Connect with us

Politics

Column: Without cameras in the courtroom, Trump has already won a major victory in hush money trial

Published

on

Column: Without cameras in the courtroom, Trump has already won a major victory in hush money trial

If a former president nods off in a courtroom and no cameras are around to see it, did it really happen?

The case of the People of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump got underway Monday, and while the fate of the forthcoming election — and perhaps democracy itself — may teeter on the outcome, the public is locked out of witnessing a seismic moment in American history.

Video and audio feeds are banned from the courtroom, leaving folks to rely on the written and spoken word of reporters covering the trial. It’s up to them to tell us if the former president scowled and guffawed like a fearless strongman or fell asleep in his chair like a disaffected juvenile delinquent.

Any entertainment value aside, the lack of live or recorded feeds may mean that Trump won a huge victory before the first witness even took the stand.

The first criminal trial of a former U.S. president could have been the moment when the cameras didn’t embrace Trump the Showman, where his customary angry rhetoric and bluster were muted by the dictates of a controlled courtroom, allowing the public to see what happens when a bully is stripped of his power and platform.

Advertisement

But without the advantage of watching the proceedings on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube or live news outlets, the impact feels lost in translation. It’s one thing to witness the former president’s impetuous behavior firsthand; it’s another to read or hear about it in media accounts filed from the courtroom: His eyes were “closing for extended periods” during jury selection last week. He huffed and puffed during admonishments from the judge. He glared at the jurors who were chosen to serve.

The lack of courtroom filming is a dream come true for misinformation agents. Bad actors thrive in the fertile playground of media mistrust, and millions are more than willing to embrace curated narratives — no matter how absurd — as long as it allows us to believe what we want to believe. And when so many still believe that the 2020 election was stolen, how do you get people to trust the court reporting from a trial without video and audio? It’s going to be a challenge.

The opposite could also be true: Without the advantage of playing directly to the cameras, Trump’s magic hold on his base may be diminished. Much of the appeal around the former president is that he’s a winner who never folds to systems he deems corrupt, be it the media, the courts, the election process, etc.. He’s tried to grab the spotlight via cameras in the hallway outside the courtroom, using the space as a de facto podium to remark on the proceedings as he enters and leaves. But perhaps not hearing him rage in the courtroom will soften his appeal among followers.

It’s hard to say how this trial will play out in the court of public opinion because there’s been no test case. President Nixon, who resigned on the brink of impeachment, was never indicted for a crime, and the last “trial of the century” was a monolithic event largely because it was televised. The People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, also known as the O.J. Simpson trial, certainly wouldn’t have been the premier spectacle of a generation if not for the blow-by-blow live broadcast from Los Angeles to the rest of the world.

What’s happening behind the closed doors of Justice Juan M. Merchan’s courtroom is arguably more important to the immediate future and health of the republic, but New York courts do not generally allow video in their courtrooms. It’s refreshing to know there are still standards that haven’t been pulverized under the Trump rule-wrecking machine. The Manhattan trial shows that sober lawmaking may still stand a chance against sordid spectacle. But the trial is just beginning.

Advertisement

Everything leading up to this moment in Trump’s wild, unprecedented domination of U.S. politics and news was made possible by his appearing on screen, no matter the medium. Trump the reality TV star convinced viewing audiences he was a successful business leader and decision-maker inside the scripted realm of “The Apprentice.” He played to the cameras leading up to the 2016 election, stealing the scene from candidates with actual experience in governing and lawmaking. He is a master at manipulating all news about him — good or bad — into fundraising and votes largely because he knows how to play to the spotlight.

Monday’s opening statements from the prosecution maintained “this case is about a criminal conspiracy and fraud,” in which “the defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.” Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin L. Bragg and his team will argue that Trump paid off adult film actor Stormy Daniels as part of a larger scheme to suppress negative stories about him leading up to the 2016 election. A $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels was part of a conspiracy to silence her as she was shopping a story about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump. He is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

A Trump conviction still could be hugely damaging to his campaign for a second White House term, but that depends how many choose to believe the outcome without seeing the evidence unfold before their own eyes. The same stands true if he’s found not guilty.

One thing is clear: No one should be sleeping through this historic trial … least of all the defendant.

Advertisement

Politics

Congress eyes rare bipartisan housing win with or without Trump’s help

Published

on

Congress eyes rare bipartisan housing win with or without Trump’s help

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The House has officially shipped a colossal bipartisan housing package to President Donald Trump, and lawmakers are hoping that, at the very least, he doesn’t veto it.

Trump was supposed to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week, but his last-minute decision to ghost the signing ceremony with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put into question whether the bill was dead.

His refusal to sign the bill, which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in both chambers, was to leverage the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which doesn’t currently have the votes to succeed in the Senate.

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump has refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Trump appears to be in no hurry to sign the bill, despite Republicans who are hungry for a win in the affordability fight ahead of the midterm elections.

