Trump's Trials - Should the Jan 6 trial be televised? Trump and many journalists say yes

Episode Date: December 9, 2023

This week on Trump's Trials, host Scott Detrow and Domenico Montanaro are joined by NPR Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson. We focus on the January 6th federal election interference case led by special counsel Jack Smith. The case is scheduled to go to trial in March in Washington, D.C., and it might be coming to a TV near you. Yes, Trump and some media outlets are requesting cameras in the courtroom. We'll talk about how likely that is, how it could impact the case and the campaign, plus some news from a couple of key swing states. Topics include: - How televising the trial could help and hurt Trump - The Trump team's attempts to delay the trial- Prosecution and defense strategies for the federal election interference case - Trump's attempts to invoke presidential immunity- Pro-Trump electors from Wisconsin admit President Biden won the 2020 election- Pro-Trump electors criminally indicted in Nevada over attempts to overturn Biden's 2020 winFollow the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for new episodes each Saturday.Sign up for sponsor-free episodes and support NPR's political journalism at plus.npr.org/trumpstrials.Email the show at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Court TV. That's how former President Donald Trump would like his trials to play out in front of Americans. From NPR, this is Trump's Trials. I'm Scott Detrow. This is a persecution. Felony violations of our national security laws. We need one more indictment. Criminal conspiracy. To close out this election. He actually just stormed out of the courtroom.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Once a week, we talk through the latest developments in the legal trials of former President Donald Trump, all playing out as he runs for president again. This week, we're focusing on the federal election interference case that'll be held in D.C. It's led by Special Counsel Jack Smith. And as of right now, it is set to be the first case to go to trial. And even as Trump's legal team tries to delay it, it is also pushing for the trial to be televised, which would be an enormous departure from how federal cases typically go.

We'll talk about that, as well as some news from the past week on the fake elector efforts in a couple of states. And as always, I am joined by my colleague and friend and person I complain to on Slack a lot, senior political editor and correspondent, Domenico Montanaro. Hey, Domenico. Remember, those Slacks can be read by your bosses, so just be careful. How's it going, Scott? I'm doing well. It's nice to see you again. Catch us up with the latest on this big federal election interference case.

Well, as you said, this is the first case going to trial next year. And Trump, along with the media, wants it televised. Now, this is ultimately the judge's decision. And she could very likely rule against Trump. But if she ruled in favor of cameras to repeat his election lies, deflect attention from the facts, and turn the case into, frankly, reality TV. I mean, think of it as The Apprentice meets OJ. Yeah, I mean, and even if the federal case does not end up televised, we know that the Georgia case will due to laws there. That's at the moment something that wouldn't happen until at least August, though the time lights up the air. But this leads to big questions in the courtroom. It leads to big questions for the people like us trying to cover these cases. And it leads to a lot of big questions for democracy. We're going to talk all about that and some other updates.

Stick around. This message comes from NPR sponsor, SAP Concur. Global Head of Sales, Ryan Demarey, shares how SAP Concur solutions can help solve specific problems and support long-term growth. We have a travel booking tool, we have an expense tool, and we have a vendor invoice tool.

We very much so take the approach of we want to meet businesses where they're at. You can start with a piece of it and grow. Maybe you have a very specific business problem that you need to solve for today before you can move forward. Maybe you only have 10 expense claims. You're going to try this out as a proof of concept for a division of your team. That's really what we focus on with customers as they begin their relationship with Concur. It's what do you need to solve for today? And how can we show you immediate value by solving that problem and then grow with you over time? Visit Concur.com to learn more. And joining us now is NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. Hey, Carrie.

Hey there. So the Trump team, along with some media outlets, are asking for this D.C. January 6 trial, which again, as of right now, would be the first trial up. They want it to be televised. What are the legal arguments for and against putting cameras in a courtroom? Because it seems to me this is something that just doesn't happen on the federal level. It doesn't happen on the federal level. There's actually a federal rule that prevents this kind of broadcasting of court proceedings. And the Judicial Conference, which is the big body of judges, federal judges who run the system, as late as September of this year, once again, thought about these issues and just said no.

