Trump's Cameraless Trial
Today I found myself -- while reading the liveblogging from the lucky reporters who are covering the criminal trial of Donald Trump this week -- wondering how everything would be different if television cameras were allowed inside the courtroom. The reporters themselves occasionally lapse into petulant complaining about the restraints put on them by not having access to modern devices, and so their reporting has a kind of old-timey flavor to it (in a way). You can even picture one of them in a dapper hat with a "PRESS" card shoved in the hatband racing to a bank of pay phones to diligently phone in their copy and scoop their competitors. Well, you might have to try hard to picture that (depending on how old you are), but it's at least fun to contemplate while waiting for the next update from the courtroom. But how would this all be different if the whole trial were being carried gavel-to-gavel on cable news? And would this be a good thing or a bad thing, in general?
Many commented, after the death of O. J. Simpson, how his murder trial changed American courtrooms -- and television -- forever. Not having personally watched a single minute of it when it took place, I cannot attest to the truth of this, but I guess it is a fair point to make. So how would The People of New York v. Donald Trump be different if he were getting the full O. J. treatment right now?
It's impossible to tell for certain -- or at least that will be true right up until Trump's Georgia trial happens (if it ever does), since that one will indeed be fully televised. But there are a few things that would likely be different.
So far, the most amusing news from the courtroom has been that Trump occasionally drifts off to sleep. Or perhaps just "that floaty state where you can't keep your head up anymore and it starts to droop" (which any parent who has had to watch all the other kids perform at a school function before their own kid appears can relate to quite easily). Would Trump still be doing so if the cameras had showed it to the public? All it might have taken would have been one clip going viral of him drooping and his mouth falling open for him to realize how bad a look it is -- and he'd probably keep vigilantly awake from that point forward. Trump measures everything in life by how it plays out on television, and he hates being the butt of everyone's joke, so that one's got a high probability of being true, one assumes.
Inconsequentialities aside, however, what I truly wonder about is how it would change both Trump's behavior and his lawyers' behavior. Right now, Trump's lawyers are playing to an audience of one, really, even though theoretically they're supposed to be playing to an audience of at least 19 (the jury, the alternates, and the judge). For a Trump lawyer, however, the biggest priority is keeping the client happy, and that means stroking his gigantic ego every chance they can get. They present everything wrapped in the swaddling craziness of Trump's worldview, even when this is completely divorced from actual reality. They take great pains to call him "President Trump," because that is what he demands of everyone around him. And they push Trump's preferred defense narrative even when they know it probably isn't going to convince anyone at all.
To be fair, we have yet to see Trump's lawyers in full action. All we've seen so far ("seen" at one remove, since we don't actually get to see or hear any of it live) has been them haggling over jurors and giving their opening statements. They won't really show their legal skills until they get to cross-examine the first witness, which still has yet to happen. And they won't show their full mettle until they begin to rip into Michael Cohen (at least if their opening statement was any indication). Cross-examination is always a touchy thing to do, since jurors can be either convinced or (alternatively) be so put off by the questioning itself that the defense loses support. Defense attorneys never want jurors to think: "Why is he even bothering to try to make this point?" Or, even worse, gaining sympathy for the witness because they are bullying him or her.
But what if the defense team were playing not just to their main audience of Donald Trump (and the secondary audience of the judge and jury), but also to the public at large? Trump would want their performance to be heavily tilted towards whatever he's told his MAGA followers to believe, so he might demand that his lawyers play to the cameras even if they tell him it'll hurt his chances inside the courtroom with the jury. And one has to assume they'd be a lot more animated as they made countless attempts to create some sort of "If it does not fit, you must acquit" moment. Trump has always cared more about the court of public opinion than whatever happens in actual courtrooms, so you can bet he'd be judging his lawyers primarily on how they appeared on television, and which clips made the evening news.
