201

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Media argued that the long-standing rule against cameras in federal criminal trials, which dates to the 1940s, is outdated and would violate the First Amendment if strictly enforced in the Trump case.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 63 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I 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.

[-] provisional@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago

Imagine 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.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The entire point of a debate is to be an entertainment shitshow, though.

Besides which what has that got to do with criminal proceedings? What point are you trying to make here?

My point: we can have video of the court proceedings without it being turned into soundbite central simply by delaying the release.

On the other hand, we- the broader public- need a certain amount of transparency that’s difficult to get without full coverage.

[-] Can_you_change_your_username@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To 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.

[-] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Give exclusive broadcast rights to C-Span

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I have never heard a better idea in all my life.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

PBS and C-span co-broadcast.

[-] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

They smell profits!!! And by God they WANT them.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

They'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.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

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

[-] lemmington_steele@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I'm a little confused. Don't we want this to be as transparent as possible to limit conspiracies?

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago

There'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.

[-] Klypto@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If 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.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Newt Gingrich was the first to weaponize it. He'd make long speeches to an empty chamber, because he knew that someone was watching. Backroom deals and horse trading may seem undemocratic, but you can't get compromise when people are forced to stand by every word.

[-] stillwater@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Television isn't as real as it seems.

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

There's going to be conspiracies no matter what. That's the sort of people we're dealing with here.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

There will be full court transcripts.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Televising 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.

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] probablyaCat@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

No 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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly. For his worshippers, Trump shapes reality.

[-] RubberStuntBaby@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This 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!

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

DAMMIT jack... what am I supposed to do with all those calls i got on jiffy pop? huh?

(/s)

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
201 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2274 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS