First, it is currently illegal to do so, and only the Supreme Court could overrule that.
However, second, the SCOTUS has adamantly opposed having its own cases televised, so the hope for a change there is remote.
Third, and finally, if OJ taught us nothing else, TV cases became a farce for justice.
Fourth, Don knows this. This is for the MAGAs
The third and fourth point are what Trump wants. He doesn’t care about losing the case. As long as he gets elected President in 2024, he can pardon himself, take over the DOJ, and have all his political enemies arrested. If a judge says that his self pardon is unconstitutional, they get added to the political enemies list, arrested, and replaced with a new judge that says it’s perfectly fine.
Trump wants to have clips that he can play to rile up his base. Suppose a judge says “The defendant, Mr. Trump, has said that there’s a conspiracy against him and that I’m in this conspiracy.” Trump would release a video of the judge saying “… There’s a conspiracy against… Mr. Trump… I’m in this conspiracy…”
Trump’s base would then either elect him President or, if he loses, commit acts of violence in Trump’s name in the hopes that this will get him appointed President.
First, it is currently illegal to do so, and only the Supreme Court could overrule that.
It isn’t illegal per se, but rather barred by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Also, it doesn’t necessarily require the approval of the Supreme Court unless the approval or denial of cameras was appealed up to the Supreme Court level based on one side disagreeing with the ruling of the
lower courtsD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.For example, what is currently happening is that Judge Chutkan asked both parties to submit a brief on why cameras should or should not be allowed bases on the litigation introduced by corporate media stakeholders requesting the trial be televised. She can then take their opinions into consideration before making a formal request to the Magistrate Judge to allow cameras.
I think it is incredibly unlikely that this happens, but I could be wrong. I generally agree with everything else you said about cameras inviting all kinds of other issues into the proceeding. I have seriously mixed feelings about the entire thing.
It isn’t illegal per se, but rather barred by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.
And what happens if you break a rule? Can you be charged? Would it therefore be illegal?
it doesn’t necessarily require the approval of the Supreme Court
It takes a superior court to Choutican. What’s the superior court?
Would it therefore be illegal?
There is a difference between laws and policies/procedural rules. The court does not have the ability to make laws. There is an important distinction to be made here I think, which is why I brought it up. If it was illegal then the court would have no ability to even consider allowing cameras per the second part of my comment.
What’s the superior court?
In this case it is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thought you might know. Though my questions weren’t answered, perhaps they weren’t salient or something.
It was my impression that the Court of Appeals only rules on matters of law and not case facts.
It was my impression that the Court of Appeals only rules on matters of law and not case facts.
True, but I don’t understand what that has to do with the camera question?
“And they won’t let us televise the trial, because they know it’s a crooked sham of a trial, it’s a witch hunt! But look at— look at Sleepy Joe there with Hunter’s laptop, Mr. Playboy himself. It’s a shame about Hugh Hefner being gone, he sure would’ve loved that guy, probably would’ve put him on the cover, Playboy’s Man of the Year. Not as good as when I was Time’s Man of the Year, but whataya gonna do, eh? But people say that issue sold out more than anything else in the magazine’s history. You know who else would’ve looked good in Playboy? Ivanka, I told her, ‘You should do Playboy hon, you’ll be great, you’re a natural!’ I try to be supportive of my kid, she’s an only child y’know.”
Removed by mod
you just said the same thing twice
Removed by mod
In before they demand the Georgia trial NOT be televised.
Aren’t they the ones that asked for cameras
It’s hard to keep track of all of Trumps fraud cases. So much fraud.
deleted by creator
Of course, he wants millions of dollars and free press. He gets to raise money off of it, which he needs in order to pay his lawyers. 
This is why. For all his bluster about fake news, Trump actually has a generally good working relationship with journalists off camera. He knows many of them by name, he gives them their soundbites, and they give him free publicity for whatever he feels like talking about.
He wants to be tried in the court of public opinion, and that’s a “court case” he can win (and fundraise from) easily.
Judge Ito made a mistake televising the OJ trial. If Trump’s trial is televised, he’ll turn it into a circus for fundraising and riot incitment purposes.
Wasn’t it the other way around at first? The trial should have been televised and he was not happy about it?
No, cameras have never been allowed in Federal Court. This would be a rare exception if it were to be allowed.
Major news networks like NBC have argued that it should be televised on the grounds that the voters themselves are the injured party due to the attempt at large-scale disenfranchisement and therefore voters have a legal right to be able to see the proceedings.
There is also the argument that it should be televised simply because of the importance to the general public interest.
Thanks for getting back, I can’t keep up with all these news and the American gov
The Georgia case will be televised, this is one of the federal cases.
I woulf be good, but there is the issue that the documents hace secrets.
Wrong trial. This isn’t refering to the documents case in Florida.
In their defense, there’s a lot of trials to keep track of.
True that.
Which one, mr. President?