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

“Here’s what I would like to sign, much more than a bill that — big deal, it’s a yawn,” he continued. “Some people say it’s wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

GOP INFIGHTING OVER TRUMP’S VOTER ID BILL ERUPTS AS TOP SENATOR CALLS STRATEGY ‘FANTASY’

Advertisement

It’s legislation that is loaded with nearly 60 provisions from both sides of the aisle in both chambers that’s designed to make it easier for homes to be built and for younger Americans to buy their first home. It also includes a ban on hedge funds buying up housing stock that Trump pushed Congress to include during the State of the Union earlier this year.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the architects behind the bill in the upper chamber alongside Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., charged that Congress handed the bill to Trump “on a silver platter.”

“When you ask me what happens next, if he cared about the American people, he’d have already signed the damned thing, and we’d be underway,” Warren said on WCVB’s “On the Record” on Sunday.

But Trump doesn’t have to put his signature on the bill for it to become law.

IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a massive, Trump-backed housing package geared toward lowering the costs of homes and supercharging the housing supply. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pitched it as legislation to prevent America from becoming a “nation of renters.” (Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Borrowers; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The Constitution grants presidents the ability to veto a bill within 10 days of it being transferred over to the White House. In that scenario, Congress could override a veto of the housing package.

It’s happened before under the Trump administration. In early 2021, Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act — a massive Pentagon funding authorization package that some House Republicans are trying to use as a vehicle to pass the SAVE America Act.

But during that 10-day period, if Trump doesn’t sign the bill, it would automatically become law. That’s unless Congress completely adjourns, in which case a “pocket veto” could happen. The Senate is currently in recess and the House is scheduled to leave town by week’s end, but neither count as a full adjournment.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Johnson, who spent the last few days meeting with Trump at the White House about the housing bill and the SAVE America Act, said: “I hope he does sign it.”

“If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said. “We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively. And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

British regulator may challenge Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery

Published

on

British regulator may challenge Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery

Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed-bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.

Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.

Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.

On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.

Advertisement

In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.

“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.

While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by July 6.

June 2026 photo of Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lisa Nandy arriving at Downing Street for the weekly Government cabinet meeting in London.

(Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Paramount did not offer immediate comment.

The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.

“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”

Advertisement

If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.

Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.

Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.

The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.

Advertisement

Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.

Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.

The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.

Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.

HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.

Advertisement

A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.

Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.

The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.

Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.

“For US consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’

Published

on

Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., unloaded on his own party on Sunday evening, blasting a series of victories for progressives he called “anti-America.”

“Big night for the dirtbag left,” Fetterman said, referring to New York’s recent primaries, where two members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won primaries.

“I’ve said the party is becoming an orgy of socialism. Clearly anti-America, anti-Western Civilization,” Fetterman said.

Fetterman’s striking calls give a rare look at how some moderates may view the developments on their far-left flank that have dominated the party’s momentum in recent months, sparking concern that their high visibility is dragging the party further and further left.

Advertisement

FETTERMAN WARNS DEMOCRATS ‘DRIFTING FIRMLY INTO COMMUNISM’ AFTER SOCIALIST PRIMARY WINS

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., speaks to reporters outside the Senate Chamber during votes on Nov. 10, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

His comments come on the heels of a handful of key progressive victories.

In Maine, Graham Platner, a controversial Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, has attracted controversy for denying knowledge of the meaning behind a Nazi-linked tattoo, for off-color comments about race and calling himself a “communist” in a deleted Reddit post.

In New York, one DSA member, Claire Valdez, won a primary on a platform of abolishing ICE and a Green New Deal-style approach to climate change. Similarly, Darializa Avila-Chevalier, another DSA candidate, beat out incumbent Rep. Adriano Espillat, D-N.Y., a high-ranking Democrat and the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Advertisement

WINNERS AND LOSERS EMERGE AFTER SOCIALIST EARTHQUAKE ROCKS NYC PRIMARIES

Graham Platner, Democratic Senate candidate for Maine, speaks at a primary election night event at the Blue Hill YMCA in Blue Hill, Maine, on June 9, 2026. Platner won the party’s Senate primary after a campaign marked by accusations of past misbehavior and voter concerns. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Both Chevalier and Valdez had the backing of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a socialist.

The wins have captured national attention and drawn criticisms from Republicans who have pointed to their success as emblematic of the direction of the Democratic Party.

Fetterman, who has not shied away from confrontations, has been one of the few Democrats to express alarm about the kind of candidates carrying the party’s banner.

Advertisement

“I mean, you look at some of the things that people have said. Abolish prison, abolish the border, abolish ICE, I mean these crazy people — I have colleagues in my caucus that refuse to even call this out,” Fetterman said.

FETTERMAN REACTS TO MAMDANI’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SUPREME COURT’S IMMIGRATION RULING

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., walks through the Senate Subway during the Senate War Powers vote on April 22, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Between P-hustle in Maine and some of the other winners in New York, they should form their own party and run on all the things that they’ve had to delete on social media,” Fetterman said, referring to Platner.

Advertisement

“That’s where our party has moved,” he added.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending