I don’t always agree with the strategies that Trump and his lawyers choose to defend the myriad charges being made against him, but one of them is brilliant: Trump is demanding that his trial in Jack Smith’s poorly disguised “insurrection” case be televised. Not only is it hard to run a kangaroo court when the world is watching, but this will finally allow the nation to hear all the evidence for claiming election fraud. Given Trump's unique situation, the big question is whether the judge will bend the existing ban on cameras in federal proceedings.

The story is from last month but didn’t go viral until the last day or so. I guess that’s because back in July, before the indictment was issued, the story was hypothetical; now, the indictment is out there, so every Trump strategy matters tremendously.

This newly viral report was published on July 21 by the Independent, a British outlet that is relatively unaffected by the American media’s Pravda-esque reporting, at least when it comes to events in the U.S.:

Donald Trump’s new lawyer will ask a judge to allow cameras in a federal courtroom if the one-term president is indicted with January 6 election fraud charges by the Department of Justice.

[snip]

The problem for Mr Lauro is that courtroom photographing and broadcasting are banned in federal court under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

“Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom,” the rule states.

Image: Donald Trump arrives in D.C. for his arraignment. YouTube screen grab.

The reason for Trump’s desire for a televised trial is obvious. This case is one of national interest, given that a sitting president has created very…uh, imaginative charges to take down his chief rival, hindering him in the election and, if possible, sending him to jail for life. We’ve all seen this play out before…in banana republics. Watching those past events, we congratulated ourselves; now, we’re living the nightmare.

What can help keep the trial from turning into a true third-world kangaroo court, without only the barest semblance of substantive and procedural respect for Trump’s rights, is having the nation’s eyes watching the judge. We already know that the judge is gunning for Trump. She’s an Obama appointee, and she’s been a hanging judge for January 6 defendants. Indeed, the entire court is biased, for the magistrate presiding over the arraignment instantly demeaned Trump in court by calling him “Mr. Trump” rather than “President Trump.” That manifest bias alone is a building block for having the case reassigned to a real court, which the D.C. court is not.

The other virtue of a televised trial is that Trump is essentially being charged with failing to believe that he lost, despite his advisors (most of whom have proven to be Deep State operatives who despise Trump) telling him so. Instead, Trump believed the evidence surrounding the election, starting with the delayed counts in the six pivotal swing states. Then, he needs to bring before the court every piece of evidence from across America showing election chicanery. Once that’s televised… Well, Katie, bar the door ‘cause all hell’s going to break out.

But what about the prohibition against cameras in the courtroom? That’s a sticky problem. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is very explicit:

Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

I’ve never done any criminal law, so the rules are as new to me as they are to anyone else. However, off the top of my head, Rule 2 would seem to give the judge leeway to ensure a just proceeding:

These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.

Given Trump’s unique situation and the effect this case will have on the election, the only way to ensure a “just determination” and address Americans’ concerns about “fairness in administration” would be to have a camera in that courtroom. I would also argue that procedural rules cannot override the important substantive right to a fair trial.

You can bet, though, that Obama’s judge will make no effort to find a way to allow the American people to see inside that courtroom. Instead, she’ll simply ensure that the American people’s access to information comes from the reporters she’ll allow in the courtroom…from AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN…

UPDATE: Commenter Bob Wilson has a very clever idea to abide by the Rule's explicit language while keeping the American people fully informed:

"the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."

So, don't BROADCAST the proceedings from the COURTROOM; just video-record the proceedings and broadcast them from the STUDIOS later in the day or evening.