is a private citizen, not a president. Being a candidate doesn’t immunize him from accountability. Prosecutors came right out and said it:"
Maybe Judge Cannon in Florida with learn something as she observes how citizen DT gets treated in DC.
Judge* Cannon is not in that courtroom to learn, as her rulings to date are vivid testimony of both her pre-disposed biases and judicial incompetence.
Imo, you are generous.
All judges learn a lot during their first 5 to 10 years on the bench. It's not just about knowing the law, it's also how to manage a courtroom, manage the judicial process, manager a docket and manage the personalities of the lawyers and litigants.
The difference here is that Trump appointed a bunch of judges who had little or no courtroom or trial experience, and whose only credential was membership in the federalist society. Cannon Is one of those judges, from what I've been able to see of her biography, I'm not sure she even saw the inside of a courtroom before she was appointed to the bench.
So her learning curve will take a lot longer. Because she did not come to the bench with trial in court. Remix experience that 1 would normally expect from a federal trial court judge. Trump seemed to appoint a number of those, reasonably bright people that know how to grasp the law and re members of the federalist society with a conservative agenda, but lacking in real world trial skills. If you don't have real world trial skills, it's going to be incredibly difficult to manage the trial process and play referee from the bench.
So I agree with you, we expect judges to know the law when they are appointed but it takes years to develop a skilled trial judge period in addition, I agree with you that this judge has demonstrated a serious bias in her past rulings with an inappropriate deference towards the former President. Thank goodness we have a pallet cords to exercise oversight on the trial courts.
In your last line, "a pallet cords"?? Did you mean appellate courts?
I do believe AutoIncorrect had something to do with "a pallet cords."
@ Barbara "autiINcorrect" !! Love it.
No offense to Barbara, but "AutoIncorrect" is my neologism, Jim.
Pallet cords (or straps) are used to secure pallets to the sidewalls of a truck so that they do no shift during transit. That is obviously what Jim was referring to, and it's a darn good point. We can't have our merchandise being damaged before it even gets to your local Walmart.
Pallet cords = appellate courts
I use voice recognition software to dictate and I should check this stuff before I post it. sorry about that.
No apologies needed. Now go goof off on a hike, cycling or something!
Actually, I had wondered if that might be the case. Hey, whatever works (usually). Hope you've had coffee by now, know the feeling.
Judges do not manage dockets. Court clerks do :)
For baby judges 👩⚖️ like Aileen, that would be an improvement 😉
Thank you for subscribing.
She might also learn how to act like a judge. Follow the law and quit fawning over the tool that put you there. You got the job you can get off your ****s now.
Is Judge Cannon capable of open to learning?!
Great piece, thanks. I really hope Judge Chutkan goes for it. Over 40 years and 106 jury trials as an Assistant Federal Public Defender I’ve had four jury trials starting in early January, including two document-heavy fraud cases, and both sides just had to put all holiday-making activities aside. Period. I resented it the first time it happened, but since then got used to it and other such inconveniences - another trial was held within weeks of my second son’s birth, and another was recessed for one day so I could attend my boss’s funeral! - it doesn’t happen every year, and accepting some level of personal inconvenience is what professionals do. Thanks for glimpses into life in the big city.
In my 40 years as a court stenographer, I routinely was "caught" during the holidays whether covering depositions on the eve of Thanksgiving or Christmas (missed lots of Christmas parties!) or needing to have the completed transcripts available on the day after. I always thought that it just came with the territory.
The mechanics of life go on every day, regardless of holidays/weather/etc. 30 years as a cop taught me that. Homicides happen during holiday times. Fatal house fires on Christmas morning. Suicides on Thanksgiving and the 4th of July.
Yes, yes, Ally. Yay for you and all the first responders!
I'm guessing we will hear lots & lots of (forgive me) pissing & moaning & whining from the melonhead's faction of lawyers. The shock of djt having to actually do what he's told? Should be interesting. Honest - I am so freaking tired of every day seeing his face or hearing his voice - remember that so brief moment after the 2020 election - having a "vision" of NOT seeing or hearing that crap? Obviously, it likely only lasted maybe 5-10 minutes, but there was hope, right?
There was one good day when Trump faded from memory like a bad dream. Maybe we will live to see another!
I worked years ago with a court reporter who was the "new guy" and just as everyone went home for the Christmas recess, he was ordered to go to the county jail and record the confession interview of a serial killer.
Ouch, Marycat! Woe to the "new guys" everywhere!
January 2. I am both impressed, relieved, & hopeful for justice.
BRAVO! Well done, Joyce. I'm certain there aren't any of us here who wouldn't want tomorrow to be a good outcome for the Prosecution with respect to the protective order from the Judge. The bigger question is what will the Judge do the very next day or even the same day when trump loses his diaper over the order? He is bound to blow a gasket and there better be more than a wagging finger to spank that 3 yr old with. I hope it is a couple of days in the DC slammer. That MIGHT just teach him something about respect, etc. Probably not, but hey, i am okay if he has to spend multiple trips to the DC jail, which might make a great Foghorn Leghorn cartoon for all of us to watch....I mean, come on, son..... carry on
tRump should be considered as a Hannibal Lecter, a psychopathic menace to society, and treated accordingly.
