While rules bar cameras in federal courtrooms, an attorney for Donald Trump and dozens of House Democrats are among those in agreement that at least one of the former president’s upcoming trials should be televised.

John Lauro, one of Trump’s attorney, doubled down Sunday on comments he made last month that he’d welcome live television coverage of the trial in which Trump is charged with conspiring to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“I personally would love to see that,” Lauro told “Fox News Sunday. “I’m convinced the Biden administration does not want the American people to see the truth.”

Last week, a group of 38 House Democrats sent a letter to Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, secretary of the Judicial Conference, the national policymaking body for the federal courts, asking for an exception to be made in both the Washington-based election conspiracy case as well as the Florida-based case involving Trump’s handling of classified documents, citing the “the extraordinary national importance to our democratic institutions and the need for transparency.” 

“Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings,” wrote the members of Congress, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.”

A spokesman for special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment Monday on its position on televising the Trump trials.

A federal rule prohibits “the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”

Steven Brill, founder of Court TV, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Saturday that in order for the election conspiracy trial in Washington to be television, the Judicial Conference, which is chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and the judicial council of the District of Columbia Circuit would have to suspend their own rules, and the Supreme Court would need to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

But Brill argued it would be worth the effort. He said the proceedings would likely be the “the most consequential trial in the nation’s history.”

“The last thing our country and the world needs is for this trial to become the ultimate divisive spin game, in which each side roots for its team online and on the cable news networks as if cheering from the bleachers,” he wrote. 

Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who was the lead prosecutor in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, said he thinks it’s “going to be incumbent” on Roberts to make an exception by allowing cameras in the courtroom. 

“Regardless of what the outcome is — I mean, whether there's a conviction or an acquittal — it is going to be really important for the public to see that evidence so that we have faith in the system and people can evaluate the evidence,” Weissmann said on Vanity Fair’s “Inside the Hive” podcast last week.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the more than 40 federal charges he faces. He also has pleaded not guilty in an earlier indictment in New York, where he faces 34 state felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments made to an adult film actress. 

During Trump’s April arraignment in New York, his lawyers argued against cameras inside the courtroom there saying it would cause a “circus-like atmosphere.” State and local courts have varying rules on cameras. In that case, the judge allowed cameras in the hallways of the courthouse and briefly in the courtroom before the proceedings began. 

There will be a pretrial conference in Trump’s election case Aug. 28. The hush-money trial is scheduled to begin March 25, and the documents trial is slated to start May 20.