In a new filing from federal prosecutors, the government condemns the suddenly expressed support from Donald Trump and his team for the idea of broadcasting forthcoming trial proceedings that will cover charges of attempted election interference. Trump’s team, characteristically, cites vague ideals of fairness in their arguments in favor of televising the case, but the prosecution asserts there’s just nothing to their contentions to make Trump’s position anything more than that he deserves special treatment.
As for specific and damaging consequences that could result from televising the case, prosecutors point to the threat of witness intimidation. And they outline the trial itself as fittingly suited to the kind of rigorous examination of the criminal case against Trump that the ex-president purports to want.
“If the defendant sought sunlight as he claims, he should welcome the opportunity to put the Government to its proof at trial. Instead, his response to the applications shows that he will continue to attempt to avoid answering for his criminal conduct in the courtroom while at the same time publicly grandstanding on the Court’s docket,” the government said.
Trump “once again demands special treatment,” prosecutors said elsewhere, offering a summary. “But the defendant offers no legal argument or case law to support his demand that trial in this case be conducted unlike that for every other federal criminal defendant.”
Trump, meanwhile, is turning to increasingly extreme rhetoric outside the courtroom. On Truth Social this Monday, he bizarrely asserted that prosecutors (including Smith) and others opposing him in court would end up in mental institutions due to so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a term used in Trump circles to dismiss those expressing concern about the ex-president’s candidacies and ambitions. The courts have gone back and forth on imposing a gag order in this election-related case that would broadly block Trump from public attacks on Smith, with the prospective restrictions for Trump currently on hold as the dispute is considered by an appeals court.
