Trump's lawyers oppose media request to broadcast former president's arraignment on live TV, citing security concerns.
A letter sent by Donald Trump's attorneys to a New York judge has revealed that they are opposed to allowing media outlets to broadcast the former US President's arraignment in court on Tuesday. The team claims that such coverage would create an "unhealthy atmosphere" and raise unique security concerns.
According to their argument, which was made in a letter to Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, broadcasting the arraignment could lead to heightened security concerns related to Secret Service-related risks. They argue that allowing video or photography of the proceedings would further exacerbate these serious concerns.
The Trump lawyers have cited this as a reason to request the denial of media outlets' requests for live coverage of the arraignment. However, it's worth noting that while they oppose camera access, they do not explicitly ask for its prohibition.
In contrast, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has stated that it is deferring to the judge's discretion in making a decision on this matter. They have, however, pointed out that there isn't a categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law.
The prosecutors also mentioned a similar request made by media outlets for audio-video broadcasting at the 2021 arraignment of Trump Organization's CFO Allen Weisselberg in their tax fraud case. In this instance, Judge Merchan allowed a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings.
One news outlet that has requested camera access for Tuesday's arraignment is CNN, which will now have to wait for further developments before knowing whether it will be granted permission.
A letter sent by Donald Trump's attorneys to a New York judge has revealed that they are opposed to allowing media outlets to broadcast the former US President's arraignment in court on Tuesday. The team claims that such coverage would create an "unhealthy atmosphere" and raise unique security concerns.
According to their argument, which was made in a letter to Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, broadcasting the arraignment could lead to heightened security concerns related to Secret Service-related risks. They argue that allowing video or photography of the proceedings would further exacerbate these serious concerns.
The Trump lawyers have cited this as a reason to request the denial of media outlets' requests for live coverage of the arraignment. However, it's worth noting that while they oppose camera access, they do not explicitly ask for its prohibition.
In contrast, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has stated that it is deferring to the judge's discretion in making a decision on this matter. They have, however, pointed out that there isn't a categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law.
The prosecutors also mentioned a similar request made by media outlets for audio-video broadcasting at the 2021 arraignment of Trump Organization's CFO Allen Weisselberg in their tax fraud case. In this instance, Judge Merchan allowed a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings.
One news outlet that has requested camera access for Tuesday's arraignment is CNN, which will now have to wait for further developments before knowing whether it will be granted permission.
. I mean, I'm trying to discuss the latest Trump drama and what happens is my post gets stuck in moderation because of "security concerns"... meanwhile, I don't even have to sign up for a newsletter from CNN to get updates on this story. The irony isn't lost on me 
. And don't even get me started on how much I'd love to see some live footage of Trump's arraignment – I'm basically being denied the right to know what's going down just because some lawyers think it'll be "unhealthy" for security reasons 
.
This is a weird one... think about it, Trump's team wants to keep the whole thing super secretive, but at the same time they're trying to distance themselves from potential security risks? It's like they want to have their cake and not get caught eating it too 
this is so unfair 
? like what's the big deal? 
meanwhile we're stuck with no camera access 
what's wrong with a little transparency? 
can't wait for this drama to unfold 
will keep me glued on my screen 
... I mean, what's with the security concerns? Like, it's a public arraignment session, shouldn't people be able to watch or stream it? It just seems like another excuse to hide something from the public. And now CNN is out of luck 
. and another thing, why do lawyers always try to claim that media presence is an "unhealthy atmosphere"? sounds like they're just trying to hide something 
. And security concerns, schmecurity concerns... the whole country knows he's gonna show up at that arraignment, so why bother trying to keep it under wraps? Plus, think about all the poor folks who wanna see their former prez get held accountable for his actions 
. We deserve to know what's going down in that courtroom! 
, you know, like when Clinton was going through that whole impeachment thing? we had to watch the news on our TVs with our grandparents and it was all so dramatic 
The prosecutors are being pretty chill about it, though, letting the judge decide. Maybe it's just a matter of timing and how much drama we want to add to this already messy situation... 
. They're using that as an excuse to try and control the narrative. News outlets just want to cover the story, and they're not going to get caught up in some baseless fear-mongering