That said, there's a major media coalition out there who's talking about what a grave disservice it would be to American democracy and to voters not to televise this trial. They call this trial maybe the most important criminal trial in the history of the republic. And they say that the best antidote to misinformation and manipulation of the public and the voters is to let people listen and see for themselves. They've also proposed the idea of maybe broadcasting just the audio. And there is some precedent for that in federal appeals courts. We get live audio and sometimes we've gotten Supreme Court audio as well on the same day. But that

has not happened at the federal criminal trial level before. And the Justice Department is super, super opposed to it. They think that Donald Trump could turn this into a carnival-like atmosphere. They talk about the possible threats to witnesses and people who might be called to testify in this case and other cases down the line. And they say there's just no evidence that this needs to happen or should happen. And I want to ask Domenico about a lot of those broader points. And I should just say, as a podcast covering this trial, I feel like I'm clearly rooting for the audio option here, just selfishly. But Carrie, it seems the way you're framing this, this seems very unlikely. Is that the right way to think about this?

I think it's really unlikely. Think about some of the major trials we've had in the last, you know, 20 years or so. The trial of the Boston Marathon bomber, the trial of Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, and the two recent trials of leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in connection with January 6th, none of them were televised or broadcast live. Domenico, what's the political calculus here for Trump, who, of course, will be running for president, running in primaries around the same time this trial is scheduled? I mean, on one hand, probably no surprise that Donald Trump wants to be on TV. wants to be on TV. On the other hand, I'll point out again, you know, he had the opportunity to appear on national television in one of these courtroom settings earlier this year, the arraignment in Georgia. He ended up skipping that arraignment. And that was not an event that took place and ended up on television. I mean, Trump's the reality TV guy. I mean, he wants to take it

back to the 90s. The 90s are cool again. So, you know, he wants all the big show trials, but he wants to do it in a way that he feels is going to help him politically, right? I mean, the government's accusing Trump of, as Kerry says, wanting to have a carnival-like atmosphere, of wanting to play politics, of wanting to turn these into show trials. And they're right. I mean, Trump wants to make the case before voters basically make his arguments for why these cases are phony, made up, witch hunts, hoaxes, whatever. But I have to say, politically, this works much better in March than it does in August for Trump, arguments for why these cases are phony, made up, witch hunts, hoaxes, whatever. But I have to say, politically, this works much better in March than it does in August for Trump. Because when you look at the political calendar, March is when the primaries are going to be happening. It certainly helps him with his base. But whether or not that helps him with a general election audience,

remember, his brand has been pretty toxic with general election voters and, you know, elevating himself and showing this trial. I'm not sure it's going to be something that's going to help him, whether he thinks it will or not. Right. I feel like the key to the presidential election is those moderate, suburban, higher income voters who were solid Republicans for decades, but just were repelled by the party in the Trump era. Feels like winning them back is not by sitting on a defense stand, you know? Absolutely. But, you know, Trump and even some progressives have a different theory of the case where they think that you can turn out more conservatives or you can turn out more progressives.

But we know having covered politics for some time that it really does usually come down to these persuadables. And there is one irony here to point out that on one hand, Trump's legal team is asking for this to be televised, seems to want to have this public fight. But on the other hand, this week appealed a ruling about the scope of his immunity as a former president in an attempt to delay this trial. Delay remains the most important strategy at Trump's disposal, and it remains to be seen whether the federal appeals court in D.C. is going to act on that appeal in a super speedy fashion or whether it might endanger the March 4th trial date next year in this January 6th case in D.C. I think Trump has a 3D strategy, which is dismiss, delay, distract. He tries to dismiss first.

If he can't get that, he's trying to delay. And if he can't do that, then he's going to distract. And that's how he campaigns. He's campaigning on distraction. And if he can't do that, then he's going to distract. And that's how he campaigns. He's campaigning on distraction. And that's why he wants these cameras in the courtroom so that he can be able to distract from what the substance is of the case and make the point for himself that he's really a victim, that these are hoaxes, that these things are made up.

But, you know, a jury at the end of the day is going to have to decide. I have one quick point. Domenico, you said Trump's team is trying to bring the televised trial 90s heroes back. That was a Cochran-esque turn of phrase right there. Was it? It was. I think so. The 3D defense. I was old enough to watch the OJ trial.

