Adam Schiff tweet re Broadcasting trump trial

[IcyPeas]

Transparency will be crucial in the trials of the U.S. v. Donald J. Trump.

It’s why dozens of my colleagues joined me today in urging that these proceedings be broadcast for the public.

If the American people are to accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for them to witness, as directly as possible, the full facts and evidence.

Link to tweet

[Cha]

1. TY & Adam Schiff!

[brooklynite]

2. I don't care...

However meritorious, the Court won’t do it.

[nakocal]

3. I respectfully do not think it should be televised

But it should be filmed. If it is televised than fox news will cut and paste the testimony to change the meaning of things to favor traitor Trump. And the fox viewers are too fucking stupid to think for themselves and will believe it.

[chicoescuela]

5. Great point

Wouldn’t be surprised if the bastards did exactly that

[Maru Kitteh]

8. I agree but for different reasons I think. Fox will always Fox.

I don't think it should be televised because tfg if nothing else is a master showman when he has the right audience and he wants to be. A live TV feed shown around the world with an audience that would dwarf a royal wedding +the World Cup +the Super Bowl +every sport in the Olympics combined. Can you even imagine?

I don't want to.


But yes - it must be filmed, and released in its entirety after sentencing.

[Tarc]

11. I don't think that's a concern, as Trump would not take the stand

That's like Defense 101, never put your client on the stand. Doubly so with this orange, speak-off-the-cuff moron, they'd never allow it.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. He wouldn't have to. I wasn't even thinking of him on the stand,

because of course he won't. He wouldn't have to take the stand to put on a show.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

38. He can do plenty of damage to the case

Whether or not he takes the stand if he's on a live camera. He will know where those cameras are and constantly play to them, in some form, and he could do it in a way that prejudices the case.

You never--EVER--give a malignant narcissist the attention he craves. You starve him of attention, because it either makes him go away...or it makes him do something so stupid that he winds up harming himself.

He will hang himself if he does not have the level of attention he thinks he deserves.

It's not about assuaging anybody's personal needs to see him in court. It's about winning the bloody case. Smith is more likely to win if the orange hellbeast is so enraged about not getting attention that he starts making very stupid mistakes. And he will make those mistakes if those cameras aren't on him.

[EmmaLee E]

62. Right on

[Captain Zero]

16. What about a radio broadcast??

As a compromise.😉

As well as filming it for the National Archives.
Then show it to every presidential candidate in the future. Make them watch it.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. I think that's a very good option.

[allegorical oracle]

66. But televising it might lure tfg into insisting on testifying. And if he testifies, he'll lie, and

if he lies, he could get charged with perjury. Would enjoy the world's biggest liar getting punished for lying.

[Maru Kitteh]

70. That is a good point. That's a plausible outcome, but I don't think

we have to worry about it much. I just don't think there's any way in hell the cameras are going in. Truthfully I think it's almost a 50/50 split on upsides vs. downsides, even though I would like to see it too.

[orthoclad]

10. But live, continuous broadcast

won't give them the time to edit and distort - which thye'll do in any case with the recordings, after the fact.

[nakocal]

18. Fox will not carry it live.

They will just show the footage that they edit to make everything appear in Trump's favor.

[orthoclad]

19. True. Like with the House hearings.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. They're already going to do that no matter what, as you yourself say.

No.

No live circus.


With live they get to cut and paste every day and that's the very footage he would be motivated to give them.


Make all of the proceedings available as an unedited recording a little bit like SCOTUS does with audio from the court.

[orthoclad]

25. But they'll edit that, too.

Fox will act badly no matter what we do. We can't let them control decisions.

Personally, I like text transcripts. You can fit more info into a page of text than 10 minutes of video.

[Maru Kitteh]

37. Yeah, they will. That's why FOX has nothing to do with what

I'm saying. I repeat;


I don't think it should be televised because tfg if nothing else is a master showman when he has the right audience and he wants to be. A live TV feed shown around the world with an audience that would dwarf a royal wedding +the World Cup +the Super Bowl +every sport in the Olympics combined. Can you even imagine?

I don't want to.


But yes - it must be filmed, and released in its entirety after sentencing.



----------------------

As I said, Fox will always Fox, that's a given. I would like to see the dignity of this matter preserved as much as that is possible. He will not perform buffoonery unless there is a benefit in it for him. Also - his ability to incite flashpoint violence will not be solved by live broadcast, it can only enhance it. I want to see the trial live as much as anyone, I just don't think it's in the best interests of justice or history. I also think it would lead to increased violence.

Has the prosecution even asked for it to be televised?

[orthoclad]

51. I still personaly prefer text

I never look at utubes or mux videos. They're a waste of my time. That said, I did watch the House J6 broadcasts live.

But we can't let Fox make our decisions for us.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

39. Oh come on

The traitor thugs would distort something they themselves filmed, to make their side look better.