If the trial were being televised, Trump would doubtlessly want to use the entire trial as a campaign event. Which brings us to the most fascinating question in all this: how would live cameras affect Trump's behavior? Would it increase the chances that he will actually take the stand and testify? Would it increase the chances that he will directly challenge the judge's authority by erupting into outbursts during the proceedings?
Again, just as with his lawyers, we haven't seen Trump fully engaged with the trial yet, at least not in significant ways. He reportedly occasionally shakes his head or whispers to his lawyers, but he's already been admonished once by the judge about making loud comments and gestures, and (so far, at least) this seems to have restrained him. Trump has had to make do with his little cameos for the press both before entering the courtroom and after he leaves. These are done in a stark hallway with Trump looking rather like a caged animal penned in by bicycle racks. But we're only getting started and already the media is getting bored with these performances -- mostly because Trump is just repeating the same points over and over again. Sooner or later this will only get a footnote mention from the news organizations: "Trump, speaking after the trial, had his usual complaints about the unfairness of it all... blah blah blah... but he didn't have anything new to say." Having even his little cameo performances ignored is almost certainly going to incense Trump -- he's already reportedly irate that hordes of his followers haven't shown up outside the court building to protest (the protest has dwindled from a few dozen to single digits already, and the trial's really just getting started). If Trump were in danger of slipping out of the lead spot on the news each night, one can only imagine what he'd do on live courtroom cameras.
Cameras or not, Trump may wind up throwing a tantrum (or several of them) inside the courtroom pretty soon now. That's my own personal take, of course, but it seems a pretty safe bet. Will Trump sit there with a poker face while Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels testify? Or will he simply not be able to contain himself? Like I said, a pretty safe bet.
How would this be any different if cameras were on? That's hard to say, but at a guess I would think any Trump outburst would be directed into the cameras and probably last longer than if the cameras weren't there. Trump would be hamming it up in the same way he does whenever any television camera's around, in other words. And he might even taunt the judge into slapping him with contempt of court, just for the victimhood value of it all.
To me, it seems like a matter of degree, though -- since he might do all of this anyway, even without cameras.
Would Trump testify if he knew it would go out live to the world? That's a more interesting question, of course. Trump routinely announces he will be testifying in his trials, but he seldom follows through. Any competent lawyer (even an incompetent lawyer, most likely) would be absolutely begging Trump not to testify, of course. The risk is simply too great that Trump would say something either incriminating or pejorative when being cross-examined -- which might just torpedo his entire defense. Trump considers himself master of the art of arguing, but he really isn't -- except when he is able to either out-shout his opponent or somehow run out the clock so he can't be challenged on his numerous outrageous statements. Neither of those things would be true in a courtroom. The prosecution would just let Trump rant and then dissect all his misstatements one by one. They'd offer proof that Trump's worldview was not only wrong but downright fantastical. And Trump hates to be proven wrong, so he'd react in his "full-on petulant toddler" mode -- which would not exactly impress the jury. Most critically, Trump could not decide to storm out and end the testimony. He just wouldn't have the option of standing up and walking away. Any halfway-competent prosecutor could get under Trump's skin and make him angry -- and that's usually when he says the craziest things imaginable.
But Trump, in making the decision whether to testify or not, wouldn't admit his own vulnerabilities. He'd be convinced that he would be the best testifier the world has ever seen and would tie the prosecution up in knots with his flawless logic and would also (as a side benefit) look great on teevee while doing so. He would eagerly want to give that performance, no matter how much his lawyers warned him not to. The lure of that camera might be irresistible to Trump. Whereas, without cameras, his lawyers may have an easier time talking him out of it: "There won't even be any clips of it on the news...."
Of course, this is all mere speculation. I can really see both sides of the "it's a good/bad thing" about televising trials in general. On the one hand, it would allow the "glued to the television set" public to see everything the jury sees. On the other hand, it would influence everyone in the courtroom -- they'd all be playing to the cameras (except the jury, who would not be shown). Would everyone's performance be more effective and not just more animated? That's a tough question.
