Trump's Trial
"In former president Donald Trump's third criminal indictment - the one recently issued by a District of Columbia grand jury for Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election - he's charged with a conspiracy to deprive the American voters of their voting rights. Accordingly, the American people are the victims of that particular crime.The federal law - specifically, the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 US Code section 3771 - provides that crime victims have a right "not to be excluded" from the trial. If the trial is not televised, the victims of Trump's crimes WILL BE EXCLUDED FREOM THE TRIAL in violation of federal law."
I think there will be consequences of the trial being televised, or not being televised.
Comments (63)
It was late last night when the news came through about indictment #4, but I believe I heard the trial will be televised.
I've heard that Trump posted on Truth Social that one of the witnesses shouldn't testify to the grand jury which in Georgia counts as the felony 'influencing a witness'. In Washington a grand jury indictment in another state is regarded as 'probable cause' that a crime has been committed. Trump's pretrial release in Washington is on the condition that he doesn't break the law.
It may be that televising the court cases will be the only platform Trump has in the run up to the 2024 election. I'm beginning to wonder if Trump's repeated transgressions of his pretrial release conditions are deliberate. Maybe he's banking on his popularity increasing if he's detained.
If that's the case, I imagine he thinks he'll get special treatment and adoration in prison. I can't see him fairing well locked up in a wee cell 23 hours a day.
The blog is not about your personal pretrial verdict: Trump is innocent until proven guilty with respect to these J6 related charges.
The topic is about televising the trial.
Although I was rather amused by your comment regarding a two tier judicial system. The possibility of a wealthy white man being held to the same legal standards as everyone else in the US is a bit freaky, eh?
You have yet to offer an opinion about the possible televising of the Washington trial.
You have yet to offer an opinion about the possible televising of the Washington trial.
I don't care if it's televised or not, is this your only concern, and not the FACT that Biden has weaponized the justice depth. for his disposal to try to rid of his political opponents. That is what we call corruption over here, not sure how they view it where you live.
On the other hand, trial by media may affect Trump getting a fair trial in some way.
I would have thought Trump getting a fair trial and his supporters being able to monitor the process for fairness would be of great concern for you.
Whining about corruption and saying you don't care if everything goes on behind closed doors all in one sentence is just a wee bit contradictory, isn't it?
On the other hand, trial by media may affect Trump getting a fair trial in some way.
I would have thought Trump getting a fair trial and his supporters being able to monitor the process for fairness would be of great concern for you.
Whining about corruption and saying you don't care if everything goes on behind closed doors all in one sentence is just a wee bit contradictory, isn't it?
Prime time TV companies will probably have to bid for the space and right to access the court feeds. Would you prefer to watch it on Netscape, ESPN or the Disney channel? PBS may carry segnments of it, but C-Span will probably have more of it. Myself, like a Super Bowl, I won't waste my time watching. Much easier to walk to the 711 the day after the trial and glance at the newspaper headlines to see if they say guilty or not guilty.
If the DC authorities decide the Georgia indictment is a breach of pre-release conditions they have the means to store him in the Brooklyn House of Detention next to the former Honduran President and Epstein's fellow child rapist, Maxine. He can give (shout) campaign speeches from his cell all day and night and if he is loud enough maybe his yells will down out the other shouts and screams coming from the other inmate's cells. Macht Nichts.
The one I am saddest about was former NYC Mayor Giuliani who had briefly shown so bright in the time of 911 as the only American politician of note who was not cowering in a hidden bunker that week. A falling star for sure, brightly burning then going pffft as it disappears into a smelly swamp.
Prison time inn Georgia will be the scariest prison for Trump. I suspect that shortly after his conviction on any of the four charges Congress and the Senate will pass new legislation removing his right of Secret Service protection. His nights will be filled with sensual pleasures as those Mexicans he labeled as rapists visit his cell to pay homage to the great Trump.
As for your claim that Trump is being screwed by 'Biden's justice department', the Federalist Society is ultra-conservative (see Friendship's post on page one), Trump appointed judges will be presiding in some instances (like Justice Aileen Cannon re: sensitive documents) and it was the Supreme Court including Trump appointed judges who ruled that Trump's claims of election fraud had no basis.
It doesn't matter who appointed the judges, or what their personal political leanings are, if anyone acts outside of the law, or with bias in, or against Trump's interests, it can be legallly challenged.
And you still seem to be struggling with the reality that the two tier justice system in the US favours people like Trump. He's not being represented by public defenders with so many clients they only have a few minutes to spend with each before trial and he's not likely to be prejudged by a jury as criminal because of the colour of his skin.
Prime time TV companies will probably have to bid for the space and right to access the court feeds. Would you prefer to watch it on Netscape, ESPN or the Disney channel? PBS may carry segnments of it, but C-Span will probably have more of it. Myself, like a Super Bowl, I won't waste my time watching. Much easier to walk to the 711 the day after the trial and glance at the newspaper headlines to see if they say guilty or not guilty.
If the DC authorities decide the Georgia indictment is a breach of pre-release conditions they have the means to store him in the Brooklyn House of Detention next to the former Honduran President and Epstein's fellow child rapist, Maxine. He can give (shout) campaign speeches from his cell all day and night and if he is loud enough maybe his yells will down out the other shouts and screams coming from the other inmate's cells. Macht Nichts.
The one I am saddest about was former NYC Mayor Giuliani who had briefly shown so bright in the time of 911 as the only American politician of note who was not cowering in a hidden bunker that week. A falling star for sure, brightly burning then going pffft as it disappears into a smelly swamp.
