April 3, 2023 Trump indictment news | CNN Politics

Donald Trump's lawyers have submitted to a New York judge that they oppose the request by media outlets to broadcast his arraignment on Tuesday, citing concerns over security and creating a "circus-like atmosphere." In a letter to Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, the Trump team argued that allowing cameras into the courtroom would heighten security concerns and only serve to create a spectacle.

The lawyers pointed out that President Trump is required under court rules to take into account potential security concerns. They claimed that any video or photography of the proceedings would exacerbate these serious concerns, putting not only the defendant but also the participants in the proceeding at risk.

Todd Blanche, one of the Trump lawyers who recently joined the former president's legal team, signed the letter opposing the media request. This comes as CNN and other news outlets have requested access to broadcast Trump's arraignment live on Tuesday, citing the importance of providing coverage to their audiences.

However, the Manhattan District Attorney's office also responded to the news outlets' request, deferring to the judge's discretion in managing the courtroom proceedings. The prosecutors noted that while there isn't a categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law, they believed it would be a "defensible exercise of the Court's discretion" to exclude or restrict videography, photography, and radio coverage.

In a similar instance from 2021, when a similar request was made for the tax fraud case against Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg, the judge allowed a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings. The prosecutors pointed out that this precedent suggests a willingness by the court to allow some form of media coverage during arraignments.

While CNN is among the outlets requesting camera access for Tuesday's arraignment, the Trump team's opposition raises questions about how the courtroom will manage the presence of cameras and photographers on the day of the proceedings.

I mean think about it - 70% of Americans want to see Trump's arraignment go live on TV , but the lawyers are worried it'll be a security nightmare . Meanwhile, in 2021, the court let some still pics be taken during a similar case... maybe they're just trying to limit the drama . The prosecutors say it's all about discretion . But what if Trump does a "certain someone" gesture in the courtroom that'll make headlines for days? That'd be some serious security concerns right there! On the flip side, 40% of Twitter users want to see Trump take responsibility for his actions . So, who's gonna win out - security or social media?

I gotta say, I think the Trump lawyers are being super dramatic about this whole thing . I mean, it's not like they're going to let a few cameras in the courtroom bring down the whole place. And honestly, if there is security concern, maybe they should've thought of that before they made all those public statements about it on social media .

I also don't think we should be surprised that the prosecutors are being cautious about allowing cameras into the courtroom. I mean, it's not like this is a trial or anything - just an arraignment. But still, if there was going to be some kind of precedent set here, maybe they could've asked for guidance from higher up before making a last-minute request .

And can we talk about how ridiculous it is that the Trump team is trying to create this "circus-like atmosphere" narrative? Like, come on guys - if you're really that worried about security, maybe you shouldn't be so concerned with being in the spotlight all the time .

Can you believe this? The Trump team is worried that cameras in the courtroom would create a "circus-like atmosphere" like they're trying to block out all the drama from their past . Security concerns, yeah sure, but can't they just admit it's a publicity stunt? I mean, if they want to make it look like they're being hauled away in handcuffs, just let the paparazzi do their thing!

I'm kinda surprised by this decision from Trump's lawyers... they're really worried about security, but I feel like it's just an excuse to avoid some transparency in the process . I mean, we've seen plenty of high-profile arraignments on camera before, and nothing too crazy has happened . The prosecutors' point about precedent from 2021 is valid too - it seems like the court has shown they're open to some media coverage in the past . But at the same time, I get why Trump's team would want to limit cameras - security concerns are definitely real . Maybe a compromise would be the best way forward? A limited camera presence or something... idk

I just think it's kinda weird that Donald Trump's lawyers are trying to hide his arraignment from the public eye. I mean, isn't he a public figure? You'd think he'd want to show up in court like everyone else who's being held accountable for their actions. Plus, with all the drama surrounding him and his past scandals, it feels kinda fishy that they're trying to keep everything under wraps. And what about the media outlets' right to report on public events? It seems like a pretty clear case of them trying to control the narrative and limit the access of journalists.

ugh, can't believe trump's lawyers are being so secretive . like, it's public arraignment, shouldn't we get to see what's going down? the idea that security concerns are just an excuse for a "circus-like atmosphere" is pretty laughable . and honestly, i think allowing some form of media coverage would actually help reduce any potential disruptions or tension in the courtroom. it's all about balance, right?

I'm so fed up with these lawyers trying to control every aspect of this whole thing . I mean, come on, it's not like they're worried about the actual arraignment itself, but more like the optics of it all. They're just trying to prevent a media frenzy and give Trump a chance to slip away unnoticed . But let's be real, we know he's not going anywhere – this is all just a show for the sake of ratings and clicks . Can't they just leave us the peace and quiet? It's like they're trying to manipulate the narrative instead of letting the truth speak for itself . I swear, sometimes I wonder if the courts are more interested in protecting Trump than upholding justice...

I mean... like, why not? It's a big deal, Trump is being arraigned and all, so people wanna know what's going down. And yeah, security concerns are valid, but you can't just block out the whole world from watching . The prosecution says it's up to the judge's discretion, but I think they're just trying to control the narrative . On the other hand, if cameras come in, it could get really crazy ... like, what if someone gets hurt or something? But at the same time, isn't that kinda what we want to see - some drama and all that? I'm so confused now .