There is one thing that is pretty certain -- one thing I probably actually agree with Donald Trump on, in fact. Maybe not every day, but for the crucial testimony from the key witnesses (especially Stormy Daniels), the ratings would be absolutely through the roof. That seems like the safest bet of all.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Which brings us to the most fascinating question in all this: how would live cameras affect Trump's behavior?
Depends. Maybe he would be extra careful not to lose control of himself and soil his diaper on live television.
Maybe not every day, but for the crucial testimony from the key witnesses (especially Stormy Daniels), the ratings would be absolutely through the roof.
Please explain why you didn't title this article:
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
...Not having personally watched a single minute of [the OJ Simpson murder trial] when it took place...
I find that quite impossible to believe. Were you stranded on a desert island at the time, or something?
Oh how we pine for the professional stylings of his honor lance into.
Ito. Damn autocorrect
I also wonder, were Douglas Adams alive right now, if he'd pen "The sentient beings of the galaxy vs zaphod beeblebrox," wherein zaphod complains about some earthling stealing his act.
the news today: aid for Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel passed the Senate, to be signed by President Biden.
the news 4 years ago today, bureaucrat Rick Bright complained that he was fired from the CDC for pushing back against President Trump's orders to fast-track the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19.
Joshua,
Re. Aid for Ukraine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68872783
It seems that upon careful read of the legislation just passed by the senate, Ukraine will actually get about half of the 61 billion dollar figure being talked about in the media with the rest going to bolster US stockpiles.
So, as has been the case from the get-go, Ukraine is getting just enough support to stave off big Russian advances. And, so it goes ...
Of course, the biggest challenge facing the Ukrainian effort to substantially push back Russia continues to be a less than adequate number of soldiers.
nypoet22
6
I also wonder, were Douglas Adams alive right now, if he'd pen "The sentient beings of the galaxy vs zaphod beeblebrox," wherein zaphod complains about some earthling stealing his act.
Definitely... minus the third upper appendage but infinitely smaller hands. ;)
Elizabeth Miller
8
It seems that upon careful read of the legislation just passed by the senate, Ukraine will actually get about half of the 61 billion dollar figure being talked about in the media with the rest going to bolster US stockpiles.
Incorrect. The House obviously sent the legislation to the Senate as a single package that required only an up-or-down vote. Since you claim to have made a "careful read" of the legislation, show/tell us where you came to your conclusion:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8035/text
Obviously, there are funds earmarked that will rebound in order to replenish stocks because of concerns of past Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), but the bill also grants the president billions of dollars worth of further PDA which when combined with the approximately $4 billion remaining from previously authorized PDA means President Biden can also in the future transfer about $12 billion worth of "excess weapons" from stocks of the U.S. without need of further congressional approval.
The United States can't keep sending "excess stores" as they are doing unless they are replenished after having sent them previously, which has obviously been done and will keep being done... rinse and repeat.
This isn't exactly rocket science. :)
This isn't exactly rocket science. :)
That certainly applies to the situation Ukraine finds itself in with regard to the support it is receiving from those who have egged them on in this war. Pretty darn despicable if you ask me.
But, who knows, perhaps there is another counteroffensive in the offing!
Since you claim to have made a "careful read" of the legislation
Where did I do that?
Though, it does seem that there needs to be a careful read of simplistic comments. Heh.
My estimate of the actual size of Ukraine military aid may have been, ah, too liberal. Heh.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-breakdown-of-whats-in-the-95-billion-foreign-aid-package-passed-by-the-house
If the trial were being televised, Trump would doubtlessly want to use the entire trial as a campaign event. Which brings us to the most fascinating question in all this: how would live cameras affect Trump's behavior?
Trump is using this trial, even without cameras in the courtroom, as a campaign event. And, unfortunately for the Biden campaign, this case sets up perfectly for the former president's bid for another term in the White House. I can see there being more than enough reasonable doubt as far as the jury is concerned but also, and more importantly, as far as the average voter is concerned.
