Trump Demands The Right To Turn Election Fraud Case Into Pay-Per-View UFC Event

(Photo by Isaac Brekken/Getty)

There are no cameras in federal courtrooms. That’s not a devious plot by prosecutors to hide their nefarious prosecution of Donald Trump from the public. It’s Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits “the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”

It is also Rule 53.1.1 of the Local Rules for the US District Court in the District of Columbia.

The taking of photographs and operation of tape recorders inside the United States Courthouse and radio or television broadcasting from inside the courthouse during the progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, whether or not court is actually in session, are prohibited. A judge may, however, permit (1) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of a record, and (2) the broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of investiture, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings. Contents of official tapes that are made as part of the record in a case will be treated in the same manner as official stenographic notes.

That’s why when a coalition of media intervenors moved to broadcast Donald Trump’s election interference trial, his lawyers “requested that government counsel convey that he takes no position with respect to these Applications.”  And convey it they did, in a November 3 response which noted that Judge Tanya Chutkan couldn’t order the trial televised if she wanted to.

But then Trump’s lawyers had a change of heart. Perhaps John Lauro remembered that he went on Fox three months ago and promised that he’d demand cameras in the courtroom. Maybe Donald Trump had so much fun holding press conferences outside the New York courtroom where his civil fraud trial is ongoing that he demanded to make the whole thing public. Maybe it’s brain worms.

[embedded content]

In any event, Trump’s lawyers filed an absolutely batshit motion on Friday in which he reversed his position and excoriated prosecutors for seeking to hide their dirty deeds from the public.

For the first time in American history, an incumbent administration has charged its main, leading electoral opponent with a criminal offense. Aware that its charges are meritless, the prosecution has sought to proceed in secret, forcing the nation and the world to rely on biased, secondhand accounts coming from the Biden Administration and its media allies. As a result, the citizens of our great country are unable to review for themselves what the facts of this case show, and how unfairly President Trump is being treated at the hands of his political opponent.

If Lauro noticed the irony of joining forces with every mainstream media outlet in the country seeking to televise this trial, while at the same time attacking “the Biden Administration and its media allies,” he got over it quickly.

The bulk of this screed is taken up with pretending that the government violated Trump’s due process rights by such dastardly acts as “oppos[ing] President Trump’s constitutionally grounded request to extend the motion deadline to issue pretrial subpoenas and compel discovery.” This document literally points to a reply brief regarding discovery scheduling as one of many “transparent attempts, characteristic of show trials, to thwart President Trump’s rights to obtain exculpatory evidence.”

Trump’s theory is that this isn’t a criminal prosecution at all, at least not in the traditional sense. His lawyers liken it instead to “political trials,” as described by legal scholar Andrew Posner in 2005 law review article entitled Political Trials in Domestic and International Law, 55 DUKE L.J. 75, 78 (2005). Likening their client to Slobodan Milošević, who was tried in the Hague but died before a verdict was rendered, is … a choice. And it’s not clear how Posner, who has served as a counsel for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division since 2022, might respond to having his work coopted in such a fashion.

The response ends as melodramatically as it began: “In sum, 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 nothing more than a dreamt-up unconstitutional charade that should never be allowed to happen again.”

The Special Counsel was not amused by Trump’s histrionics. Last night he requested leave to answer, noting that “if given leave, the Government plans to file its reply immediately.” Judge Chutkan granted the request this morning, and prosecutors filed a furious response in which they noted that the defendant “does not cite a single rule or case in support of his position, because there are none,” accusing Trump of “a transparent effort to demand special treatment, try his case in the courtroom of public opinion, and turn his trial into a media event.”

“The defendant peppers his response with various references to ‘fairness,’ but what he actually seeks is to defy a uniform and longstanding broadcast prohibition that was crafted precisely with fair and orderly trial proceedings in mind,” they write, linking in a footnote to the recent notes from the Judicial Conference in which Chief Justice Roberts affirmed once again that there will be no cameras in his courtrooms, thankyouverymuch. “[Trump] desires instead to create a carnival atmosphere from which he hopes to profit by distracting, like many fraud defendants try to do, from the charges against him.”

And meanwhile, even as the former president’s lawyers plaster the docket with endless garbage motions like this, they beg for delay, claiming to be simply overwhelmed with work.

Funny, because we are reliably informed that discovery motions are a typical tool of evildoers seeking to corrupt the legal system for their own political ends. So … make of that one what you will.

MEDIA APPLICATION FOR AUDIOVISUAL ACCESS TO TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. DONALD J. TRUMP [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics and appears on the Opening Arguments podcast.