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Media argued that the long-standing rule against cameras in federal criminal trials, which dates to the 1940s, is outdated and would violate the First Amendment if strictly enforced in the Trump case.

  • @ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    621 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      30
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        111 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 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.