Prison time inn Georgia will be the scariest prison for Trump. I suspect that shortly after his conviction on any of the four charges Congress and the Senate will pass new legislation removing his right of Secret Service protection. His nights will be filled with sensual pleasures as those Mexicans he labeled as rapists visit his cell to pay homage to the great Trump.
As for Guiliani, he's always been a self-serving prick. You just couldn't see it when he was taking advantage of 9/11 for his own ends.
On topic, if the trial is televised it would have to be accessible to all if it were to meet the conditions of Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 US Code section 3771. Companies that require subscription fees would exclude some US citizens from their legal entitlement to attend the trial.
As for your claim that Trump is being screwed by 'Biden's justice department', the Federalist Society is ultra-conservative (see Friendship's post on page one), Trump appointed judges will be presiding in some instances (like Justice Aileen Cannon re: sensitive documents) and it was the Supreme Court including Trump appointed judges who ruled that Trump's claims of election fraud had no basis.
It doesn't matter who appointed the judges, or what their personal political leanings are, if anyone acts outside of the law, or with bias in, or against Trump's interests, it can be legallly challenged.
And you still seem to be struggling with the reality that the two tier justice system in the US favours people like Trump. He's not being represented by public defenders with so many clients they only have a few minutes to spend with each before trial and he's not likely to be prejudged by a jury as criminal because of the colour of his skin.
What consequences and impact on findings having or not having might result in, who can say. The absurdity of the jury verdict in the OJ Simpson case gives one cause to wonder. The broadcasting and lack of residual impact of the 6th Jan hearings likewise raise questions. I sincerely doubt it would improve the logic and perceptions of the dyed-in Pro-Potus45, or change the minds of the Anti-potus - more likely set deeper in concrete both sides. I lean towards 'no significant or meaningful' effect.
From a few bits and bobs I've seen, there has been some well crafted legal arguments involved in the prosecution. It might be a bit less absurd than expected.
Absolutely, but the fact that there are no guarantees either way is a part of a fair trial for Trump.
I don't understand what you're saying here Would you mind explaining it to me, please?
"(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding."
Relevant, unless the court believes testimony by the victim xcould be altered by being there to hear other people testify. Neither side is planning on calling the entire population of the US to testify, or allowing the other side to do so either. None of the attorneys intend to die of old age waiting for the last "US citizen victim" to testify, nor is there a practical way to keep them all alive long enough to do so. It took 2,000 years for a million seconds to pass from when Jesus was allegedly crucified. The representative of the people is the prosecutor (and always has been). The court, aka the Judge gets to approve or disapprove any person's testimony. It is always that way. If a person is not going to testify then by extension their testimony will not be affected.
The issue then becomes (if one side or the other is asinine enough to forever piss off the entire judicial system (and really mess up their future careers) by proposing all 340 million US citizens be sworn in as witnesses to testify that judge wishes to allow testimony prolonging the hearing/trial long enough so the sun starts to Nova, or else simply say no way.
The side proposing that everyone testify can then challenge on appeal later after the trial. By the time a higher court gets around to putting it on a docket the decision and the movie about the trial will be out and since that would clearly impact the testimony in a re-trial, they can't be allowed to testify anyway.
I don't understand what you're saying here Would you mind explaining it to me, please?
As to deepening the division, it just makes both sides more and more intransigeant and resolves nothing.
The degree of mockery [ 2 U the viewer
.is TERRIFIC.
Mcbob. ) And U never learn
It's irrelevant if Trump supporters laughed off the investigation, or have forgotten the evidence. The important issue now is that Trump gets fair trials where he has been criminally charged.
I'm not sure both sides will become more intransigent in all cases, however. Whilst the indictment in Georgia includes 19 co-conspirators, I understand some 30 former co-conspirators have been named as co-operating witnesses in the 98 page indictment.
There maybe more plea deals to come in both the Washington and Georgia trials as people are faced with being held to account for their actions and the potential consequences.
Given the J6 rioters convictions, the politicians and lawyers prosecutions and more recently the arrest of Abigail Jo Shry, at some point maybe following protocol and law will be re-established in the US political arena. I suspect it will be more difficult to create division in the long term as a result.
"(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding."
Relevant, unless the court believes testimony by the victim xcould be altered by being there to hear other people testify. Neither side is planning on calling the entire population of the US to testify, or allowing the other side to do so either. None of the attorneys intend to die of old age waiting for the last "US citizen victim" to testify, nor is there a practical way to keep them all alive long enough to do so. It took 2,000 years for a million seconds to pass from when Jesus was allegedly crucified. The representative of the people is the prosecutor (and always has been). The court, aka the Judge gets to approve or disapprove any person's testimony. It is always that way. If a person is not going to testify then by extension their testimony will not be affected.
The issue then becomes (if one side or the other is asinine enough to forever piss off the entire judicial system (and really mess up their future careers) by proposing all 340 million US citizens be sworn in as witnesses to testify that judge wishes to allow testimony prolonging the hearing/trial long enough so the sun starts to Nova, or else simply say no way.
The side proposing that everyone testify can then challenge on appeal later after the trial. By the time a higher court gets around to putting it on a docket the decision and the movie about the trial will be out and since that would clearly impact the testimony in a re-trial, they can't be allowed to testify anyway.
Whilst it has similar elements to the premise in the op and a comment I made about the courtroom not being big enough to seat the entire US population, you appear to have gone off on a tangent.
The statement in the op is about affording the US citizenry as victims of Trump's alleged crimes, the legal right to witness the trial, not for them to be witnesses in the trial.