The sky did not fall.
And all would be fine if we permitted cameras in the courtroom.
That way, we could see it for ourselves and not have to rely on print reporting about it. Here's a pretty good summary:
If you blinked, you missed it.
For a fleeting moment Thursday, Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith — the man who could put him in prison — appeared to make eye contact as the former president prepared to fend off charges that he sought to subvert American democracy itself.
That shared glance crystallized the historic weight of Thursday’s arraignment, the third in recent months for the former president who is fighting federal and local prosecutors even as he appears to be coasting to the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.
Smith said nothing audible during his hour in the room, but repeatedly shot glances at Trump, who occasionally shot them back until their eyes briefly met.
Even before Donald Trump entered a federal courtroom and declared himself “not guilty” on four felony charges related to his effort to derail the transfer of presidential power, the weight of history was evident in Washington, D.C.’s federal courthouse.
***
Minutes before Trump entered the pin-drop silent room, several federal judges — who have been processing the carnage of Jan. 6, 2021 for more than two years — filed into the public gallery, turning themselves into spectators in a building they typically rule. Chief Judge James Boasberg, who presided over several of the secret grand jury battles that preceded the charges against Trump, was among those marking the moment.
***
Minutes before Trump entered the pin-drop silent room, several federal
judges — who have been processing the carnage of Jan. 6, 2021 for more
than two years — filed into the public gallery, turning themselves into
spectators in a building they typically rule. Chief Judge James
Boasberg, who presided over several of the secret grand jury battles
that preceded the charges against Trump, was among those marking the
moment.
8 comments:
The judges from the other matters coming to sit in the gallery strikes me as at least unseemly. What are January 6 defendants (or any litigant) in their courts supposed to think about their level of dispassionate impartiality? And why risk the creations of any basis to wonder at all?
Imagine you have been charged with, say, extorting a candy shop owner for protection money. Then the judge presiding over your case decides to spectate at the arraignment of the fellow charged with being the boss of the crime family your extortion was alleged to have been profiting.
If some fact or event from the arraignment were leally meaningful to the judge of a January 6 defendant (and I cannot imagine what it would be), then presumably the prosecutor or defense attorney in that matter would seek judicial notice of it. If those judges merely wanted to know what happened at the arraignment (and who wouldn't) they could have watched the news or read the transcript (or, presumably, chatted with their colleague at lunch).
Appearing in the gallery, though, can only be meant to send a message and, without even speculating what the message might be, it's simply improper for judges presiding over criminal prosecutions to be "sending messages" of any sort.
Given the tenor of the times, one has to wonder why they'd take a step (as a group no less) that can only stoke the flames.
Mr. Kuntz,
I tend to see things through a simpler lens and am loath to look for hidden messages. It seems more likely to me that this indictment is an historic event that will be written about for generations and that every U.S. middle and high schoolkid will have to read about it in U.S. history classes until long after you and I, and even our grandchildren, are dead. A sitting U.S. President attempted a coup, and justice has come for him. Even if he's acquitted, the historical gravity of this cannot be understated. I can imagine that these judges simply seized the opportunity available to them to watch such an event in person - to witness history first hand, and to be able to tell their grand kids about it or to write about it memoirs.
Maybe they should have done as you say, "they could have watched the news or read the transcript (or, presumably, chatted with their colleague at lunch)." But I suspect the temptation to see it live was simply too great. And that temptation would have been greater for the judges presiding over Jan 6 matters since so many of the Jan 6 defendants have specifically argued that the fault for the matter lies with Donald Trump - these judges would simply have their curiosity piqued more than the rest.
@3:19 you may well be right. It may have been simply the (entirely understandable) impulse to see in person a thing that has never happened before. As a former news reporter, believe me: I get it.
But in our republic or any civil society, certain roles and powers come with certain limitations. The standards for judges, charged with taking every reasonable step to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, are awfully high, but they are so because the stakes are equally high.
I promise you that, if it has not already, Twitter, cable news, and the blogsphere will soon be awash with suggestions (both reasoned ones and others wildly conspiratorial) about what those other judges' attendance meant. That could easily have been avoided.
I appreciate the comments here. True it’s a historic event but in NO way should the judges have paraded in to court like that. And they know better. I’m proud none of our judges did the same on any of the cases they could have done so.
There are plenty of things one could do but shouldn’t. Judges have great power. But they also lose certain rights. They can’t go to political events for example. This was as much a political statement on their part as a donation. I think we can all agree they weren’t there to watch a defendant profess his innocence. So here we are with a group of federal judges who aren’t viewing the case through the lens of presumption of innocence. If you’re ok with them being there on this case, what other case? Boston Marathon bomber? Timothy McVeigh? Or in state court OJ Simpson? Oh yeah—that was a not guilty.
I have no problem with any citizen or blogger or blog-poster going there, but these judges? No way. And to your point, 3:19, I wonder if when they tell their grandkids the story as you say, will they say only a few of us went because everyone else followed their oath. I doubt it.
At least act like you’ve been there before and have better things to do than fan boy on a prosecution. Didn’t see our judges coming to watch the spectacle in the SD Fla., and that is a good thing. Vanity Fair.
It's already a circus, no need to distract the parties, and a judge who needs to learn the law of conducting a trial. Bless her inexperienced carpetbagging heart!
Outrageous conduct from DC judges including Chief Judge and even Mag Judge’s family members! Simply inexcusable!
If anyone could ever make a compelling argument for a change of venue, they just made it easier.
Post a Comment