Trump's Georgia TRIAL will be TELEVISED, Judge Says

I don't want Trump to be a pariah, i want him to be a normal criminal defendant. And while yes, there's some cameras at times, notably it's mostly at the end of sentencing.

 

Oh! Come on! To watch Trump sit there like a naughty child would be gold!

 

problem is, the man your referring to has access to tell his followers whatever he wants, best for them to see for themselves

if the public is not allowed to see, Trump can spin it however he wants

 

You don’t remember oj trying on a glove? Recent a guys whole murder trial was filmed and he represented himself. It’s more common than you think.

 

That makes no sense: if the trial shows Trump to be innocent, why would you assume that the jury will not find him innocent? Or, in this argument, are you assuming they would, but saying that this would be a bad thing? IOW, are you actually advocating for Trump's conviction, regardless of his guilt?

No one who believes in both justice, and in our American court system, should hold that view.

This sounds like false history. To be clear: not the part about Mr. H., participating in an insurrection, and getting a light sentence, but about that being the result of "the masses of people," hearing his cause. This was just how the government at the time, treated those insurrectionists-- which always seemed foolishly lenient, to me.

Now your contention, is not even clear-- much less supported. You are not claiming that the little mustache man's trial was televised? Should I not assume you know there were no televisions, at that time? Moving beyond that, though: if I were to accept your portrayal-- which very much seems bogus to me-- that it was because the details of his trial were reported, that this future dictator did not get the sentence he otherwise would have, are you not then advocating, for trials to be held, and justice administered, secretly?

Once again, you are speaking in a way that is completely contrary to American ideas about justice and the law. Trials, in general, are open affairs: the public is free to come and see our justice system, at work. Trial reporting is commonplace. We believe in the principle of what happens in our courts, being a matter of public record. We do not hide our dispensing of justice-- we expose it to the light of citizen examination.

Again, you are offering what appears to be a claim that you have simply made up, and doing so, of course, without sourcing it. The reason that cameras are not automatically allowed in all courts, is not, I am sure, to prevent someone from rallying the populace to revolt. Why you are implying they would need a court trial to do that, when we have free speech, and now the internet, as well, I really can't understand. This argument just seems like nonsense.

However, for all of our edification-- but especially for yours-- I asked Google, why cameras are not allowed in all courtrooms, and here is what it showed me:

<Google Snip>
There are concerns that the presentation and consideration of evidence may be affected by the presence of cameras influencing the behavior of court participants. Many famous trials, such as the O.J. Simpson murder trial, were televised.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Courtroom photography and broadcasting - Wikipedia

 

No, no, no, no. A person cannot be absent, and let his lawyers handle his trial on any criminal offense. That is what bail is for: to help insure that the accused will show up.

Do you also not understand, that there is the possibility that, should the jury find Trump guilty, that he could be immediately taken into custody? He must be present, at his own trial, for that to happen, in an expeditious way. Please, go watch a few episodes of Law & Order.

 

Your first mistake was using Law and Order(a TV show) as a basis for a debate.

https://www.swlattorneys.com/attorney-go-to-court-without-me/

https://mail.appearme.com/appear-in-court/

It does appear as though it's limited strictly to misdemeanors. But since the judge can accept/waive based on misdemeanors, there's nothing that says a judge couldn't do the same for felonies. in fact, in this case it would be preferred in her desire for the administration of justice.

 

In addition to using a TV show to debate me, you are now(to shorten this long post into digestible acceptable parts.) accusing me of being inaccurate to history. While, obviously there wasn't television in the 30's, there was radio and newspapers! So yes, the German public had access to the trials and a significant portion of them were rallied to his cause(in addition to the court, which I also referenced.) and that led to the light sentence.

The point is, publicly televising this trial(which your own wikipedia cite proves my point) allows Trump to continue playing the martyr. Sentencing Trump itself won't be the end of his political movement, god forbid it could even be the beginning.

 

Wrong, once again. While it is certainly a matter of the judge's discretion, when some trial is of great public interest-- as in the case of the police officers, charged in the killing of George Floyd, for one-- trials are often televised, in their entirety. The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, was also televised. As was, I believe I recall, the trial if George Zimmerman, who'd killed Trevon Martin. Are none of these, ringing any bells, for you? It is, frankly, hard for me to believe, that you actually believe, the things you are posting.

