April 3, 2023 Trump indictment news | CNN Politics

Trump Team Pushes Back Against Media's Request to Broadcast Arraignment; Manhattan DA's Office Weighs In.

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are fighting back against a request by media outlets to broadcast his upcoming arraignment in New York. The attorneys argue that allowing cameras and videography at the proceeding would create a "circus-like atmosphere" and raise unique security concerns, citing the Secret Service-related risks associated with Mr. Trump's presence.

In a letter to Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, the Trump team claimed that any video or photography of the arraignment would only heighten these serious concerns. They emphasized that the defendant is entitled to presume innocence and suggested that a live broadcast could compromise his rights. The lawyers also pointed out that similar requests had been made for Mr. Trump's previous high-profile arraignments, including in 2021.

In response, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has stated that it will defer to the judge's discretion on how to manage the proceedings, but noted that excluding or restricting videography and photography could be a defensible exercise of the court's authority to maintain order and protect all parties involved. Notably, the prosecutors acknowledged that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes.

This move comes as CNN, among other media outlets, has requested access for camera crews to cover Mr. Trump's arraignment. The incident highlights the ongoing tension between the media and those who seek to restrict their coverage of high-profile events like this one.

I'm totally confused about why they're fighting it so hard . I mean, it's a live arraignment – it's not like they're allowing some crazy circus to come in and disrupt the proceedings. The media has every right to be there, and if anyone's going to get affected by security concerns, it should be the court itself, not the public interest . I also don't buy that Trump's just trying to hide something – he's been under scrutiny for years, so this is about control, plain and simple . The fact that prosecutors are actually saying it could be a legitimate reason to restrict coverage makes me think they're trying to cover up something .

I dunno about this ... I mean, I get it that security is a thing, but come on! It's an arraignment, not a presidential inauguration . Can't we just have some transparency here? Like, what's the big deal if there are cameras and whatnot? It's not like he's gonna make any deals with himself or something... and btw, 2021 was like, ages ago . Anyway, I guess it's all about weighing the risks and stuff. I hope the judge makes a fair decision tho .

ugh dont get me wrong ill watch it lol but cant believe trump is still playin hardball over somethin thats just basic media access youd think he wud want his name back in the headlines even if its for a guilty verdict idk what hes thinking but maybe the da office has a point about maintainin order tho, dont wanna see no cameras causing a scene

lol what's up with trump being arraigned? sounds like a real circus ! anyway, i feel bad for the man, but come on, it's not like he's gonna get off scot-free... or should i say, scot-freed in NY . seriously though, who needs cameras and videography at an arraignment? sounds like trump's team is just trying to avoid getting roasted by the paparazzi . but for real, shouldn't the man be able to show his face and own up to whatever he did? or am i just being too dramatic ?

OMG I'm literally SHAKING about this whole thing ! Like, can you even believe that the Trump team is being so extra about not wanting cameras at his arraignment?! It's not like it's going to be some wild west showdown or anything (well, more like a drama-filled soap opera, tbh ). I mean, come on, Donald, you're a public figure, you've been in the spotlight for DECADES now! You can handle a little bit of scrutiny from the media .

And let's be real, the whole "circus-like atmosphere" thing is just code for "we don't want to be caught on camera looking all guilty and anxious" . I'm not buying it, though. The DA's office seems pretty reasonable in saying that they'll defer to the judge's discretion, but still wanting to make sure that their rights as a public entity are protected .

But seriously, this whole thing just highlights how out of touch the Trump team is with reality . They're still trying to play the victim card and claim that they can't handle the pressure of being in court... like, hello, you've been in more high-stakes situations than most people have hot meals ! It's just gonna be a whole thing, folks, mark my words

I'm low-key worried about this. It's not just about Trump's arraignment, it's about the precedent being set here. If the court can dictate what goes down in a live broadcast, where does that stop? It feels like we're sliding into some Orwellian territory where the government/establishment gets to decide what's good for us. The DA's office saying they'll defer to the judge is cool and all, but it's the Trump team trying to restrict media access that has me concerned. This could be a slippery slope for all sorts of high-profile cases.

like, a "circus-like atmosphere" that's exactly what we get when cameras are involved . it's not like Mr. Trump's already got a reputation for being all about drama and spectacle. anyway, I'm sure the thought of security concerns is just a fancy way of saying they don't want their precious face on TV . can't blame them for wanting to protect his ego, but it's kinda rich that they're worried about the Secret Service when we've had like, actual terrorists showing up to Trump's rallies .