Add to that all of the problems the current president is facing as far as his re-election campaign is concerned and Democrats have quite a lot to be worried about. Mostly because the Biden team doesn't seem interested in changing how their campaign is being run, never mind even tweaking their messaging about issues of most concern to voters.
For example, Trump and the GOP - despite their collective ineptitude, generally speaking - are still seen by most voters as the best stewards of the economy! And, after the economy, all other issues pale in comparison with the American electorate.
I think the pertinent question here is what can Democrats do to change their poor electoral outlook as it stands at the time of this writing. Perhaps, many may think the answer is nothing and that Democrats will prevail in the only poll that counts come November. Good luck with that.
Getting back to the endless coverage of Trump trials, I'm afraid that
Elizabeth Miller
11
Well, that "not rocket science" comment equally applies to me knowing full well you wouldn't (because you couldn't) show everybody here how you (or anybody else) could come to the conclusion in your comment at [8] claiming "careful read of the legislation."
That certainly applies to the situation Ukraine finds itself in with regard to the support it is receiving from those who have egged them on in this war.
So you're on the path back to blaming Biden and/or America for Putin's revanchism and making the claims you keep insisting you've never made. MtnCaddy will be thrilled to "hear" it. /sarcasm
Pretty darn despicable if you ask me.
Yes, your repetitive spewing of the Kremlin talking points fits that description.
I reiterate, it isn't rocket science that the United States can't keep sending war hardware to Ukraine unless they keep replenishing it... which has already been done approximately 55 times and will keep happening. The "excess stores" that have been replenished are actually part of the future deliveries (written into the bill you likely didn't even read) and some actually stored in Europe.
But, who knows, perhaps there is another counteroffensive in the offing!
As far as "who knows," you have proven beyond doubt who actually does not know and didn't carefully read a dang thing. :)
Elizabeth Miller
12
Where did I do that?
In this comments section, and I believe it will be educational for you if you actually read (or maybe re-read) your own actual comments versus other posters having to rub your nose in your own spit. You've got a newly forming pattern wherein you make a claim of "show me" (not a quote) regarding comments you've posted, and I would wager without a scintilla of hesitation that I'm not the only person who's noticed its recent emergence. I hope this bullshit isn't going to become a permanent modus operandi. If it is, do not blame any of the rest of us who believe you are "losing it" based on the evidence you're freely providing.
Though, it does seem that there needs to be a careful read of simplistic comments. Heh.
Words matter. But, yes, your comments are usually "simplistic" (your term) and frequently incorrect... a hallmark of repetitive right-wing propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation. :)
Elizabeth Miller
13
My estimate of the actual size of Ukraine military aid may have been, ah, too liberal. Heh.
Nope. You should actually perform that "careful read of the legislation" you've already claimed. That way, you could (perhaps) cease in your endless folly of equating "Ukraine military aid" solely with weapons/military hardware. :)
David pecker, Anthony Weiner and dick swett should start a law firm.
nypoet22
18
David pecker, Anthony Weiner and dick swett should start a law firm.
Heh... but about those letters: How come David's "pecker" and "dick swett" are smaller while Anthony's "Weiner" is big? It has something to do with pie?
Well everything has to do with pie. Maybe it's because Weiner is a Democrat.
nypoet22
20
Well everything has to do with pie.
Bet we could find evidence?
*be right back*
https://www.pinterest.co.kr/pin/835980749561976931/
[11]
MtnCaddy is not amused.
That certainly applies to the situation Ukraine finds itself in with regard to the support it is receiving from those who have egged them on in this war. Pretty darn despicable if you ask me.
But, who knows, perhaps there is another counteroffensive in the offing!
Back to this nonsense, huh?
For the record the war began in 2014 with Russia invading Crimea and Donbass.
Why do you keep claiming that Ukraine was “egged into” war with Russia?
Caddy,
Please stop purposefully misunderstanding my point of view.