 

And the television of those trials added to, it did not detract from the controversies involving them. All you're doing is proving what a terrible idea it is. The case does not have a "public interest" anymore than the claims of "the public deserves some super quick trial". This is a misappropriation of the Sixth Amendment.

It's only the criminal defendant who has a vested interest. It's the defendant to whom the Sixth Amendment applies, and it's the defendant the Sixth Amendment was written with in mind.

Not the average common joe.

 

LOL. You admit that I had been correct, and that you had been wrong, but you are trying to discredit my response because of my jocular ending line, about watching Law & Order. I was not citing it as an authoritative source on the legal system; nevertheless, considering how fantastically wrong you have been, on so many points about the law, you would, no doubt, learn a lot from the show.

Undeterred by your citing of nonsense, you've decided to try more speculating, about what a judge theoretically could and might do-- good call, for its amusement value. There is no way that any judge is going to give Trump a pass, on showing up for any of his criminal trials. I'm guessing you were confused by his not showing up for his civil trial, which is a whole other matter, because incarceration is off the table, in civil trials. A judge has never allowed a criminal defendant the option, of whether or not he wanted to attend his trial. My argument about bail, also still holds: if the defendant doesn't show, the bail is forfeited. As 90% of that money was laid out by a bondsman, I'm sure he'd have something to say about that.



P.S.-- You might also want to check out a show that explains the fundamentals of humor (and how to recognize when others are employing them).

 

Except you weren't correct, you said it couldn't happen. And I showed that it could happen. Albeit it appears to be limited to misdemeanors. And while you call it 'letting Trump off the hook', I call it 'letting the trial proceed smoothly'. What does defendant, Donald Trump add to these proceedings? Nothing much, if anything it's an unneeded distraction.

There's only one thing people are materially interested in: His arrest and incarceration, and any arguments to the contrary aren't made in good faith whatsoever.


I would not be shocked if the judge agreed to such a move, because in this case, it greatly adds to the administration of justice. It gets rid of the spectacle, it gets rid of any chance of a charade.

And as far as the 'bondsman's interest. The bondman is symbolic, it's really the State collecting more money(where do you think that money goes, to what use do you think it's for?)

And no, the bond does not 'assure people attend trial'(that's just the justification). A person could pay a bond, flee, and of course they'd be wanted but from the logic of the person paying the bond, he's a wanted man ANYWAY.

There's literally no difference. Speaking of good faith, that's all the bond is= a show of good faith.

 

Source? (Do you understand that your claim that is in need of verifying evidence, is that the supposed publicity of Adolph's trial, somehow had an effect on his sentence? That, I say, is bilgewater!).

Also, did you notice how I had broken up your post, into three sections, each of which was making different points, and then addressed each one separately? That might be something to consider, as a way of separating someone's long reply, into "digestible, acceptable parts," rather than just by omitting responding to the parts for which you don't have a good answer-- a.k.a., in your terminology, "to shorten (a) long post."

Among the questions you did not answer, all or most were asked to clarify your original points which, therefore, remain obscure. For example: are you afraid of Trump showing the prosecution to truly be a sham? Do you doubt, in that case, that Trump would be found not guilty? Is that what you are arguing, should be avoided at all costs? IOW, are you advocating for both an information blackout of Trump's trial, and also for his conviction, regardless of whether there is a legitimate case presented against him? This seems like the kind of question you should want to clear up, in your readers' minds.

No-- my cited source does not support the idea that "televising this trial...allows Trump to play the martyr." At least not the part which I actually quoted (my Google Snip). If you are referring to something else, at that site, you should cite it, yourself. The words, though, that I had cited, said that the concern about cameras was that this might affect the behavior of those conducting the trial, and therefore affect the result. I translate that to mean that judges and lawyers should not be playing to the cameras. This, in no way, confirms your claim, that televising the trial, somehow aids Trump, in "playing the martyr." How do you interpret my cited source's words?

