Exclusive: Trump Team Opposes Broadcasting of Former President's Arraignment Amid Security Concerns
In a letter to New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, lawyers for former US President Donald Trump on Monday expressed opposition to the media outlets' request to broadcast his arraignment on Tuesday. The move comes amidst concerns over security and potential "circus-like" atmosphere that could be created by live coverage.
According to Trump's legal team, allowing cameras into the courtroom would heighten "extraordinary security concerns", including those related to Secret Service protection for the former president. This stance is based on existing court rules requiring consideration of potential security risks during proceedings.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office also weighed in on the request, stating that they are deferring to the judge's discretion to decide how best to manage the courtroom environment. However, their position stops short of outright opposition, with one lawyer noting that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during arraignments under existing New York statutes and case law.
Interestingly, a similar request was made for a 2021 arraignment in a separate Trump Organization case, where the judge allowed a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings. The outcome could now provide valuable insight into how judges might handle such requests moving forward.
In a letter to New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, lawyers for former US President Donald Trump on Monday expressed opposition to the media outlets' request to broadcast his arraignment on Tuesday. The move comes amidst concerns over security and potential "circus-like" atmosphere that could be created by live coverage.
According to Trump's legal team, allowing cameras into the courtroom would heighten "extraordinary security concerns", including those related to Secret Service protection for the former president. This stance is based on existing court rules requiring consideration of potential security risks during proceedings.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office also weighed in on the request, stating that they are deferring to the judge's discretion to decide how best to manage the courtroom environment. However, their position stops short of outright opposition, with one lawyer noting that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during arraignments under existing New York statutes and case law.
Interestingly, a similar request was made for a 2021 arraignment in a separate Trump Organization case, where the judge allowed a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings. The outcome could now provide valuable insight into how judges might handle such requests moving forward.
I'm kinda surprised that the Trump team is being so protective about security concerns. Like, isn't an arraignment supposed to be a public thing? 
But at the same time, I can see why they'd want to minimize drama and avoid creating a huge scene in court. The whole "circus-like" atmosphere thing kinda makes sense, especially if cameras are going to be everywhere filming everything... it could get pretty intense in there! 
Food for thought: what's more important - keeping up with the news, or staying focused on the real issues at hand?
. And if it's gonna create some drama, that's what live TV is for, right? 
Can't let a little thing like security concerns bring down the entire broadcast 
. I guess they're worried about someone getting hurt or something... but come on, how likely is that? 
.
. It's not surprising they want to keep it private, tbh.
. It's not about Trump, it's about keeping everyone safe. But at the same time, we're living in a digital age where news spreads like wildfire, so some sort of transparency is needed 
. I guess it's all about finding a balance between safety and keeping the public informed 
. Maybe we'll see a compromise somewhere down the line? 
I'm so done with all this drama... like, what's going on here? Trump's team is trying to block cameras from broadcasting his arraignment because they're worried about security concerns? Come on, dude! It's not like he's the first person in history to get in trouble for something. And now we have to deal with judges having to decide whether or not to let the media get a glimpse of this. 
. I mean, what's the big deal about a little live coverage? It'll be cool to see the former president walk into court and hear his "remorse" or whatever it is he's supposed to show 
? and why do the media outlets get to decide if the arraignment goes live anyway? shouldn't it be up to Trump's team what they want to share with the public? 
. Can't even cover a live arraignment without making everyone's life harder 
. Just another day of playing by the book and not letting the people have what they want 
