We live in interesting times, but Special Counsel Jack Smith wants to dull it down a bit.
The Trump Defense team had requested that Trump’s election interference case be televised so the American people could witness the trial.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is fighting the motion, citing that this would be utter chaos, creating a “carnival atmosphere” in the court.
Now, keep in mind that, typically speaking, federal trials are not televised.
This, however, is far from a normal case.
This is an unprecedented case where a former president and current presidential candidate, the likely nominee for the Republican Party, is being tried for a federal crime.
The problem, however, is that Trump’s Defense team did not really come up with a solid argument to televise the trial.
They argued, "These proceedings should be fully televised so that the American public can see firsthand that this case, just like others, is nothing more than a dreamt-up unconstitutional charade that should never be allowed to happen again."
I could not agree more with that statement, but again, this is about presenting a legal argument to justify breaking the norm of not bringing TV cameras into a federal courtroom, which is exactly how Smith framed his rebuttal.
Smith argued, "The defendant’s response does not cite a single rule or case in support of his position, because there are none.”
The filing continued, "The Court should decline the defendant’s 'demand' ... that he be placed beyond the rules and above the law.
"And it should avoid the spectacle—and attendant risks of witness intimidation—that the longstanding rules against courtroom broadcasting are designed to avoid."
I would really love for this trial to be on TV and I am holding out that the unique nature of the case will persuade the judge to allow cameras inside the courtroom, but I think we all know what the odds are of that happening.
Trump has been getting crushed by these judges, so there is no reason to believe this will be any different. Let's hope I am wrong.