Yes, By All Means, Televise Donald Trump's Trials...

 

By EDUARDO PAZ-MARTINEZ

McALLEN, Texas | Well, can you imagine no cameras at the O.J. Simpson Trial? Yes, that one was about murders, but the national curiosity was there from Day One. Such, we say, is the American public's thirst for televising Donald J. Trump's upcoming trials.

We want to see it all. We want to see the opposing lawyers sparring, the proper, no-nonsense judge admonishing the gallery, the sitting jury's reactions, antsy Trump's not-so-idle fidgeting. Everything. All of it. Bring it.

Simpson's trial captivated the entire country for 11 months, from November, 1994 to October 3, 1995. It was high-drama every day in Judge Lance Ito's televised court on that one. Many Americans can still recite key aspects of the case (the glove that wouldn't fit), names of witnesses (Kato Kaelin) and, of course, the controversial outcome (OJ found "Not Guilty").

Info-starved Americans will want the same from any trial featuring recalcitrant Trump, the disgraced former president indicted three times as of today. A few more indictments may come down before he walks into his first trial. He's the story of the day, the Story of the Year.

This from vanityfair.com: [ Dozens of Democratic lawmakers have called on the Judicial Conference - the policy-setting body of the federal judiciary - to allow cameras into the courtroom for Donald Trump’s criminal trials.

"Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings," the lawmakers, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, wrote in a letter to Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, who oversees the administration of federal courts. "If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses."

Cameras are currently banned in federal criminal trial courts, where Trump faces charges both for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Some legal experts - and Trump’s own lawyer - have called for a change to the camera policy, given the immense national interest in cases against the former president. Without cameras, some have noted, the public would also be at greater risk of consuming deceptive or misleading information about the proceedings.

"The idea that there is no visual primary source available to the larger public is unjustifiable in general, but especially when you know there will be so many competing narratives and so much misinformation about what’s happening in the courtroom," said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a judicial reform advocacy group. ]

It's hard to say what the judges will decide on this. Federal courts are famous for insisting on quiet, ever-respectful decorum. Broadcasting a federal trial would be a stretch, it says here, although maybe the nation's appetite for resolution of all this Trump stuff will mandate it.

To not broadcast Trump's trials is to leave reporting of the unfurling proceedings to partisan media, which would give Americans a skewed impression of, say, the day's doings.

But we'll see.

I mean, hopefully we'll see it all unfold on live television.

The ratings would be of astral proportions...

-30-