I’d be willing to put money on “No” to the first, which renders the second one moot. But if the worst should happen and he does win in 2024, the possibility that Trump will use the power of the presidency to protect himself is definitely very real. Legal or not, the only institutions that could intervene are SCOTUS or Congress, and the present makeup of both is not encouraging.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
If this isn’t rhetorical, then a small courtroom is a problem due to the size and that it can only physically accommodate so many humans. Without cameras, electronics, etc. the only way to know what is going on* as it’s happening is for the press to remember/take notes with pen/paper and then leave and go report on it. I’m not sure if Judge Cannon will allow a closed circuit video feed into another empty room to accommodate more press. Maybe.
Imagine if you only had Fox, OAN, Newsmax reporters telling you how the trial was going. It’s first come first serve to get in, but still, The less amount of press, the less amount of variance in the reporting which is never good. More is better since you’re relying on someone’s memory and bias/opinions.
If you’re asking why it has to be this way (ie, no electronics), then it’s just how federal courts do it. Old school. I know courtrooms where you have to leave your phone in your car. It varies a little, but you’ll never get a “live” trial like atmosphere, and I don’t think they’ve ever allowed a video camera during a criminal trial.
*there will of course be a transcript of the trial made available after the trial is over.
The parties will no doubt want a rush transcript after each trial day, which they can order from and pay for to the court reporters. Judging from my own experience proofreading for federal official reporters in Massachusetts District Court, there’s likely to be a rotation of two reporters each day. I don’t know whether the judge would authorize sales of the daily transcripts to new agencies during the trial.
ETA: The court reporters, as employees of the courts, are salaried and take down the record of hearings, pre and post trial, as well as the trials themselves. Production of the final transcripts comes when one or both parties choose to order them, either hard copy of electronic, or both, and the ordering party/ies pay a per page rate for that.
Yeah, my sister is currently on a federal jury, and she said they moved fast. Neither she nor I have ever been on a federal trial before, although we’ve been on literally dozens of trials in Superior Court, and she said this federal experience is quite different.
This is the internet, and I don’t mean any personal criticism. But most judges have a judicial temperament at odds with your post.
The purpose of having the defendant in court is so they can help with their defense. At least in the federal system, the judge can excuse the defendant from trial attendance, and I can’t see any good reason to deny such a request in this case, or almost any other.
If anything, I as a judge would welcome such requests because having the defendant in the room may intimidate some of those testifying for the prosecution.
Some jurors may feel they like to see the reaction of the defendant to testimony. I personally feel this information is worthless. The defendant’s occasional smirk is not something that would erase reasonable doubt.
I get the feeling Trump won’t be happy either way. He can bitch and moan about having to be there and then if they excuse him, he’ll complain that he’s not allowed to be there. And I understand that ‘excuse’ isn’t the same as ‘not allowed’ but Trump isn’t knowing for his ability to understand those kind of linguistic nuances (or he assumes his base isn’t smart enough to understand it).
My suggestion is to require him to be there, but if he can’t keep his mouth shut when it’s supposed to be shut and otherwise respect the court, put him in another room and let him video conference back in. The judge can keep him muted when it’s not his turn to speak and give him a sign* to hold in front of the camera if he has an objection.
I’d love to see someone like Judge Darrow on Trump’s case. She did a great job with Darrell Brooks.
*You stole a bunch of classified documents and kept them in a country club bathroom…Here’s your sign.
If Trump is given an orange jumpsuit, will he be invisible?
Not according to Cornell Law’s website. Do you have a cite that contradicts? Cornell, at least, seems uninfluenced by your perspective. 
Well that’s how I interpret 43 (c) (1) (A). In earlier discussion, I was told that’s a misinterpretation — the only way you can voluntarily absent yourself is by fleeing. However, the various judges will I think want to keep interference with running for office to the absolute minimum, and so will find a way to interpret Rule 43 voluntary absence that allows Trump to voluntarily absent himself to campaign during trial sessions. We will probably find out if I am correct next year.
For instance, my brother was summoned for jury duty in a federal criminal trial. He asked to be excluded because, at the time, he was a captain at the correctional facility where the defendant could have been sentenced.
That seems to me to be a fairly simple, perfectly reasonable reason to be excluded. It didn’t work.
He’ll look like he’s naked.
Eeek!
That would be a bizarre interpretation. If that were permissible, the primary “the defendant will be present at all phases” requirement would be meaningless. You’ll be disappointed, I’m afraid.
In that case I could see a competent lawyer argue that defendant Trump’s presence at his trial would be detrimental to his defense, not help it.
Brain bleach! Where’d I put the brain bleach!
I am astounded that judges could hand Trump, a complete autocrat-wannabe, the democracy issue — they stopped me from campaigning. But I guess I should prepare myself to be astounded.
Everyone’s liable to be disappointed if you are correct. Biden won’t be able to be heard over the cries that judges are stopping Trump from campaigning.
The only way any of this hurts Trump is if he is actually in prison on general Election Day. Otherwise the dynamic is more like:
Indicted and Elected: Candidates Accused of Crimes Won Big in the 2018 Midterms
Am I sure that being criminally convicted won’t hurt him? No. Biden is a bit up in the polls this month. But I can’t get my head around how being a rapist didn’t hurt him but less lurid cases, with appeals pending, will.
Parents who give toddlers everything they ask for in a desperate attempt to keep them from throwing tantrums don’t end up with a happy toddler. They end up with a toddler who throws even more tantrums, because the kid learns that tantrums work.
The judges have no latitude. The defendants are required by law to attend all phases of the trial (with the noted exceptions, which do not include “campaigning for president”). It’s not astounding that judges insist that the law be followed.
If someone with more expertise reads the law differently, I welcome the education. But your sense of fairness or political strategy don’t change what the law requires.
I really don’t get why you’re trying so hard to create some carve-out special privilege for Trump to keep on campaigning. Every defendant suffers hardship to comply with the law that they must attend all phases of a trial. Do not people who work for a living have an equally compelling hardship to attend court sessions? “Your Honor, I need to work to feed my family!” But you think being a candidate in a presidential contest is more compelling than that?
Your outsized concern over whether Trump can campaign around his court appearances baffles me.
Since the very beginning, Trump has been pushing the narrative that “deranged” Jack Smith is prosecuting on behalf of the Biden Department of “Injustice” specifically to interfere with the 2024 election. Trump is going to continue to complain about election interference and prosecutorial misconduct so long as the Feds continue their criminal case against him. Short of dropping all charges, Trump will continue to complain no matter what, so why capitulate to him in any way?
And does this exception only apply to Trump, or would it apply to any body running for a political office?
If someone is running for mayor of a small town and gets charged with an offence, would the exemption apply?