...surrounded by taxpayer provided Secret Service, a grifter wherever he goes.
So, big tangent, Joyce...with a perhaps not so fanciful question that in the past would be the stuff of fantastical suspense novels (but nowadays seems almost standard): in the event TFG attempted to take off for an authoritarian state in, say, his jet or that of a friend, would the Secret Service be compelled to protect him en route and after he landed? What would be the role of his Secret Service officers in this admittedly far-fetched scenario?
And, another question on same subject, if he is convicted and sent off to prison, will the Secret Service be required to protect him in prison? There is no precedence. In the time period when the Constitution was written, traitors faced the firing squad.
Well, since our Supreme Court prides itself on "originalism", perhaps we should be guided by what our founding fathers would have intended. Any appeal would likely end up before that court.
Yes, the Secret Service would protect a former president in prison. No, it won’t be difficult. Prison is a controlled, consistent environment. The agents would have less to do than usual. Two at a time, at the door to his cell or walking with him wherever, would be adequate. Maybe a few others to patrol with the guards, keep out reporters. Not a big deal.
Keep in mind that trump personally would be considered a non-violent offender. He’d be at a low security prison like Danbury, among other nonviolent lawbreakers.
Thank you, Joan. I appreciate the information. I am sorry for any Secret Service agents assigned to such duty. I'm not concerned about trump's safety. That slob will survive anywhere like the cockroach he is. I am also sorry our tax dollars would continue to support him, but then we have to support him in prison too. Good thing he likes orange.
Not so sure I would consider a trapped narcissist non-violent. Could be an explosion of frustrated ego the likes of which we’ve never seen. And with secret service, he would not have the “Epstein” out. Desperation pushes boundaries beyond expectations.
The courts are supposed to focus on past behavior. Since it's a long time since Donny personally threw rocks at anyone, he would not be jailed with men in there for being physically violent.
I am more inclined to think he'd be kept in protective custody. Why should taxpayers be paying for personal security for a convicted traitor?
Reporters cannot just waltz into prisons. There is no need for secret service agents to fend them off.
That remark about reporters was just me being flip. The law says former presidents get Secret Service protection. It doesn't say that changes if the former president is a crook who has been put in jail. Having a few agents on rotation near said crook's cell will be less expensive for taxpayers than having them constantly overcharged to protect him as he travels around and stays at his clubs and hotels.
Yes, but even unincarcerated former presidents only get 2 secret service agents. Trump would already have personal security, so to speak. Why spend taxpayer money to guard a convicted felon who tried to destroy our government? It defies logic.
The founders could have never envisioned a time that the United States would be in this situation. That people would have been stupid enough to vote for someone like TFG, so there is no blueprint. I still don't think he will ever be behind bars.
I agree, never in their wildest imagination could they conceive a villain like Trump. As to prison, I don't know either, I just hope he serves at least 5 years, loses all his assets, and Melania returns to Europe taking Barron with her.
He's not going to prison. I said from the day he came down the escalator that the best we could hope for is that he would be tied up in lawsuits until he died. As for Melania? She signed on for this and is just as bad. The minute she divorces him, which I don't see happening either, they lose spousal privilege. I live in NYC, we told everyone who he (and his family since the dawn of time) was, but we're just liberal snowflakes, that along with California, foot the bill for the country's issues.
Love this comment, someday THEY will admit we liberal snowflakes had a point! (:-)
Does the Secret Service still do his driving? I would hope that they would refuse to take him to the airport - like on Jan. 6 when the driver wouldn't drive him from the rally to the Capitol but instead drove him back to the White House.
We are all quite sad (my friends and I) that the Secret Service is unable to refuse to drive Trump to the airport. If they could do so, and because Trump has his passport, he could fly away to a country that does not extradite. Sorry, but we are stuck with him for now.
No other country is taking him, he's of no use to them now. And he's too narcissistic for that, he's enjoying the spotlight because he doesn't think there is ever going to be any accountability. And that I also tend to believe.
Ohhhh! Interesting question! Yes, far-fetched, but very interesting, and I'll be watching to see if anyone comes up with an answer.
Then watch this space! The orange scumbag has betrayed his oath to the Constitution AND the American people, and we talk about treating him with deference AND giving him a security detail. Have we collectively lost our minds? I would give greater consideration to a murderer and rapist... (Which I suppose he is)!
No supposing about rape: please see WaPo, July 19, 2023. Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll by the jury trial that awarded her $5 Million. She stated in an interview that day or the next (with her attorney Robbie Kaplan present) that Trump indeed had raped her. Trump protested and filed his protest with the court. The judge then made his response to Trump that 'you raped her.' The judge explained that the New York definition of 'rape' is narrow, but the jury found that 'you raped her.' It says so right here in this WaPo link (I am only giving the gist of it above). Following this explanation from the judge, Robbie Kaplan filed for an increased award amount - sorry I do not have the link for that. I believe Ms. Kaplan requested an additional $10 Million.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
Thank you for asking this, I've been wondering about it too.