Also, are you suggesting that, if the trial is not televised, people will forget that he is on trial? Since the things you say, on their face, do not seem to be logical, I will ask you to try to do a better job of explaining whatever thinking, goes on in your mind, between mentioning some idea, and the conclusion, which you draw from it.

No clue what this is supposed to mean. You would agree that Trump's MAGA movement, has already begun, yes? How would televising Trump's trial-- assuming that a wealth of damning evidence will be presented-- do more to further his movement, than would simply telling everyone that he was found guilty, without letting them know the details? Do you not understand that this course which you seem to be advocating, is precisely what would turn Trump into a martyr?

 

Your saying that you feel it could happen, FYI, is not showing that it could happen. My claim, is that it has never happened, and that, based on this, it never will. To actually show that what you had proposed was not absolute nonsense, you would either need show that this had happened in the past or, alternately, show a legal source-- other than yourself-- confirming that a judge does possess the ability you are speculating he holds, and then give a credible rationale why a judge would, in this case, take that completely unprecedented action.



EDIT:

I am adding this in, because I never used the line, "letting Trump off the hook." Therefore, you are either thinking of a different poster-- and so are confused-- or else you are taking great liberties in your quoting of me. Please, when you attribute words to me, and put them within quotation marks, respect the practice of having the bare minimum of integrity to use my actual words.

 

Absolutely wrong! From my prior thread, a recent Gallup Poll, showed that a solid majority of Anericans-- 61%-- want a trial before the election. The connection, being that they obviously believe that information presented at the trial, might be relevant for their voting decision. In fact, while 51% of Independent voters believe that Trump is guilty of crimes alleged in this J6 prosecution, the second largest group is not those who believe Trump is innocent (20%), but rather the 27% who are not sure. This means, it stands to reason, they will make their decision based in the information presented at trial. As with nearly all your claims, there is no indication as to where you get the idea that people are interested in none of the details of the trial, but the results of this poll prove that, once again, your contentions are baseless fabrications.

 

I'm not your historian, if you want to research the overall effects on how the Beer Hall putsch catapulted him into public recognition, there's plenty of open sources that you can find on your own. Interestingly enough, you're the only one on this hill. Others saw the comparison and acknowledged it accordingly.

And I don't need to source that the post is a bit long for my liking, that's self evident in of itself.

I am suggesting that if the trial is not televised, there won't be prying eyes for Trump to play the character, or for his defense to play such character. They will have to actually litigate the case, rather than make it a spectacle. That's all this 'public focus' is for. To make it a spectacle, for the defense, for those who want him arrested, etc. For all of the above.

And to deny that, is to deny reality. We don't need the spectacle to prove its case, I don't even think the special counsel wants the spectacle, all it wants is a speedy resolution of such trial. The spectacle will inevitably slow down the trial with its theatrics.

Note it's not counsel asking for this, it's CONGRESS.

And the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Has it been done before? Not to my knowledge, but there's nothing outlawing it either. Again, the 10th amendment applies in a courthouse as well. If a judge wants to rule and it doesn't run afoul the rulebook, it's fair game. It says that he must attend the trial, but it doesn't say anything about a judge not being able to waive that requirement.

 

It would be nice if you started off by identifying what the hell you are talking about. The quote, above, was its own paragraph, immediately following the paragraph, I have just quoted from you, in my last post:

AmericanNationalist said: ↑
There's only one thing people are materially interested in: His arrest and incarceration, and any arguments to the contrary aren't made in good faith whatsoever.


Therefore, please note, you do not specify any particular action, before saying that you wouldn't be shocked if the judge agreed to "such a move." Such a move, as what? This is a very basic communications failure, on your part, for which you have no excuse. It is not a matter of poor understanding of punctuation or syntactic issues. It is simply your being negligent about explaining whatever idea you are referencing. You are overly rushing, and I can guarantee, you are not proofreading your posts. But to post something which is unintelligible, is a complete waste of time; so surely you should see how it is worth a little bit more time, to make sure that all the time you had put in to that point, had not been wasted?

If you would allow me to give you probably the most helpful writing advice you will ever receive: after writing something, go back to read it from the conscious mindset, of someone who doesn't already know, what you are trying to say.