Caddy,
My "egging on" comment was about how US/NATO continues to provide Ukraine with only just enough support to keep the war going while at the same time nixing prospects for an early negotiated settlement. That is the sort of behavior on the part of Western powers that I find despicable and, indeed, offensive. Am I the only one around here who actually cares about the future of a sovereign Ukraine?
Here is an exerpt from an interesting piece I read recently in Foreign Affairs:
By the end of March 2022, a series of in-person meetings in Belarus and Turkey and virtual engagements over video conference had produced the so-called Istanbul Communiqué, which described a framework for a settlement. Ukrainian and Russian negotiators then began working on the text of a treaty, making substantial progress toward an agreement. But in May, the talks broke off. The war raged on and has since cost tens of thousands of lives on both sides.
There was no single smoking gun; this story defies simple explanations. Further, such monocausal accounts elide completely a fact that, in retrospect, seems extraordinary: in the midst of Moscow’s unprecedented aggression, the Russians and the Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU.
A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security. The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha. And with the failure of Russia’s encirclement of Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield.
The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine
Why do you keep claiming that Ukraine was “egged into” war with Russia?
I have made so such claim.
I have made no such claim.
This is not my idea of an intelligent back and forth, Caddy.
Elizabeth I quoted your post [11]
[24]
I do agree with part of this.
The “just enough to keep Ukraine fighting” is quite true! The West know that so long as the war continues,
(1)
Being bogged down in Ukraine keeps Russia from starting their tenth invasion since Putin took power. This gives Europe time to get their acts together.
(2)
War in Ukraine is degrading Russia’s military strength every day.
Regarding your “egged on” Ukraine, Ukraine needs no motivation in this existential threat to their existence. Ukrainians would fight with sticks and rocks. Putin is inflicting genocide on the Ukrainian people.
Caddy[28],
I quoted your post [11]
Actually, you misquoted my post [11] and then failed to read my explanation for what I wrote.
SIGH.
Oh, I see you got the quote right in your [29]. Hallelujah.
The “just enough to keep Ukraine fighting” is quite true! The West know that so long as the war continues ...
Seriously? You don't care how many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have to die or have their entire lives upended while the Western powers support Ukraine with just enough military aid to keep the war going in the fashion that it has for the last two years, all in a so far failing attempt to weaken Russia?
And, where do you suppose Ukraine is going to find the numbers of soldiers it needs to keep the war going indefinitely?
Elizabeth Miller
24
My "egging on" comment was about how US/NATO continues to provide Ukraine with only just enough support to keep the war going while at the same time nixing prospects for an early negotiated settlement.
This appeasement crap again!? Also, "egging on" means to incite or urge someone to do something that is foolish. It isn't foolish to defend your sovereignty from a foreign aggressor; what would be beyond foolish is to appease them.
Anyone who's read Russia's aggressive proposals/list of demands (which I have posted directly from Russia wherein anyone can easily translate) can tell you it wasn't a serious attempt at negotiation. If Putin was concerned about NATO on Russia's western border, why would he attempt to reclaim Ukraine only to create the very conditions he claims are intolerable?
None of this is rocket science.
Ukraine wants to remain free and independent and not Putin's property. It's their decision.
"Live free or die" ain't that hard a concept to grasp.
Your constant cries for the world's appeasement of Russia are again duly noted. :)
Elizabeth Miller
32
You don't care how many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have to die...
It's a stupid question. If Russia was invading Canada, then we obviously wouldn't care. Duh. :)
^^^^^ KIDDING ^^^^^
Obviously, you aren't the only one who cares. To keep suggesting that ridiculous BS over and over is beyond absurd.
Appeasement leads to more war (more deaths)... not less.
Good news!
Polish and Lithuanian authorities are working on plans to send Ukrainian men of fighting age currently residing within their borders back to Ukraine. It is estimated that there are 300,000 - 400,000 such men now living in Poland.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/25/poland-and-lithuania-pledge-to-help-kyiv-repatriate-ukrainians-subject-to-military-draft