minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
Biden's Department of Justice does not want cameras or audio recording in the courtroom when they prosecute President Donald Trump for alleged J6 conspiracy charges. A document posted by Julie Kelly reveals that Special Counsel Jack Smith is fighting against the audio or video broadcast of the trial.
The document reads: "Here's the Judicial Conference—having studied the issue for decades—reaffirmed the policy of the federal courts in September 2023. Its policy judgement was to continue to prohibit the audio or video broadcasting of criminal trials. While Applicants are free to advocate their views to policy makers, this Court should decline their invitation to ignore the binding nature of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53. Accordingly, the Applications should be denied."
The referenced rule was enacted in 1946, far before the advent of contemporary media. It states that "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." After many pilot programs, it was determined that a judge could permit cameras. By September 2023, "The new policy permits a judge presiding over a civil or bankruptcy non-trial proceeding, in the judge’s discretion, to authorize live remote public audio access to any portion of that proceeding in which a witness is not testifying."
Media companies want to broadcast the trial. Undoubtedly, the American people want to see it—or at least hear it. The trial, set to begin in March in the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse under the eye of Judge Tanya Chutkan, is one of many J6 trials that have been heard in DC since that fateful day in January 2021. And like those, the DOJ wants the process to be entirely opaque.
"Since the founding of our nation, we have never had a criminal case where securing the public’s confidence will be more important than with United States v. Donald Trump," said lawyers representing a coalition of media companies including CNN, the New York Times, and Associated Press wrote in an October 5 application to Chutkan, per Julie Kelly's Declassified. "The prosecution of a former President, now a presidential candidate, on charges of subverting the electoral process, presents the strongest possible circumstances for continuous public oversight of the justice system."
The document reads: "Here's the Judicial Conference—having studied the issue for decades—reaffirmed the policy of the federal courts in September 2023. Its policy judgement was to continue to prohibit the audio or video broadcasting of criminal trials. While Applicants are free to advocate their views to policy makers, this Court should decline their invitation to ignore the binding nature of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53. Accordingly, the Applications should be denied."
The referenced rule was enacted in 1946, far before the advent of contemporary media. It states that "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." After many pilot programs, it was determined that a judge could permit cameras. By September 2023, "The new policy permits a judge presiding over a civil or bankruptcy non-trial proceeding, in the judge’s discretion, to authorize live remote public audio access to any portion of that proceeding in which a witness is not testifying."
Media companies want to broadcast the trial. Undoubtedly, the American people want to see it—or at least hear it. The trial, set to begin in March in the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse under the eye of Judge Tanya Chutkan, is one of many J6 trials that have been heard in DC since that fateful day in January 2021. And like those, the DOJ wants the process to be entirely opaque.
"Since the founding of our nation, we have never had a criminal case where securing the public’s confidence will be more important than with United States v. Donald Trump," said lawyers representing a coalition of media companies including CNN, the New York Times, and Associated Press wrote in an October 5 application to Chutkan, per Julie Kelly's Declassified. "The prosecution of a former President, now a presidential candidate, on charges of subverting the electoral process, presents the strongest possible circumstances for continuous public oversight of the justice system."
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments