Connect with us

CRIME

Two-Thirds of Americans Want Trump’s Documents Trial Televised

Published

on

As a date has been set for the trial of former President Donald Trump over the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, a new poll shows that most Americans want to watch the trial on their TVs.

A new Quinnipiac University poll asked a number of questions about the upcoming trial, which is set for August 14, including whether or not they thought cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. Overall, 64%, nearly two-thirds, say cameras should be there, while 29% say they shouldn’t. An additional 7% said they had no opinion or didn’t know.

While more Democrats—71%—than Republicans—57%—wanted cameras, there was no demographic where a majority didn’t want them. Black people were the highest demographic who wanted the Trump documents trial televised at 77%, followed by people between the ages of 18-34 at 71%, tied with Democrats, and Hispanic people at a rate of 70%. The poll also showed that only 32% of Americans have read the indictment.

READ MORE: Bill Barr Calls Trump Documents Case ‘Brazen Criminal Conduct’

Though 60% of Americans think Trump acted inappropriately in handling the classified documents, and 65% call the charges either “very serious” (at 45%) or “somewhat serious” (at 20%), 62% call the Department of Justice “politically motivated” in pursuing the case.

The poll had a sample size of 1,776 American adults with a margin of error of 2.3%.

Federal trials, like the Trump documents trial, are not televised. At the state level, many states allow cameras in courtrooms, but it’s on a state-by-state basis. And, of course, Trump’s impeachment trials were televised, as is nearly all House and Senate business.

There have been calls from the right and the left to televise the trial. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz wrote an op-ed for The Hill in favor of cameras in Trump’s courtroom. Dershowitz says that this is partly due to his belief that “all trials, except perhaps those involving minors and other select exceptions, should be televised.” He warns that if the trial isn’t televised, questions of bias will come into play.

“It will be as if there were two trials: one observed by reporters for MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times and other liberal media, the other through the prism of reporters for Fox, Newsmax and other conservative outlets. There will be nowhere to go to learn the objective reality of what occurred at trial,” Dershowitz writes.

MSNBC anchor and commentator Ayman Mohyeldin made a similar case on his weekend show Ayman.

“If Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee set to oversee the rest of trial, continues to follow standard procedure, the only accounts the public will hear, see and read will be secondhand accounts from reporters, witnesses and participants. That includes a defendant who has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to tell the truth,” Mohyeldin said. “Now, as a member of the news media myself, I have confidence that those allowed inside the courtroom will try their very best to accurately document the proceedings. But the truth is simple:  That is not enough, given the severity and gravity of this moment.”

 

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CRIME

Seattle Police Didn’t Provide Access to Lawyers 96% of the Time: Report

Published

4 months ago

on

December 26, 2023

By

The Seattle Police Department violated the law and didn’t give people under 18 access to a lawyer when it was supposed to 96% of the time, according to a new report released Friday by the city’s Office of the Inspector General.

The OIG audited the Seattle Police Department on its compliance with two laws, a city-level law called the MiChance Dunlap-Gittens Ordinance and a similar state law, RCW 13.40.740. The laws require police give those under 18 years old access to a public defender before the youth waives their right to remain silent. Police also must provide attorney access when requesting consent for a search, according to the OIG.

The OIG examined 89 arrests and found 50 cases where the laws applied. In those cases, access to an attorney was only provided twice. The OIG broke the interactions into four categories: Custodial Interrogation, which made up half of the cases; Consent to Search, 3 cases; Detained and Questioned, 7 cases; and Arrested, No Evidence of Questioning, 15 cases. Both of the instances where attorney access was provided were in this last category.

READ MORE: DOJ Report Says Louisville Police Needlessly Use Tasers & Dogs on Civilians

In an appendix, the OIG laid out eight recommendations, including updating the Seattle Police Department’s policy manual, requiring officers to “make a good faith effort” to check the age of the person detained, and to perform regular internal audits on whether or not the law is being followed by officers.

SPD’s chief operating officer, Brian Maxey, said it was sometimes difficult to determine if someone is legally a minor, according to the Times, but admitted that “in some instances there are clear gaps in officers’ understanding of the laws and inconsistencies in practice.”

The law is named for MiChance Dunlap-Gittens, a high school senior shot in 2017 following a botched sting operation. King County sheriff’s detectives investigating a homicide attempted to create a sting to catch a suspect. Dunlap-Gitten was killed when he attempted to flee. The suspect the detectives were after also fled, but was caught by a SWAT team that night, according to the Seattle Times. However, neither teenager was involved at all in the homicide under investigation.

Dunlap-Gittens’ death led to a $2.5 million ruling against King County in 2020. In addition to the victim’s family receiving the money, the sheriff at the time apologized and promised to make her officers wear body cameras and use dash cameras, according to the Times. Shortly following the settlement, the Seattle City Council passed the ordinance. A similar ordinance also went before the King County Council. A year later, RCW 13.40.740 passed the State Legislature.

Continue Reading

CRIME

Giuliani Booking Photo Released

Published

8 months ago

on

August 23, 2023

By

Former Trump attorney and former Republican Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani was booked in Fulton County, Georgia Wednesday afternoon on racketeering charges and charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

He was released on a $150,000 bond after being arraigned on 13 charges.

“Conditions include prohibitions against intimidating co-defendants or witnesses, and against communicating with co-defendants other than through their lawyers. Giuliani must check in with pretrial services every 30 days,” USA Today reports.

READ MORE: ‘Wrong on the Law, Wrong on the Facts’: Fani Willis Smacks Down Jeff Clark’s Legal Move in Scathing Response

Former Trump attorneys Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell were also booked and their photos have been made public as well.

See all three mug shots below or at this link.

Continue Reading

CRIME

‘Moral Turpitude’: Bill Barr Hammers Donald Trump

Published

8 months ago

on

August 17, 2023

By

Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr delivered one of his harshest criticisms to date of his former boss on Thursday, accusing Donald Trump of “moral turpitude.”

“You know, you don’t get immunity for two years in the run-up to an election just by saying, ‘Hey, I’m a candidate,'” Barr told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto.

“These investigations have been going on for a while, everyone knew about them even before he announced his candidacy,” Barr continued. “So if there’s a chance to get it resolved before the election, it should be because the American people should know these are crimes involved – or potential crimes – involving moral turpitude.”

Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute says moral turpitude is “wicked, deviant behavior constituting an immoral, unethical, or unjust departure from ordinary social standards such that it would shock a community.”

READ MORE: ‘Truly Scandalous: Jim Jordan Slammed by Former Top DOJ Official

Barr also talked about the two federal cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, one for Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and one for his refusal to return classified and other documents.

“I think the federal cases are legitimate,” Barr said. “At the end of the day, at the core of this thing he engaged in – in the case of the documents – in outrageous behavior where anyone would be prosecuted. I don’t know of any attorney general who could walk away from it.”

“He’s not being prosecuted for having the documents, he’s being prosecuted for obstruction, two egregious instances are alleged so I think that’s a very simple case.”

Barr also said for him, Trump “crossed the line” when “he used this device of impaneling imposter electors, swearing that they were the electors, but the key point there was, they were in tandem with a plan whereby the vice president would use that as a pretext for nullifying the legal and certified votes. So it was a calculated and deceitful plan to remain in office by nullifying and negating certified legal votes.”

Watch the videos below or at this link:

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.