Again-- what are you talking about? The bail bondsman, is not the state. He is a private businessman. In essence, he specializes in a specific type of loan. For a 10% fee, he will put up your bond money. When you show up at your trial date, he gets his bond outlay returned. If you do not show up, he is out, that money. That is why the bond system is not compatible with your bizarre idea that the judge may not require Trump to be present, at his own criminal trial.

OMG-- what are you saying? My point was that requiring the accused to put up money, as collateral, against his showing up at trial, is meant to give him more incentive not to flee. But, of course, it goes without saying (one would think) that he can still skip out on the bail. BTW, you are, once again, putting quotes around phrases, seemingly attributed to me, in the body your reply, that do not appear in the full quote, in the box, at the start of your reply. I do not think I had said that the bond "assure people attend trial," unless it was a typo, because it should be "assures," unless I had said, "bonds (plural) assure..." But I do not even think I would have said they assure it. I have, I think, found the quote to which you were referring:

Note-- since your whole, ridiculous point seems to be that I had thought that bond was a hard guarantee, of the attendance of the accused, at trial-- that my actual phrasing, "to help insure that the accused will show up," totally eliminates your point, as I did not say that bail (not a bond) "assure(s)" anything. With such a poor attention to accuracy, in even something so simple as quoting the person with whom you are currently conversing, what signal do you think that sends to people, to whom you are frequently attempting to sell dubious contentions, without citations, resting solely on your own assurance?

But to address the point that I guess you were trying to make: some people, to make bond, do put their own, and their family's, financial welfare on the line, to meet bond, as by mortgaging their house. For those who use bail bondsman, I assure you that those businessmen are very proactive, about making sure that the people they lay out bail for, don't skip out. While, of course, some succeed at this, the bondsmen employ bounty hunters, who bring in many who attempt to do so.

No difference between what? Showing up , or not showing, at trial? Well, it would be fun to see Trump think like you, and blow off court, because then a bench warrant would be issued, he would be taken into custody, and there would be no more bail, for him.

I don't see how your calling it a show of faith, is supposed to support your silly theory, about Trump possibly not needing to show up for his trial. The good faith, is that you will return for trial. He will absolutely be required to attend.

 

That does not mean that what you were shovelling, wasn't pure bullshit-- only that those others don't know their history of Hitler's rise, very well. I stick to my contention, that your depiction-- which is central to your argument here-- that Hitler had delivered some courtroom appeal that drew mass public sympathy, is a ludicrous story, without a shred of factual basis; and your making of excuses, as to why you won't provide a source (as you should have, initially) is, in my book, proof of this.

Those words are meaningless. Did I say you needed to cite a source for thinking that my post was a bit long, for your liking? I am sure I made no such nonsense statement.

1) The cameras will not be fixed on Trump, most of the time.

2) When they are, I don't know how you believe he would "play the character." He will only sit silently. I assure you, in the highly inadvisable and unlikely event that Trump began any antics during his trial, the judge would put a stop to that, in short order. But your supposed concern is without basis. Trump will be but a lump of angry flesh, pretending to be calm and unconcerned.

3) For this case, I assure you, the prosecution will be litigating. Have no fear of Willis focusing on spectacle, instead of substance. You have no way to know that there will be "theatrics" at trial. What do you think the DA's office has been doing all this time, prior to announcing the indictment-- designing costumes?

4) The "public focus," is not about "spectacle," but an acknowledgement of the fact that many in the public believe a false narrative of January 6, propagated by Trump and by many in the Right wing media. It is also the understanding of the importance to our nation that, should Trump be convicted, the evidence be seen by as many as possible of those who had boycotted the J6 hearings, opting instead for the fantasies, fabricated by Tucker Carlson and such. To deny that, is to deny reality.

Two points. First, it has already been determined that cameras will be allowed, as is the state's standard policy, in the Georgia prosecution, by DA Fani Willis. That is the subject of this thread. By mentioning the Congressional appeal, you are referring-- whether you realize it or not-- to the federal trial over the election. And yes, Congress is the body interested in having it televised, for the reasons I have just listed, above (#4). Congress's responsibility includes doing what is best for the nation, so this is only appropriate. The DA's sole concern, is prosecuting those who have broken the law, and I have scant doubt that you will see (if you watch the trial) that this is where Willis's focus will squarely be.

