Trump joins media outlets in pushing for his federal election interference case to be televised
Donald Trump is pushing for his federal election interference trial in Washington to be televised, joining media outlets that say the public should be able to watch the case unfold.
Federal court rules prohibit broadcasting proceedings, but the Associated Press and other news organizations say the unprecedented trial of a former president on accusations of trying to subvert voters’ will warrants an exception.
The Justice Department is opposing the effort, arguing that the judge in the case does not have the authority to ignore the long-standing policy against cameras in federal courts.
Trump’s trial is scheduled to begin March 4.
One year since Ukraine retook the city of Kherson from occupying Russian forces, residents have grown accustomed to the sounds of the bombs reminding them that the war is far from over.
“I want this trial to be seen by everybody in the world,” Trump said Saturday at a campaign event in New Hampshire. “The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness and I want sunlight.”
Lawyers for Trump wrote in court papers filed late Friday that all Americans should be able to observe what they characterize as a politically motivated prosecution of the Republican front-runner in polls for his party’s 2024 presidential nomination. The defense also suggested Trump aims to use the trial as a platform to repeat his claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. No evidence has emerged to support those claims, which have been repeatedly debunked.
“President Trump absolutely agrees, and in fact demands, that these proceedings should be fully televised so that the American public can see firsthand that this case, just like others, is ... a dreamt-up unconstitutional charade that should never be allowed to happen again,” his lawyers wrote.
The request to televise the trial comes as the Washington case has emerged as the most potent and direct legal threat to Trump’s political fortunes. He is accused of illegally scheming to overturn the election results before his supporters’ attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump has sought to delay the trial until after the 2024 election. But U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was nominated to the bench by President Obama, appears determined to keep it as scheduled.
In Florida, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who is handling the classified documents case against him, pushed back multiple deadlines Friday, making it unlikely the case can proceed to trial in May as planned. Trump faces dozens of felony counts under the Espionage Act. He has pleaded not guilty in both cases.
News outlets wrote to Chutkan last month saying that a lack of transparency can sow distrust in the legal system, and calling that particularly dangerous considering that “a polarized electorate includes tens of millions of people who, according to opinion polls, still believe that the 2020 election was decided by fraud.”
“It would be a great loss if future generations of Americans were forever deprived of being able to access and view the events of this trial even years after the verdict, which would immeasurably improve the ability of future journalists and historians to retell accurately and meaningfully analyze this unique chapter of American history,” Rebecca Blumenstein, president of editorial for NBC News, wrote in a court filing.
Some state courts allow cameras in the courtroom. The public has been able to watch proceedings in the Georgia election case against Trump and 18 co-defendants.
Photographers are being permitted to take photos of Trump in the courtroom during his civil fraud trial in New York, but the trial has not been broadcast.
The Justice Department has said that knowing cameras are in the courtroom can affect lawyers and witnesses in “subtle ways” and lead to grandstanding. Noting the “ever-increasing acrimony in public discourse,” prosecutors said those who testify on camera may also be harassed or threatened.
“When a witness’s image is captured on video, it is not just a fleeting image, but it exists indefinitely,” the government said. “Were there an appeal and retrial, witnesses who were subjected to scrutiny and harassment on social media may be unwilling to testify again.”
The pandemic led the federal courts to temporarily relax their rules, allowing the public to listen to many proceedings over the telephone or videoconference. The U.S. Supreme Court has continued to provide a live audio feed of its arguments.
The policymaking body of the federal courts adopted a new policy in September that allows judges to provide live audio access to nontrial proceedings in civil and bankruptcy cases. It does not apply in criminal cases.
News outlets had previously asked the federal courts policymakers to revise the rules to allow broadcasting, at least in cases where there is an extraordinary public interest. The chair of the advisory committee last month agreed to establish a subcommittee to study the issue, though it’s highly unlikely any rules changes would come before Trump’s trial.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
