So Tangerine is trying to turn his DC felony trial into what he imagines will be. . . a reality show / campaign rally. He has been claiming it is unfair (to his chances to become the occupant of 1600 Penn again) not to televise it.
Except that Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber -- and every terrorist after him, in their respective federal trials -- was not given a platform on TV for their manifestos. Nope, neither were Scooter Libby or Roger Stone given such a TV platform (even before pardons). So, he will lose on this. [In any event, being televised would be far worse for his chances of being elected -- than he imagines. He's an idiot -- but I digress.]
The DoJ is 100% right that prosecution witnesses will be targeted, if forced to appear on TV -- by his unhinged followers. That alone ends the discussion (he all but targeted them, in the NY state frauds trial two weeks ago -- so he's proven that is his goal). Here's Mr. Smith, with that bit of excellent argument -- with the genius twist dropped in at the end(!):
. . .As this Court has made clear, it intends that [Tangerine] “will be treated exactly, with no more or less deference, than any other defendant would be treated.” United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-257, ECF No. 38 at 33. Just like any other criminal defendant, the defendant may elect to proceed to trial and to put on a defense. . . .
[Tangerine] 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. He 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. This scenario is not hypothetical. As the Court has already observed in proceedings in the defendant’s criminal trial, the defendant and his counsel will, if permitted, design their in-court statements instead to wage a public relations campaign. . . .
[But now,] the defendant [Tangerine wishes to pretend]. . . that high-profile federal criminal trials have [not] long proceeded in accordance with the broadcast prohibition under the rules -- and that they have garnered significant and detailed media coverage of courtroom proceedings nonetheless. See United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302, 313 (2022); United States v. Moussaoui, 205 F.R.D. 183, 184 (E.D. Va. 2002); United States v. McVeigh, 931 F. Supp. 753 (D. Colo. 1996). This has remained true in the context of trials related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, including on seditious conspiracy charges. See, e.g., United States v. Rhodes, 610 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2022); United States v. Nordean, 579 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2021). The comprehensive, often minute-by-minute, public reporting on courtroom hearings in this case provides further evidence that the defendant’s desired “sunlight” need not come from eschewing the rules. . . .
That's a very deft touch -- pointing out that even murderous terrorists don't get to use their federal trials as a TV broadcast manifesto platform (for all the obvious reasons). Nope. "This is a felony trial, son."
And of course, the Special Counsel rightly points out that Tangerine here ALSO wants to try to intimidate witnesses against him, in this felony matter, by making their pictures broadcast -- and thus well-known to his unhinged acolytes (like Abigail Jo Shry). In sum, he's. . . a completely raving -- barking mad -- lunatic, of a mobster / sociopath. Out.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment