Thread by @KlasfeldReports

This is a federal court deferring to a U.S. president's wishes to limit public access to proceedings of a lawsuit seeking to overturn an election. 🔽

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1346456476026548227

Following up on a pending access request, I asked chambers what discretion the judge has to provide *remote* public access if the parties do not consent to it. This question remains unclear.

I was told the court will consider and respond to our pending request by four news orgs.

To be clear, in-person access is allowed, but the late notice and the pandemic effectively amounts to a courtroom closure for many, at the request of the president.

Proceedings were scheduled to start 40 minutes ago.

To clarify the record here, the judge's chambers indicated there was no choice but removing public access once Trump's counsel refused to consent.

Trump's motion was denied, and a written order will follow.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1346494618565808130?s=20

Various reporters, including me, told Judge Cohen's chambers that letting a party veto remote access effectively lets it partially close the courts unilaterally during a pandemic.

The harm in this is amplified when that party is a president seeking to overturn an election.

If this outcome was mandated by the Northern District of Georgia's rules, those rules should be reconsidered.

There will be a written order explaining the ruling delivered from the bench, which those who were not present missed because Trump's counsel blocked sunlight.