Do not put this man on live TV so that he can play to the cameras and do something to prejudice the case--which he will.

Anything but that.

[orthoclad]

50. Playing to the camera could sink him

Make him go off-script and say stupid incriminating shit.

I wonder if his lawyers would want that exposure.

[AdamGG]

26. Fox would do that, but if other networks ran full gavel gavel coverage

the independents whose votes matter would see Fox for the sham it is. If it was televised, it would be like the OJ trial. There would be wall to wall coverage and a lot of people who don't fully grasp how cravenly corrupt and malicious Trump actually is would begin to get it.

[Bucky]

30. I think you make an excellent argument for why it *should* be televised.

Whether it's filmed or live-fed for TV, Fox is gonna show strategically edited versions of what goes on. But if we all get to see it live, then among "us all" will be just a few more Foxlings who will see the full context and might start to become disenthralled.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

41. THe problem isn't Fox

The problem is having a defendant who's a malignant narcissist and will only benefit from having those cameras in there, broadcasting to the entire world.

You can never beat a narcissist by giving him the attention he needs like the rest of us need air to breathe. You beat him by starving him of attention, or as much of it as you can keep from him. He will be in a rage about no cameras, every day of that trial, and that rage will cause him to make a serious mistake, sooner or later. Malignant narcissists always do stupid things when they're in the throes of narcissistic injury.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

47. He has over a tenth of a billion followers/lovers

He will never lack the attention he desires.

Even if no cameras, he knows his lovers are talking about him every day and every night.
We will need a different way to win; starving him of attention is not a possibility.

[republianmushroom]

4. agree

[Hekate]

6. 100% agree with this. Fear of FOX reaction is no excuse for not doing the right thing now. nt

[BOSSHOG]

7. So sad that decent Americans

Have to jump through hoops to prove facts to people who have no use for facts or liberty and Justice for all. Conservatism is an onerous pain in the ass to our present and future. Ignorance is bliss for those who care not for law and order.

[Native]

9. I think he's absolutely right.

[Tarc]

12. The objections form DU'ers to televising the trial are rather silly

"Fox News will just edit them". The average Fox News viewer is a diehard dumbass anyways, swaying them doesn't matter.

[ShazzieB]

33. 100% agree!

Fox will show what they want to show, no matter what. Screw them. This needs to be televised live, gavel to gavel, so the American people can see the most important trial in the history of this country, as it happens.

Neal Katyal thinks so, too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/03/trump-trial-tv-broadcast/

Non-paywall/gift link: https://wapo.st/3Qkr7Xr

Televise this thing!

[thatcrowwoman]

64. Thank you for the gift link, ShazzieB.

I’m with you and Neal and the signatories.
We wanna see, we wanna be in the room where it happens.
🕊thatcrowwoman

[allegorical oracle]

67. Broadcasting it would more likely attract viewers who are on the fence, not his hardcore base. Most

of them have short attention spans, anyway.

Don't think it will happen, although djt's attorney (Lauro) said he was amenable to it. Depends on what witnesses will testify. If it happens to be people who themselves are R politcos who are running for local, state or federal offices, they might balk at being watched by their Repug voters. That would occur with just audio broadcast, too.

[orthoclad]

13. How about a single "official" camera

focused on the witness box? Or similar.

The jury should not be in the same room and visible, I think

[Jarqui]

14. I also think it should be broadcast visually

It provide context and limits what the propaganda stations can do with it.

[FakeNoose]

17. Well here's the letter...

The signature pages may not be in the original order, but they're all here.

Thank you Rep. Adam Schiff and all signatories!

[thatcrowwoman]

58. I stand with the signatories on this one. No excuses.

C-SPAN seems the obvious channel to handle it.
Would never need to show Mr. Trump’s visage, nor the jury.
Judge, witnesses, prosecutors and defense legal team, fine by me.

Trigger warning. “Rap reference” follows. I’m no Ari, but please use your discretion.
Inspired by the musical , Hamilton:

If I can’t Be, I wanna See in the room where it happens, the room where it happens, the room where it happens.
We wanna see in the room where it happens!
🕊thatcrowwoman

[madamesilverspurs]

20. C-span it.

They already know the drill.


.

[electric_blue68]

21. That's what I suddenly thought going the single camera route

[Amaryllis]

27. Good idea.

[allegorical oracle]

68. Not everyone has access to C-SPAN. nt

[WarGamer]

23. 100% needs to be televised... around 200 million interested parties.

[AdamGG]

29. Globally, audience could be billions

Better ad revenue than the Super Bowl. At least Trump could still talk about his ratings...

[WarGamer]

31. giggles... you finally got your top rated show, Donny!!!!!

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

42. Yeah feed the ego of a malignant narcissist

By making him the center of attention for 100s of millions. That always turns out well.

Not.