Ugh, great, so now the law is being used as a PR tool by Trump's team... They're just trying to create more drama and attention around this whole thing, while also protecting themselves from scrutiny. I mean, come on, they can't seriously be worried about a "circus-like atmosphere" during an arraignment? It's not like we've never seen a live court proceeding before... The DA's office is being reasonable by saying that it's up to the judge's discretion, but Trump's team just wants to play hardball and limit the public's access to information. This whole thing reeks of obstructionism...

OMG, can't believe Trump's team is trying to block cameras from showing his arraignment ! Like, what's he got to hide? It's just a public event, folks! The media has every right to cover it, and I think it'd be super interesting to see him walk into court . But at the same time, I can kinda see where they're coming from - security would be a major concern, especially with the Secret Service involved . Maybe the DA's office should just stick to their guns and let the judge decide? I mean, it's not like Trump hasn't been in some hot water before... this is kinda just more of the same, right? Anyway, I'm all for transparency, but also, you know, safety first .

I mean, come on... a "circus-like atmosphere" is what makes a live broadcast worth watching! And security concerns? That's just an excuse for Trump's team to get their hands dirty. The DA's office is being totally reasonable by saying the judge gets to decide how things go down, but I guess it's too much to ask that Trump's lawyers would put the interests of justice and transparency above all else... Nope, let's keep this whole thing behind closed doors for once . And honestly, can't we just have a little faith in the court system? It feels like everything is about control and power in this situation... not to mention the absurdity of having no clear rules against cameras at an arraignment - what's next, secret society meetings?

I feel bad for CNN and other media outlets, they're just trying to do their job but it seems like Trump's team is being super protective of him . But at the same time, can't we all just have a calm arraignment without the drama? The DA's office is weighing in on this and I think they might be right to consider the security concerns . It's like, what if things get out of hand during the live broadcast? Would that really compromise Trump's rights or would it just make him look guilty by association? Guess we'll have to wait and see how this all plays out .

Ugh, I just don't get why they gotta make such a big deal about live tweeting? I mean, isn't the point of having all these cameras and reporters around to give us a better understanding of what's going on? It feels like they're trying to stifle free speech and keep things under wraps. I get that security might be an issue, but can't we just find a way to balance that with keeping the public informed? And honestly, if Trump is as innocent as he says he is, then what's he got to hide from a live broadcast? It's just so frustrating when people try to pull the wool over our eyes like this.

I think it's wild that Trump's team is trying to stop cameras from showing up at his arraignment . Like, isn't this what we're expecting a public figure to be held accountable for? I get that security might be a concern, but shouldn't we want to see how justice plays out in real-time? Excluding videography and photography could actually be kinda problematic if it's seen as an attempt to control the narrative . And can we talk about Trump's team just wanting to maintain this "circus-like atmosphere" vibe? Sounds like they're trying to create more drama than necessary . Anyway, I'm curious to see how the judge decides on this – gonna be interesting!

man... can't believe trump is still trying to control every aspect of his life . think it's pretty lame that he's trying to keep the arraignment private just 'cause he wants to avoid scrutiny. security concerns? really? i mean, come on, trump's had like a million close calls already... isn't it time he learned to take responsibility for himself?

anyway, gotta wonder what would happen if they did let cameras in... might actually humanize him a bit . but at the same time, can imagine how uncomfortable that'd be for him . probably just an excuse for his team to try and spin this whole thing to their advantage .

guess we'll have to wait and see what goes down in court . hope the judge makes a fair call .

I don't think it's a good idea to block cameras at an arraignment. I mean, isn't that what the public service is all about? People should be able to see how justice is being served . But at the same time, I can understand why security concerns would be a thing. Secret Service is a big deal and you don't wanna take any chances .

I think it's better if the judge just makes a decision that works for everyone involved. Maybe they can find some way to allow cameras in a controlled environment? Like, maybe there's a press room or something where people can watch from a distance . That way, you get both ways: public interest and security concerns.

It's kinda like when I'm commenting on a video online and the admin doesn't let me post it because of some rule . I want to share my thoughts but they're all like "nope". It's frustrating! Anyway, back to this... can't we just find a middle ground?