Kerry, I have one more question for you on this topic of whether or not it's going to be televised and the way that this gets covered. We do know that the eventual trial in Georgia will be televised. As of right now, we're thinking that could be late summer next year. That's really up in the air at the moment. But for a high-profile trial like this, any sense of how it airing on TV affects the jury, affects the witnesses, affects the general pace of the courtroom? We've never seen anything quite like this, Scott, before. You know, Domenico mentioned the O.J. Simpson trial, which certainly ran off the rails. The judge who will preside over the Georgia case is a relatively young and inexperienced judge, but he seems to have handled himself and maintained control of the courtroom so far. I'm waiting for the five ways this judge is different than Judge Ito.

That is not a topic we will tackle on this particular podcast, but someone out there probably will write that, I'm sure. I want to stick with the January 6th federal case. Kerry, we saw a lot of filings in the past week that were interesting, and specifically one from Special Counsel Jack Smith's team that kind of framed the way that they're going to be hoping to try this case in the courtroom. What does this document tell us about their approach and the story that Smith wants to tell? Yeah, this is a document that signaled the kinds of evidence that the special counsel team wants to introduce that is uncharged in the January 6th indictment that the grand jury brought here

in D.C. And it's important because they seem to want to show that Trump has engaged in a pattern over more than a decade of election denial and phony fraud claims. They talk about, in this filing in 2012, Donald Trump made some fantastical and false claims about vote tallies being switched to Barack Obama from Mitt Romney, who was running against Obama in 2012.

They talk about statements Trump made on the campaign trail in 2016 before he won, raising questions about the integrity of the voting process. And they also provide some new evidence about Trump's connection or Trump's campaign's connection to unrest in Detroit on election night in 2020. It now seems, according to prosecutors, that somebody who worked for the Trump campaign and is labeled as an unindicted co-conspirator was trying to foment violence at this ballot counting center in Detroit in 2020. And Trump was posting on social media around the same time about election fraud and concerns there. This is new evidence we haven't heard before that Smith wants to present to the jury. And of course, we also heard once again from these prosecutors that they want to tell this jury in D.C. next

year that Donald Trump gave a bear hug to the most violent protesters and rioters who beat up police on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol. They want to show that that embrace by Trump continues to this day, and he may want to pardon some of these people whom he calls hostages. Yeah, he's been very clear about that's something that he'd be very open to if he does return to the White House after next year's election. Domenico, a filing from Trump's team painted a very different picture of reality and really showed just how much he is going to embrace fringe conspiracy theories about the election in the courtroom. Well, I mean, that's what he's been doing publicly. I mean, if you just look at his truth social, he really wants to sort of throw it all at the wall. And he's created and put out there a lot of these

conspiracy theories that have all been dismissed, that have been disproven by courts. But over and over again, he's been using this to try to convince his base. Many people in his base believe it. He's been able to insulate himself politically by just undercutting a lot of these guardrails of democracy. And it's not surprising that he's going to be trying to do the same thing in and out of court. All right, we're going to shift gears one more time here. And we are again talking about a few cases outside of these core four criminal cases that we've mostly been focusing on. These are cases where Trump isn't the defendant,

but they revolve around the fake electors in the 2020 election. Domenico, remind us who these fake electors were and how this fit into the Trump team's broader scheme to try and overturn the election. Yeah, I mean, I think this is a phrase that can be kind of esoteric and like be confusing for people. So just let me lay it out because electors are really the ones who actually cast votes for the president. We have an electoral college, but these aren't supposed to be rogue agents. You know, these are supposed to be people who represent how the vote went in each state, their proxies for the people's vote. Based on the vote share in each state, people are selected by parties and candidates. They're known as slates. And look, as it's laid out in these

indictments across multiple states and what we saw from multiple witnesses in the January 6th committee over the summer last year, that Trump tried to, in multiple states, file fake electors and say that they actually represent the votes of people and that he won in multiple places that he didn't win. I mean, that just didn't go well. And now there are multiple investigations, civil and criminal, across swing states. Some people have already been charged, like in Georgia, and other states are holding out the possibility of launching criminal probes across a lot of different swing states. Some people have already been charged, like in Georgia, and other states are holding out the possibility of launching criminal probes across a lot of different swing states. And Carrie, we had updates in two of those key states that decided the election last time around, Wisconsin and Nevada. Yeah, let's start with Nevada. Six people have been charged by Nevada's authorities with crimes, basically for signing up for this plot and then sending phony information

