“Trump’s sanity, or Meadows’ sanity?”
“Yes.”
Mr. Trump? Do you wanna … Idunno … be on TV??
Please – as always: no wagering.
LOL, just spitballing here, but to me this looks like Judge Chutkan throwing a bit of shade on Trump. Subtle mocking.
Love it.
Oh, wow. It’ll be interesting if Trump agrees to have it televised and whether he’ll be able to keep it together while testifying. I don’t think he’ll be able to.
Trump already has said, through his attorneys, that he wants it televised. He’s an experienced TV star. I think he knows what he is doing here.
As for “keep it together while testifying,” whatever that means, Americans who were already determined to vote for Joe Biden will agree that Trump’s demeanor, and whatever he says if he takes the stand, was terrible and damaging. But, sorry, they don’t matter here. I’m more concerned about what people hesitating whether to go out and vote, and/or seriously vacillating on who they prefer, think.
TV coverage would help Trump by getting out his message while taking attention away from Biden’s messaging.
See Why Televising the Trump Trials Is a Bad Idea
However, I can think of reasons why televising the trial may help Biden, and so reserve my right to change my mind!
Let’s hear him say that to the judge.
I think the OFFER at least is clever. If he’s on record saying he wants it, and gets it, it deflects (well for rational individuals, not MAGA of course) his later efforts to say it’s forced upon him.
If he says he doesn’t want it televised, and the court agrees, it makes it harder to claim he’s being silenced (subject to the above).
If they don’t get him on the record and the court choses either way, it feeds HIS version of events. So yeah, put him on the spot and make a record of it, for what little it will do.
I think that the judge has to at least ask, before he gives his reason not to televise the trial. Provides a block for appeal where he can detail out his reasoning. Also gives the Trump team of the best lawyers a chance to muck up the request with campaign crap.
Trump and his lawyers love to say one thing in front of a microphone, and quite the opposite thing in front of a judge.
Eh, no it won’t unfortunately. That doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been silenced, you can use your platform that goes out to millions of people to whine about being silenced.
Unless you are talking about an appeals court, in which case I agree with you. If he tries to use the strategy that he’ll appeal based on the assertion that he was being targeted for political purposes in order to shut him up, this sort of thing would undercut that effort.
Like guiliani in front of a judge, tugging at his necktie and sweating, claiming “no, no your honor, were not claiming that there was, he-heh, election fraud here…”
I’m confused regarding the question of televising this particular trial. It seems impossible, and yet the judge is inviting Trump’s lawyers (at least one of whom said he wants it, but outside the courtroom) to make a formal request.
AFAIK, the trial cannot be televised live because there is a Rule 53 prohibiting federal trials from being photographed or broadcasted:
As far as changing Rule 53 is concerned, this was in the news yesterday:
So, seemingly, it could only be televised on a delay, and the screen could not show photographic images. Perhaps the delayed C-SPAN show could go back and forth between artist sketches of the persons involved (I hope leaving out jurors).
Also see:
If Trump Trial Isn’t Broadcast Live, a Plea to Record It for Posterity
That maybe wouldn’t be broadcasting (narrowcasting?), but I think it would be photographing. Can Judge Chutkan really rule that a video is something other than a series of photographs, and thus allowed if not broadcasted?
And does not being live even have anything to do with broadcasting? What does the word broadcasting mean?
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
So I guess televising it is bad, even if Trump’s team claimed before a microphone that that was what they wanted? And since when was Trump ever bothered by constitutional constraints?
I dunno on this one. I think if it’s televised, the mango and his male spawn will simply keep repeating “election was stolen” over and over, making insanity a possible defense. 
Or it also gives the orange team opportunity to “perform” way too much, only to rile up the base. Yet, the amount of lies and fraud could change some people’s minds. Six in one, half dozen in the other.
I think a lot of people will receive an education on how a bright, experienced judge controls her courtroom.
I think Trump will not want the trial televised. He prefers the court of public opinion.
If he says no to a televised trial, it’s going to be much harder for him to defend the things he’s saying outside the courtroom.
Which may be exactly why Judge Chutkan made the offer.
As re rules, exceptions can always be made.
If this is televised, the world will see what an unhinged lunatic Trump is, the end. Trump knows this, which is why he will claim before a microphone that it should be televised, but beg before a judge that it should not be.
And his stupid fucking suckers are going to go: “Trump! Trump! U.S.A! U.S.A!”
That’s “Stollen election”
I don’t know if you’ve been following Trump’s actions since 2016 or so, but very often there is a difference between what he says and what has or will happen. For example he’s lied about not being able to testify in the suit E. Jean Carroll brought against him, he claims he’s been unfairly denied a jury trial in his current civil fraud case, and when he speaks to the press often says outrageous things like there’s no case against him or that he won that day. I might be out of line here, but I think Trump might very well be a habitual liar willing to say whatever immediately comes to mind depending on his audience and what he thinks is good for him.
Oh, I don’t care about the voters. There might be a few people swayed by Trump’s testimony one way or the other, but his core supporters will likely stick by him no matter what. By “keeping it together” I mean not incriminating himself futher, committing perjury, or even contempt of court.
Unlike a television interview or a rally, Trump isn’t in control at trial. When he goes off on a tangent, he’ll be brought to heel which is something Trump cannot stand. Look at how huffy he got the other day when Engoron told Trump he wasn’t a credible witness. But I do think you’re right, if Trump takes the stand he’s doing so to appeal to his people. I think he’s accepted that he’s already lost this case.
If I was Trump I would definitely want it televised. Then people can see video “proof” of whatever you want them to see. You can show clips devoid of all the context and say whatever you want it to mean. Thats how trials work outside the courtroom.
It’s like the Depp-Heard trial x 100. If you’re a Depp fan, he did great because you saw him/his side do great (or her/her side do bad) with the video and legal commentary (by a real lawyer!) to help you understand it. And if you’re a Heard fan, the opposite. And never shall the two sides meet.