The third and fourth point are what Trump wants. He doesn’t care about losing the case. As long as he gets elected President in 2024, he can pardon himself, take over the DOJ, and have all his political enemies arrested. If a judge says that his self pardon is unconstitutional, they get added to the political enemies list, arrested, and replaced with a new judge that says it’s perfectly fine.
Trump wants to have clips that he can play to rile up his base. Suppose a judge says “The defendant, Mr. Trump, has said that there’s a conspiracy against him and that I’m in this conspiracy.” Trump would release a video of the judge saying “… There’s a conspiracy against… Mr. Trump… I’m in this conspiracy…”
Trump’s base would then either elect him President or, if he loses, commit acts of violence in Trump’s name in the hopes that this will get him appointed President.
Presidents can’t pardon themselves of state crimes. He is being prosecuted for a crime in the state of Georgia. Being president would not get him out of that.
First, it is currently illegal to do so, and only the Supreme Court could overrule that.
It isn’t illegal per se, but rather barred by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Also, it doesn’t necessarily require the approval of the Supreme Court unless the approval or denial of cameras was appealed up to the Supreme Court level based on one side disagreeing with the ruling of the lower courts D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
For example, what is currently happening is that Judge Chutkan asked both parties to submit a brief on why cameras should or should not be allowed bases on the litigation introduced by corporate media stakeholders requesting the trial be televised. She can then take their opinions into consideration before making a formal request to the Magistrate Judge to allow cameras.
I think it is incredibly unlikely that this happens, but I could be wrong. I generally agree with everything else you said about cameras inviting all kinds of other issues into the proceeding. I have seriously mixed feelings about the entire thing.
There is a difference between laws and policies/procedural rules. The court does not have the ability to make laws. There is an important distinction to be made here I think, which is why I brought it up. If it was illegal then the court would have no ability to even consider allowing cameras per the second part of my comment.
What’s the superior court?
In this case it is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“And they won’t let us televise the trial, because they know it’s a crooked sham of a trial, it’s a witch hunt! But look at— look at Sleepy Joe there with Hunter’s laptop, Mr. Playboy himself. It’s a shame about Hugh Hefner being gone, he sure would’ve loved that guy, probably would’ve put him on the cover, Playboy’s Man of the Year. Not as good as when I was Time’s Man of the Year, but whataya gonna do, eh? But people say that issue sold out more than anything else in the magazine’s history. You know who else would’ve looked good in Playboy? Ivanka, I told her, ‘You should do Playboy hon, you’ll be great, you’re a natural!’ I try to be supportive of my kid, she’s an only child y’know.”
First, it is currently illegal to do so, and only the Supreme Court could overrule that.
However, second, the SCOTUS has adamantly opposed having its own cases televised, so the hope for a change there is remote.
Third, and finally, if OJ taught us nothing else, TV cases became a farce for justice.
Fourth, Don knows this. This is for the MAGAs
The third and fourth point are what Trump wants. He doesn’t care about losing the case. As long as he gets elected President in 2024, he can pardon himself, take over the DOJ, and have all his political enemies arrested. If a judge says that his self pardon is unconstitutional, they get added to the political enemies list, arrested, and replaced with a new judge that says it’s perfectly fine.
Trump wants to have clips that he can play to rile up his base. Suppose a judge says “The defendant, Mr. Trump, has said that there’s a conspiracy against him and that I’m in this conspiracy.” Trump would release a video of the judge saying “… There’s a conspiracy against… Mr. Trump… I’m in this conspiracy…”
Trump’s base would then either elect him President or, if he loses, commit acts of violence in Trump’s name in the hopes that this will get him appointed President.
Presidents can’t pardon themselves of state crimes. He is being prosecuted for a crime in the state of Georgia. Being president would not get him out of that.
It isn’t illegal per se, but rather barred by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Also, it doesn’t necessarily require the approval of the Supreme Court unless the approval or denial of cameras was appealed up to the Supreme Court level based on one side disagreeing with the ruling of the
lower courtsD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.For example, what is currently happening is that Judge Chutkan asked both parties to submit a brief on why cameras should or should not be allowed bases on the litigation introduced by corporate media stakeholders requesting the trial be televised. She can then take their opinions into consideration before making a formal request to the Magistrate Judge to allow cameras.
I think it is incredibly unlikely that this happens, but I could be wrong. I generally agree with everything else you said about cameras inviting all kinds of other issues into the proceeding. I have seriously mixed feelings about the entire thing.
And what happens if you break a rule? Can you be charged? Would it therefore be illegal?
It takes a superior court to Choutican. What’s the superior court?
There is a difference between laws and policies/procedural rules. The court does not have the ability to make laws. There is an important distinction to be made here I think, which is why I brought it up. If it was illegal then the court would have no ability to even consider allowing cameras per the second part of my comment.
In this case it is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thought you might know. Though my questions weren’t answered, perhaps they weren’t salient or something.
It was my impression that the Court of Appeals only rules on matters of law and not case facts.
True, but I don’t understand what that has to do with the camera question?
“And they won’t let us televise the trial, because they know it’s a crooked sham of a trial, it’s a witch hunt! But look at— look at Sleepy Joe there with Hunter’s laptop, Mr. Playboy himself. It’s a shame about Hugh Hefner being gone, he sure would’ve loved that guy, probably would’ve put him on the cover, Playboy’s Man of the Year. Not as good as when I was Time’s Man of the Year, but whataya gonna do, eh? But people say that issue sold out more than anything else in the magazine’s history. You know who else would’ve looked good in Playboy? Ivanka, I told her, ‘You should do Playboy hon, you’ll be great, you’re a natural!’ I try to be supportive of my kid, she’s an only child y’know.”