Surely the Secret Service would keep him on United States soil.
One would hope.
Not so sure this is far fetched, we all know he's a coward ..
Joyce, I'm fairly new to your blog and haven't commented before. I really appreciate these posts that clarify what is going on for those of us without any legal background, but who have great interest in what's going on with this case (actually, ALL of TFG's cases). As an older person with some cognitive issues due to illness, I'm often boggled by what I read and hear, so your well-written clarifications are much appreciated! Just wanted to say Thank You!
Welcome to a great arena of information!!
Thank you! :)
I am impressed by Jack Smith (and would hate to be on his wrong side)! I just wish this could all be done without having to hear the TFG whining, and lying and acting so arrogant about what most of us watched on TV and heard all of his "wilding", "maybe he deserves it" (about Pence), " who he loves on any day" (white nationalists or Kim Jon Un)! At least I don't have to see that face since I listen to the news. Joyce, you can't imagine how great it feels in places like Louisiana to know I belong to a like-minded group! Thank you and all your posse!!!
Cathy, I agree about listening to the whining and other nonsense. I no longer have to see it on tv, because I quit watching it shortly after January 6. All my news comes from print - NYT, Washington Post, Substack and Joyce’s podcast - Sisters-in-law. I just couldn’t stomach the spin and what aboutism and the msm giving trump so much free air time. However, I did make an exception for the J6 hearings and I will again if this trial is televised.
Dianna, I also highly recommend the Jack podcast with Andy McCabe and Allison Gill who each week dissect the most recent Jack Smith developments. Last week they read the entire 45 page indictment. I was riveted, even though I had previously read it myself.
Me too, although it took me longer to stop watching Nicole. No more TV news for me, especially not local Louisiana!
Thank God and Merrick Garland for Jack Smith!
I thank Merrick Garland. I’m pretty sure God is still sleeping since at least the Holocaust, if not before.
Merrick Garland should resign, he's a disgrace. He waited 15 months to bring Jack Smith on board and is affiliated with the Federalist Society. Perhaps he might have made a good SCOTUS, but he's a lousy prosecutor.
There are a lot of people who thought Garland didn't know what he was doing but I have since joined his team with a huge hurrah! Read this and then answer back.
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/was-merrick-garlands-approach-correct
I don't agree, nor do many people who know way more than I do about these things.
He could be convicted before Super Tuesday!
Whatever day he's convicted is by definition a "Super Day".
Super Duper Tuesday!
It will be interesting to see the orange paychopath's posts the day after Judge Chutkan sets his trial date not where he wants.
He’d rant and rave as usual, like the irresponsible psychopath he has always been! I’m sure the DJT team will be actively be trying to identify who on the selected jury might lean in his direction! Plus, he’s going to keep trashing every official who holds him accountable! For the good of public interest, the trial should be televised!
Surely hope so.
I think his lawyers are stalling because they dread the day that they have to show up and admit they have no defense.
Thank you for your concise, easy to understand explanations. I am so tired of all things political that I could scream. I was so hoping that when Biden won he would just fade away (I am a dreamer) but do depend on You, Heather, Dan, Steve and Glenn to keep me informed and sane.
For the first time perhaps in his life I do believe Trump will be held subject to the structure of a federal prosecutor’s reasoning and the quality of his evidence. Let this be a deterrent for those who underestimate the judiciary once its officials understand they have met the burden of proof.
The trial ought to be completed BEFORE the election, BECAUSE its outcome may affect the vote. Aren't voters entitled to know whether one of the candidates is a felon? How can we make an informed choice if we're kept in ignorance?
And again I ask, Why wouldn’t Trump want an early trial, so that he can put this issue behind him early in the presidential campaign?
I love your question because it slyly implies the answer :)
Because he knows that he has a really good chance of being convicted? I think for perhaps the first time in his long criminal con man life...Trump is frightened. I think he is terrified. And his only hope is to become President again.
Of course, next week may move his terror to another level. If Fani Willis nails him in Georgia, he can't pardon his way out prison.
He knows he will be convicted, and not just because he is guilty. To prove—and after the prosecution puts in its case he will have to prove—his innocence he will have to testify. And there’s no way he lets himself be cross-examined.
Only the innocent would want to be absolved by an early trial. The guilty, not so much.
Great thought.
I don’t know about any other American but this one has absolutely nothing going so I’m going to make sure I will be available to park myself in front of my tv and enjoy justice being served upon the criminal Donnie Trump Sr. et al
In 5 months anything is possible including tv coverage in a Federal Courtroom that is and will be in the public’s best interest and to show the tRumpies that they too are witnesses to justice as our founding fathers meant it to be. In instances like this I like to use a phrase that I learned in the 1980’s “BOHICA”
tRump that stands for “Bend Over Here It Comes Again”
Federal courts do not allow cameras or televised proceedings. They have the technology to conduct hearings by zoom, including testimony from witnesses at remote locations. , but there is a long-standing policy against allowing televised proceedings.
Several legal commentators have authored opinion piece's publicly advocating for this trial to be televised, Given its public interest. It remains to be seen how that will be embraced by this trial court.