that s the exact same argument we went through when i was special prosecutor in the george floyd murder. they said you can t try this in minnesota. it was so incendiary and so on. and we rejected the court s properly rejected that argument because everywhere around the country has pretrial publicity about the george floyd case or about this case. and that alone is never a reason to move a trial. so i expect this new defense of donald trump to go nowhere, but i think what you re pointing out, this is right next to the scene of the crime. it s important both emotionally and also legally because that s why the trial is occurring in this courthouse. that s why donald trump is being arraigned in this courthouse, not in florida, not in west virginia. nowhere else. that s the constitution that our founders gave us. jonathan, let s just talk about some of the politics at play here. again, we re talking about a former president. and somebody who is running to be president again. and is the cu
for the legal system that is you just hope they will be able to rise to meet the challenge. it s not necessarily that one answer is always definitely right and one answer is wrong, but you would hope that they would recognize that this isn t just any other case and not any other moment for the country, that this is something they will need to answer to history for. think about the george floyd case, one of the most divisive things we ve had in this country are these questions of police brutality and the police killing of unarmed black people. that case was unprecedented to televise that, that trial. right? that court normally doesn t televised those cases. but i think seeing it allowed people to understand that when, you know, black lives matter is marching, they are not making up what they are protesting against. it wasn t a lie. i think that, in many ways, did change peoples attitudes toward these issues of police violence. and i think this is
these facts that are all about republicans will be believed unless the american people can see this trial. this has to be like the george floyd case. the one thing that scared me tonight was saying that it s up to chief justice john roberts. that chief justice john roberts can make the decision of whether this cases televised, in this trial is televised. joe martin banks did add later that the statutes say the federal judge in this case can make that decision. they can allow cameras in the courtroom. i dearly hope that we have a televised trial, because a simple and straightforward as these facts are, i think they need to be believed at least by a substantial portion of the american public, because this is an unprecedented case. we ve never had a president tried to remain in power by force and by armed robbery. i think we need to see this trial happen on television. and that alone, that question of how much public access to allow to the proceedings is yet another test for the judic
don t worry, you will only have to commit this crime and fill out of these fake forms saying you are the electors, and we will only use these fake elector forms if we win these lawsuits. and then they are like, surprise, not true. we are going to use them. the whole thing, it definitely needed the january 6th hearings. i agree with that. i think we needed that. but the last thing i will say, rachel, is i hope and pray that we can have a public trial here. because despite how clean and elegant and conservatively drafted this indictment is, and how really simple it is, it s very no nonsense, i don t think these facts that are all about republicans will be believed unless the american people can see this trial. this has to be like the george floyd case. the one thing that scared me tonight was neal katyal saying that it s up to chief justice john roberts. that chief justice john roberts can make the decision of whether this cases televised, in this trial is televised. joe martin banks did
that the statutes say the federal judge in this case can make that decision. they can allow cameras in the courtroom. i dearly hope that we have a televised trial, because a simple and straightforward as these facts are, i think they need to be believed at least by a substantial portion of the american public, because this is an unprecedented case. we ve never had a president try to remain in power by force and by armed robbery. i think we need to see this trial happen on television. and that alone, that question of how much public access to allow to the proceedings is yet another test for the judicial system, a test for the legal system that is you just hope they will be able to rise to meet the challenge. it s not necessarily that one answer is always definitely right and one answer is wrong, but you would hope that they would recognize that this isn t just any other case and not any other moment for the country, that this is something they will need to answer to history for. t