to Washington, to federal authorities. Remember, this was a key part of the alleged scheme to try to lean on Vice President Mike Pence to delay that certification on January 6th, and it really matters. And we also had an important settlement this week in Wisconsin with fake electors there. This was a civil case, not a criminal case, so no one's exposed to any jail or prison time here. But the import of this settlement is that all of these people who settled have agreed not to serve as electors again in 2024, and they signed on to the idea that Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election. It doesn't sound like a big deal three years later, but it actually is the idea that they put the lie to this bogus theory that they were part of. We're at a point with all of these cases where there's a lot of updates each week, a lot of papers being filed, a lot of cases being appealed, a lot of rulings from judges coming in.

We could have talked about six other different things today. Carrie, of all the things that happened this week, which one are you thinking the most about? Which one do you think could have the biggest effect going forward? I think in large part, Donald Trump's legal fate may now be in the hands of the Federal Appeals Court in Washington and the U.S. Supreme Court, because how quickly they decide to move or not on his appeal regarding presidential immunity, this argument that he made that he's immune from any kind of criminal charges related to January 6th because he was president at the time,

and how seriously these courts take that argument and how quickly they move in the next few months could determine whether Donald Trump goes to trial in any of these cases before voters go to the polls in 2024. I mean, I think the biggest thing for me has been this past week realizing that there isn't going to be a conviction anytime soon, you know, to the point where it could change the outcome of the Republican primary. You know, we've seen polls that have shown that as much as half of Republicans who say that they would vote for Trump say that they would not vote for him if there was a conviction. But these trials aren't even going to start until March if they start in March. And by then, we'll have the majority of the delegates already allocated.

Donald Trump tried to stay in power. Something like 60 courts, including the Supreme Court, rejected his appeals to stay in power, including some of the judges he appointed. That could be the case all over again, but the stakes are even higher this time around. That was NPR Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson. Thank you, Carrie. My pleasure. Also joined by NPR Senior Political Editor and Correspondent Domenico Montanaro. Thanks, Domenico. Pleasure as always. And just a flag, next week, Trump is back on the witness stand testifying in that New York civil fraud trial, this time in his defense. We will

talk all about it next week. Between now and then, you can follow more of NPR's political coverage from Domenico and Kerry and the rest of the NPR politics team in daily episodes of the NPR Politics Podcast. And before we go, a quick but truly sincere thank you to our Trump's Trials Plus supporters, as well as anybody who listens who donates to public media. After all, public media means you, the public, supporting it. Everything you hear from the NPR network could not exist without your support.

So for anybody listening who isn't yet a supporter right now is a great time to change that and for you to get invested in creating a more informed public, which after all is our entire mission here at NPR. Plus, if you like perks, think about this. Trump's Trials Plus offers sponsor free listening. You can also make a tax deductible donation to your favorite local public radio station or stations in the NPR network. And what really matters is that you are part of the community that makes this work possible. Because journalists across the NPR network need resources to do their best work, and those resources have a cost, whether that's a microphone or a laptop or

the printer ink we were going through as we print out all of the legal filings in these Trump cases. So please give today at donate.npr.org or explore NPR Plus at plus.npr.org. And thank you so much. This show is produced by Tyler Bartleman, edited by Adam Rainey and Steve Drummond. Our technical director is Kwesi Lee. Our executive producers are Beth Donovan and Sammy Yenigan. And Eric Maripoti is NPR's vice president of news programming. And I hope he is not reading Domenico and my slacks. I'm Scott Detrow. Thank you for listening to Trump's Trials from NPR.

Thank you. to take on whatever the market throws at you next. Learn more at Concur.com. This is my voice. I can tell you a lot about me, and I'm not changing it for anyone. In NPR's Black Stories, Black Truths, you'll find a collection of NPR episodes centered on Black experiences. Search NPR Black Stories, Black Truths wherever you get your podcasts. That's why I was going out. Remembering the Arab Spring.

Find NPR's ThruLine wherever you get your podcasts.