Initially, this all seemed incomprehensible as well-- what is the "it," to which you're referring? This is why my suggestion, that you separate my quote, together with the part of your response which addresses each, made sense: we would understand that "it" must be something from the quoted part. But when you put my entire quote in one block, and your response all as one, continuous text, then you must explain when you change subjects. You are, still, imagining that people will know what you are thinking, without your telling them. It turns out though, that I did finally figure out you are here talking about the same thing you ultimately mention, in the next quote.

You seem to be adding more erroneous gibberish, to your concluding paragraph's preamble, by mentioning the 10th Amendment. That Amendment states that the Federal government only has those powers designated to it, in the Constitution; and any that are not listed, belong to either the states, or to the people (honestly, it seems a bit redundant of part of what is already in the First Amendment). Take that reference, along with the three prior sentences (quoted above), and how could one expect to have any idea, what you are talking about?

When you finally get to your point, it is a completely flaccid one: you admit that a criminal defendant is required to attend his trial, but assert that because you could find nothing specifically prohibiting a judge from waiving that requirement, he must be able to do it. That does not relate to the Tenth Amendment, nor does it make rational sense. Additionally, even indulging your fantasy that a judge somehow is unbound by the rule of law, and can "waive" any legal requirements, I have already made the argument, that this has never been done, so that, at this point, it is not realistic to believe a judge would attempt such a theoretical, and unprecedented thing, as permitting a criminal defendant, to not attend his trial. It is, if possible, even more unlikely, a judge would do something as controversial as that, in this first ever criminal trial of a former President.

The overriding rationale, for such an exceptional act, you do not mention, though I believe I'd asked you, what possible reason would justify this unique treatment. One can only assume it is because it is Trump, and he would be one of nine people, competing for the Republican Presidential nomination. But such outside concerns, do not influence the courts; when your trial arrives, you are expected to be there, and making that work with the rest of your schedule, is your problem.

In your grasping for straws, however, I can smell your fear. Despite your pretense of concern for trial integrity, and supposedly wanting to smother the MAGA flame, rather than let this trial, fan it into a more powerful blaze, all your arguments, instead betray an urge to protect Trump from the humiliation of being shown to be a lawless leader, in a venue which his supporters cannot simply ignore.

 

Well, this is great news but now he will be galloping to the courts to have the case moved to a federal court. Of course, he will wait until the last minute to file the papers as was always planned...

 

Oh gawd.
Reminds me that I had to sit and watch the OJ Simpson trial in school. Because it was history in the making. It bored me so hard to death that my openly whining about it got me a seat at the principles office who could not believe a teacher was doing that all day. And he made it stop.

And all the people rejoiced.
But it was awkward to say the least, because the teacher had to pretend it all was cool between me and him.



It's all coming back now.... ALL of them hours watching it on tv.
ffs

 

Well, he could just decide to turn the entire televised case onto a six ring circus, what could possibly go wrong....

 

As I understand it, Trump's attempt to do this will clearly be without merit, so hopefully will be treated that way, by the courts. I think we are going to see this trial of Trump and company. I hope that is not at all, mere wishful thinking.

 

Oh, I fully agree, he's skated above the laws for way to too long.

 

Funny story. And I agree with your principal-- the OJ Trial wasn't so historic, it warranted the displacement of the studies of-- what grade students? Jr. High?

I was well out of school at that point, but was not so enthralled, either, by that trial. In fact, when a friend asked me if I thought Simpson was guilty, I'd said "No," with conviction, because I'd thought he was talking about Homer Simpson. At that same time (in case you weren't a fan), the Simpson's was doing a multi-episode production, around the plot of some unknown character on the show, being guilty of shooting Mr. Burns. So that is what had first occurred to me, at the mention of Simpson being guilty.

The OJ Trial notwithstanding, Trump's trial really will be historic-- and very important to our country's present reality, as well.

 

How will this kill his chances? His supporters already didn't care that he was corrupt. Who is this going to stop from voting for him I wonder?