On Tuesday, The New York Post posted an article by Alan Dershowitz about the actions of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during the trial of President Trump.

The article reports:

Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.

But when the defense’s only substantive witness, the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk.

Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media.

For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again.

That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense.

…Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.

The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.

Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.

The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.

Attorney Dershowitz shared a story in the article about seeing a former student at the trial and chatting with him. Unfortunately the media did not even report that accurately.

The article notes:

But NBC, the Daily Beast and other media decided to make up a story about the event. They claimed that I had a spat with my nemesis, rather than a friendly conversation with a former student.

Their account was made up, yet it was circulated through the media.

To his credit, Eisen (the former student) wrote to the media to correct the account, saying that the person sitting next to him would confirm the media’s false reporting. I doubt we will see a retraction.

This minor incident is simply the tip of a very large and deep iceberg of false reporting about the trial that can only occur because the proceedings are not being televised.

There are television cameras in the courtroom, and they record and transmit every word, but not to the public; only select reporters in the overflow room see what the cameras transmit.

There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any trial, should not be televised live and in real time.

Allowing the public to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness.

This trial is not supposed to be fair. It’s purpose is to convince American voters that President Trump is a felon and that no one should vote for him. The gymnastics they had to to through to bring the case to trial (overlooking the statute of limitations, elevating a misdemeanor to a felony, bringing in a witness that had already been convicted of perjury, etc.) should be an indication that this whole exercise has no substance.