I'm low-key surprised they're still trying to keep it off-camera . I mean, don't get me wrong, security concerns are legit, but come on, this is a high-profile case! I think the prosecution's stance on this is pretty reasonable tho . If they can restrict photography and radio coverage in similar cases, why not apply that to Trump's arraignment? It's all about creating a circus-like atmosphere , right? The prosecutors seem like they're playing it safe here. One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out

Ugh I'm literally so hyped for this Tuesday , can't believe we get to see Trump being arraigned in person, like a true reality TV star! But at the same time, I feel bad that his lawyers are trying to block camera access, it's not cool dude... I mean, what's the big deal about security? The media outlets just wanna give us the tea on this huge scandal and Trump is literally a trainwreck waiting to happen. I'm all for some behind-the-scenes footage too, would love to see how he's gonna plead guilty or not

idk why they dont wanna let cameras in its like a public event, right? dont get me wrong, i get security concerns but theres gotta be some compromise here. it feels like the trump team is just trying to control the narrative again and its not like anyone's going to get hurt. media outlets have been covering his whole career and now they wanna just show up to his arraignment? that makes sense to me. im guessing judge merchant will probably find a middle ground tho, maybe some restricted access or something

This whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. I mean, what's the real reason they don't want cameras in there? Is it just because they're worried about security or is there something more going on? I'm not saying it's definitely a circus-like atmosphere but come on, this guy's been accused of some serious stuff and we deserve to know what's really going down. The prosecution thinks it's okay to have some form of media coverage, so why can't the Trump team just say no? It seems like there's always a way for them to spin things and control the narrative. Maybe they're trying to avoid showing their client looking guilty or something?

I mean, come on, can't we just have a live stream of the arraignment like everyone else? It's not like it's going to create chaos or something. The Trump lawyers are just trying to use security as an excuse to keep things under wraps, but honestly, who doesn't want to see their former prez get booked in court?

I'm not saying cameras should be everywhere, but a little bit of transparency wouldn't hurt anyone. And let's be real, if the court can allow some still photos back in 2021, why not video coverage now? It just seems like an opportunity for the Trump team to hide something behind a security blanket.

Plus, think about all the people who want to see this go down live – it's not like it's going to make or break their lives. Can't we just have some basic access to what's happening in our justice system?

I think it's kinda weird that the Trump team is trying to keep his arraignment private . I mean, isn't that what we expect from a public figure who's being charged with a crime? It feels like they're trying to avoid scrutiny, but at the same time, the media outlets have a right to report on it, don't they?

I'm not sure why security is such a big concern though... can't we just have cameras in the courtroom like any other public trial? It's not like Trump's going to be trying anything crazy . And what about the precedent set by last year's case? If one arraignment can allow some form of media coverage, why not this one?

It feels like the Trump team is just trying to create a spectacle, and that's exactly what they're worried about - a circus-like atmosphere . But shouldn't we want to see how this all plays out in court? Transparency is key, right?

I don’t usually comment but I think it’s kinda weird that the Trump team is being super tight-lipped about this... like, what are they hiding? They say security concerns, but aren’t courts like, totally secure already? It feels like a PR stunt to me. And I gotta wonder, why can't the media just get a sneak peek at the arraignment or something? It’s not like it's gonna be some super sensitive info that'll ruin the whole world... I don’t know, maybe I'm just reading too much into this but it feels kinda fishy to me.

I THINK IT'S WEIRD THAT DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYERS ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE ARRAIGNMENT PRIVATE LIKE HE DID SOMETHING BAD!!! I GUESS THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT SECURITY, BUT CAN'T THEY JUST TELL US IF HE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG?!? IT'S NOT LIKE WE DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS BY NOW!

The optics of this situation are a bit concerning . It seems like the Trump team is trying to control the narrative around his arraignment by citing security concerns as a way to limit media coverage. I mean, what's really going on here? Is it just a case of him trying to avoid scrutiny or is there something more to it? The fact that they're using this argument as a reason to block cameras from broadcasting live footage raises questions about their intentions.

And let's not forget, this is the same administration that was all about "draining the swamp" and reducing the influence of special interests in politics. Now, it seems like they're trying to create a little "swamp" of their own by limiting access to information. It's a bit too convenient that CNN is among the outlets requesting camera access - could this be a case of the "establishment media" being unfairly targeted?

Ultimately, as a matter of principle, I think it's essential for the public to have access to live coverage of high-profile events like an arraignment. By limiting cameras and photography, we're essentially creating a little bubble around Trump that prevents us from seeing how he's really handling this situation. Transparency, folks - that's what we need more of in politics!

Like, what's next? They're gonna say no to a selfie with the judge because it'll create a "circus-like atmosphere"? I'm not buying it. The whole thing just smells like a publicity stunt. Trump's team is trying to spin this as a security concern, but let's be real, it's all about control and keeping the narrative tight. I mean, who doesn't love a good drama-filled courtroom scene? And what's with the "exacerbate serious concerns" line? Sounds like something from a bad thriller novel . Either way, I'm gonna tune in to see how this plays out. The people want to know... or not, depending on how many cameras are allowed .

[A cartoon image of a courtroom with a "NO CAMERA" sign](https://i.giphy.com/GyZq8jRdJYbU4/giphy.gif). It's like, they don't want Trump to get caught looking all guilty and stuff . Can you imagine the drama if Trump showed up with a mullet ?