1. Trump should not get the special treatment of an exception to the rules of federal court procedure just because he's who he is, on general principles;
2. He WILL do his best to make the trial a show, and to bring disrepute on the justice system;
3. Allowing cameras in the DC courtroom will set a precedent tha…
1. Trump should not get the special treatment of an exception to the rules of federal court procedure just because he's who he is, on general principles;
2. He WILL do his best to make the trial a show, and to bring disrepute on the justice system;
3. Allowing cameras in the DC courtroom will set a precedent that may then have to be followed in the Fort Pierce courtroom, and that is totally unacceptable in a classified documents case where the controls are already complicated enough, and the judge gives every appearance of being biased in Trump's favor already.
The question that comes to my mind is, Who is the intended beneficiary of the prohibition on cameras in federal court rooms? Is it the defendant, or the witnesses, or the court itself?
That's a fair question, and I don't know the answer because I don't know the history of the rule. My guess would be the court itself, to keep what's supposed to be a formal proceeding from turning into a sideshow. Remember Judge Lance Ito? I imagine that he had quite an impressive future in front of him until the OJ trial was televised.
So far, Judge Scott McAfee in Atlanta has been defying the Ito Curse and getting high marks for his YouTube channel, but he hasn't had Trump himself in court yet. It's hard for me to imagine how justice can be served by televising Trump and Aileen Cannon mugging for the cameras, surrounded by highly classified documents.
No cameras in the courtroom:
1. Trump should not get the special treatment of an exception to the rules of federal court procedure just because he's who he is, on general principles;
2. He WILL do his best to make the trial a show, and to bring disrepute on the justice system;
3. Allowing cameras in the DC courtroom will set a precedent that may then have to be followed in the Fort Pierce courtroom, and that is totally unacceptable in a classified documents case where the controls are already complicated enough, and the judge gives every appearance of being biased in Trump's favor already.
The question that comes to my mind is, Who is the intended beneficiary of the prohibition on cameras in federal court rooms? Is it the defendant, or the witnesses, or the court itself?
That's a fair question, and I don't know the answer because I don't know the history of the rule. My guess would be the court itself, to keep what's supposed to be a formal proceeding from turning into a sideshow. Remember Judge Lance Ito? I imagine that he had quite an impressive future in front of him until the OJ trial was televised.
So far, Judge Scott McAfee in Atlanta has been defying the Ito Curse and getting high marks for his YouTube channel, but he hasn't had Trump himself in court yet. It's hard for me to imagine how justice can be served by televising Trump and Aileen Cannon mugging for the cameras, surrounded by highly classified documents.
please leave it up to the JUDGE, if your OPINION is wanted the JUDGE can as you for it, and as the UBER-RIGHT would say SHUT THE HELL UP!
What a bizarre, semi-literate comment! Thanks for participating ... I guess. 😂