Watergate prosecutor says Congress could act to put cameras in Trump courtroom

Former prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks explained during an MSNBC debate that cameras have been allowed in many courtrooms over the past several years and she thinks there's no reason that shouldn't happen in the case of Donald Trump.

She also explained that audio recordings have been at the Supreme Court for years and all of the fears and excuses given to keep them out have been wrong.

"Jurors are not the only ones who the outcome matters to," said Wine-Banks. "If citizens can see how the trial goes, then we get to see really what the evidence says. I've always believed that the cameras won't interfere. The argument is that lawyers will play to the cameras. That's never been the case in the Supreme Court, where they allowed audio, it hasn't happened in any of the trials where cameras were allowed. Cameras nowadays are little tiny things that can be hidden behind walls. They aren't the cumbersome things that would take up room in the court that would divert attention."

She argued that they can be kept off the jury and ensure the jury's protection. She said that there is every reason to have them and all of the arguments against them have been disproven. A retired judge is also behind the idea of having the cameras observe the trial.

National security lawyer Bradley Moss thinks that Trump will be too scared to have cameras observe the ordeal. Transparency means Trump can't control the message.

There's also the matter of having several cases in multiple locations, and host Alicia Menendez questioned if the judicial system was built to handle so much incoming over the next two years.

"Probably it wasn't," Wine-Banks confessed. "But it wasn't built for the crimes that are being committed by 1 percent. It is going to be difficult to schedule all of the trials that Donald Trump will face."

She went on to list the numerous cases Trump is facing, the Manhattan indictment, the E. Jean Carroll case, the Fulton County indictment, the federal Jan. 6 investigation, and the Mar-a-Lago probe. Anything that can help Americans keep things straight is likely beneficial as well.

"There's no reason not to have [cameras]," she explained. "And there's every reason in the world to have them, and there should be some legislation and some effort made to get that to happen, particularly in the case of national consequences like this. No matter how good the reporting is in the courtroom, it's not the same as letting you see what happens."

See the full conversation below or at the link here.

Watergate prosecutor says Congress could act to put cameras in Trump courtroomwww.youtube.com