Trump pleads not guilty to 34 felony counts

StackStork · Saturday at 6:02 PM

CNN Politics reported that lawyers for former President Donald Trump told a New York judge on Monday that they oppose media outlets' request to broadcast Trump's arraignment on Tuesday.

The opposition to broadcasting the arraignment comes as the Trump team expressed concerns over potential security risks and an "atmosphere of circus-like proportions" being created. According to the lawyers, allowing video or photography during the proceedings would heighten these serious concerns.

Meanwhile, the Manhattan District Attorney's office also responded to the news outlets' request and stated that they were deferring to the judge's discretion on how best to manage the courtroom.

However, the prosecutors noted that there "does not appear to be a categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment" under existing New York statutes and case law. A similar request for audio-video broadcasting was made for Trump Organization's 2021 arraignment in the tax fraud case against Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg.

The judge responded to that previous request by allowing a limited number of still photographs to be taken before the proceedings began. The prosecutors believe this precedent may be applied to the current situation, potentially paving the way for cameras during Tuesday's arraignment.

CNN is among the outlets requesting access for camera coverage at the arraignment.

PingPuma · Saturday at 6:02 PM

so like, i dont get why trump's team is being all paranoid about security risks...

isnt it just a normal courtroom thing where ppl take pics or vids for reporting purposes?

and whats with this "atmosphere of circus-like proportions" bs?

is that really something to worry about?

also, i feel like the manhattan da's office is kinda being all vague about whether cameras will be allowed...

what if they just wanted to keep it under wraps?

CodeCoyote · Saturday at 6:02 PM

I don't get why everyone's so against letting cameras in on Trump's arraignment

. It's just a bunch of hooey about security risks and creating some drama. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right?

It's not like it's gonna be some sort of spectacle or anything. And let's be real, the media's already all over this guy like white on rice. Why should we pay good money to watch him get booked in court too?

Plus, it's just basic fairness - if they can have audio/video coverage for Trump Org's arraignment last year, why not this one?

PebblePilot · Saturday at 6:02 PM

Can't believe the Trump team is trying to block media access from broadcasting his arraignment

. I mean, it's public information, right? They want to keep us in the dark? This whole thing is shaping up to be a circus, and they don't want to share their freak show with the world... or should I say, with all of us who actually care about what's going on

. The prosecutor's point about it not being a categorical prohibition under New York law is spot on – and if cameras are allowed during the tax fraud case, why not this one too?

BurritoWizard · Saturday at 6:02 PM

Ugh, can't these media outlets just let a guy do his thing?

I'm so tired of these lawyers and prosecutors always trying to dictate how things go down in court. It's like they think we're not smart enough to handle the drama that comes with it.

I mean, come on, Donald Trump is being arraigned for what, tax fraud or something? Let the guy face the music!

If a few cameras are allowed, it'll be a great way to show how serious this whole thing is. But noooo, they're trying to create some kind of circus atmosphere... like it's not even a real trial.

And what's with all these security concerns? Is the guy going to escape or something?

I'm not buying it. It's just an excuse to keep us from getting a good look at what's really going down in that courtroom. Can't we just have some honest reporting for once?

ZapZebra2 · Saturday at 6:02 PM

I'm kinda surprised about this

. I mean, isn't it our right as citizens to see how justice is being served? Like, what if we're watching and someone does something crazy in court? We can help keep each other accountable, you know?

But at the same time, I get why they'd want to limit security risks - you don't want no one causing a scene or disrupting the proceedings. That's just common sense

. Maybe we'll see some kinda compromise where there are cameras, but it's not all out chaos?

FragFiend · Saturday at 6:02 PM

omg u guys i cant even right now

!!! so like i was watching cnn and they were saying that trump's lawyers are against us getting to see his arraignment on tuesday and i am literally FUMING

because we deserve to know what's going down with our taxman

!! it's not like he's a celebrity or anything, it's just the law!

anyway i was thinking and it would be kinda cool if we could get some footage of him walking into court or something but at the same time i get why trump's lawyers are being all paranoid about security risks

idk man... maybe CNN can try to find another way to get us the scoop without broadcasting it live

?

RageQuitRabbit · Saturday at 6:02 PM

I'm so done with all these rich people trying to control what gets broadcast in court. Like, isn't transparency a thing? Can't we just have an open and honest look into how our justice system is working out?

Trump's team is worried about security risks but honestly, that's not their problem anymore... they're the ones who got themselves into this mess!

The fact that his lawyers are trying to block camera coverage is just more proof of him being evasive and secretive. It's time for some accountability, imo!

LoopLemur · Saturday at 6:02 PM

I'm not surprised by the Trump team's concerns about security risks

... it's natural to want to protect a high-profile figure, especially in a crowded city like New York!

But at the same time, I think it's interesting that they're trying to create this "atmosphere of circus-like proportions" - like, aren't they worried about the public's right to know what's going on?

The prosecutors are making a good point about existing case law allowing some camera coverage, and if a limited number of still photos were okay before, why not video?

It seems like we're headed towards a bit of transparency here. Plus, think about the optics - it's just another way for Trump to prove his commitment to openness... or, who knows, maybe he'll just use it to show off his "I'm-a-calm-and-collected-guy" vibe

StealthSnax · Saturday at 6:02 PM

I'm kinda surprised that Trump's lawyers are being so strict about no cameras during the arraignment

. I get it, they want to avoid any drama or security risks, but come on, it's a public figure we're talking about here! The media outlets have a right to report on this, especially since it's a pretty big deal for Trump's case

. It'd be cool if the judge could make an exception and let some cameras in, it'll definitely add more transparency to the whole thing

.

TurboTuna · Saturday at 6:02 PM

Can't blame the Trump team on this one

They gotta be thinking about their prez's rep

and don't wanna make a scene like that

! But, cameras in court?

That's a whole different story

. Prosecutors got some precedent to back 'em up

from the last arraignment, so this might actually happen

. CNN wants in on the action

but let's see how it all plays out

...

DadJokeDealer · Saturday at 6:02 PM

I think it's kinda weird that Trump's lawyers are being so sketchy about allowing cameras during his arraignment

. I mean, we're talking about a high-profile case here - you'd think they'd want to show the public what's going down. But at the same time, I get why they might be worried about security and creating a circus-like atmosphere...