[AdamGG]

28. Who would have te power of deciding to televise it?

If the rule is no cameras in federal courts, who would have the power to make an exception? Does the judge handling this case have the power to decide that? If not them, then who could potentially make the decision to allow it?

[Bucky]

32. That's a great question. It might be up to the judge.

Or there might be federal regulations already in place.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

43. The judge decides what happens in her courtroom

Like all court decisions, one or the other party can appeal, but I don't think another court will overturn it.

If no cameras in the court was good enough for Gotti, it's good enough for this criminal. Why give him special perks, never mind the utter folly of giving a malignant narcissist the very attention he craves?

Taken the attention away from him helps Smith's case.

[intrepidity]

52. Do you think that no cameras in the courtroom means

that Fox won't be covering this and providing massive attention to the narcisscist?

[AdamGG]

55. I think that cameras in the courtroom means

That Fox would be made practically irrelevant on this. The extent of Trump's guilt and the obviousness of his lies would become undeniable. He'd be an impotent, pathetic presence in the courtroom. The emperor would have no clothes.

[former9thward]

59. The judge can't violate the regulation.

So she doesn't decide what happens in her courtroom. No cameras are allowed.

[arthritisR_US]

34. He is 100% spot on!

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

35. I understand why people would want it

Their reasons are valid. Normally, I'd be all in on it.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to do it with this particular defendant, because he will do all kinds of creepy or bizarre things to play to the cameras. He'll mug and preen for it. Plus, it's just plain stupid to give a known malignant narcissist live broadcast coverage on all the major networks and cable channels. He craves that attention, and it it will feed his ego to have it. Conversely, not getting live coverage will infuriate him. He's more likely to make a grave mistake when he's in the throes of narcissistic injury for not getting the attention the thinks he deserves.

[NYC Liberal]

36. Aren't cameras banned in all federal courtrooms?

[LudwigPastorius]

40. Rule 53 stands until the Judicial Conference of the U.S. decides it doesn't.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_53

[Bluethroughu]

44. This is historical value, we've paid for.

Broadcast it far and wide.

[Wounded Bear]

45. Would love to see his Colonel Jessup moment...

[Handler]

46. I sense a bit of fear in the responses here. Transparency is almost always the better way.

Having the trial behind closed doors is the way a Fascist government would handle it. It's
always been done that way is not a good enough reason to deny the American people the
right to see justice served. Let the people see it.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

48. Sad part is MAGA's can watch the whole thing....

And won't accept a guilty verdict. They will scream he was railroaded, it was the Dark government, and the conspiracy theories will run a muck.

[IcyPeas]

49. I initially thought it would be a bad idea too because of trumps love for any and all publicity

But if people such as Neal Katyal and Adam Schiff and the other signatories to that letter think it's the right thing to do perhaps it is. They certainly are better judges than me.... they know stuff!

📺

[former9thward]

61. Only 38 Democrats signed the letter.

Out of about 260 Democrats in Congress.

[BumRushDaShow]

63. Probably because they are all on recess until September

and many may be on vacation and/or even out of the country. I just saw where a NC Democrat just got out of the hospital after being involved in a serious car accident yesterday. She is okay and was released today, but suffered several broken bones.

North Carolina congresswoman suffered broken bones in ‘serious car accident’

[housecat]

53. If the downside of televising is that it can provide material for film alterations, then

live television will provide the facts first hand. The American people deserve to see the court trial in real time. The only risk is to withhold the actual event and create more speculation, more division, and more lies. Everything involves risk.We've come this far as a result of the intelligent work of the J6 Committee, investigations, DOJ, Special Council, etc. If anyone should decide on live tv coverage, it is Jack Smith.

[former9thward]

60. No, this is America. The prosecutor does not decide what the court will do.

[housecat]

69. yes yes but he could persuade the court

[LiberalFighter]

54. Absolutely. Like they did with the OJ trial.

Based on the info I had at the time I thought OJ was innocent. But after the gloves don't fit bit along with other facts I considered him guilty.

It was a shame the prosecutors didn't explain that leather shrinks when not used regularly.

[Beringia]

56. I wish they would broadcast it, must see TV n/t

[Geechie]

57. Obviously Schiff has been bought

by the popcorn lobby

[MiHale]

65. Ab-so-freaking-lutely....

👍

[Blue Owl]

71. K&R

[Duppers]

72. +1000

[BWdem4life]

73. Umm

If we can't accept the outcome of a trial without personally watching it, that means there is a lack of trust in the judicial system, which is a pretty big problem.

Televise it, don't televise it... but don't say it must be televised in order for us to accept the outcome. I don't often disagree with Adam Schiff but I certainly disagree with his reasoning here.

Some signatures on there from other people I respect as well... Doesn't change my mind about the faulty reasoning.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

74. Televise it gavel to gavel. Too much shit goes on now behind closed doors as it is.