Big news came out after the Georgia indictment was made public.
Trump's Georgia election case was going to be live-streamed, but it was the only one of the four indictments that was expected to be televised.
Requests to have the federal trials live-streamed have been rejected.
There is a current ban on federal trials being live-streamed.
This is why the Georgia case, which is being conducted in a Fulton County, GA, courtroom, is the exception.
Lawmakers had asked for an exception in Trump's case, hoping for more transparency, but the Judicial Conference, which is the board that makes the policies for federal courts, has rejected the call for Trump's case to be live-streamed.
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, a President George W. Bush appointee who is chairman of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, explained:
"The conference itself did not take that specific request. The answer to that question at present is controlled by federal rules that prohibit cameras in criminal proceedings under Rule 53, and unless actions are taken to modify that rule, that will be the status of things."
This does not mean it will still not happen, with Smith adding, "Discussions are ongoing with people on Capitol Hill and everyone, both in the third branch and in Congress, are waiting to see just how things play out over the course of the next few weeks."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) also commented, "Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings.
"If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced, and the credibility of witnesses."
I believe all of Trump's trials should be televised just for the sake of transparency.
If they are not televised, we are going to be relying on Donald Trump and the media to tell us what happened, and you can point to half the country on one side of the aisle or the other that does not trust those parties.
Margaret Talev, the director of the Syracuse University Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship and a senior contributor at Axios, really hit the nail on the head with her comments on this.
Talev stated:
"The video footage tells the story. [Without it], you’re relying on courtroom sketches, you’re relying on the reporter’s analysis of things.”
These are, by far, the most significant trials that will hit the courtroom this decade, if not century, and the American people have a right to see it live and in person.
We deserve to see the "evidence" they say they have against Trump, and if we do not see it take place in real-time, people will always question it.
This will be especially true of Trump loyalists, who are going to lose their minds if Trump comes out of this with a guilty verdict and they have to rely on the mainstream media for analysis.
I understand that one of the main concerns here is funding to ensure the cybersecurity of the live stream.
If we send billions to Ukraine without accountability, can we now spare a few million to ensure the proper security protocols are implemented to provide a secure broadcast of this trial?
