Trump arraignment: Judge denies motion to allow live cameras as former president faces criminal charges
New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan ruled against a motion to allow news organizations to broadcast former President Donald Trump's arraignment on Tuesday.
That’s bc Trumps team is going to embarrass them with legal insight can’t have that on tape or video. This doesn’t make sense I thought they wanted the circus?
"... He ruled that the integrity of the court’s impartiality outweighed the "monumental significance" of the case and the "unparalleled public interest" it has generated. ..."
.
I guess that same logic would apply to, say, a future military tribunal of a former president - hypothetically-speaking, of course.
.
I'm not sure what their strategy is here. I agree with you that they risk being embarrassed with live coverage. And they obviously have no integrity nor are they impartial. My guess is they're going to use FNM narrative-pushers to generate the impression amongst their dwindling number of viewers that Trump is guilty of a number of "crimes" so that when Trump walks free on actual innocence the FNM will cry foul and claim the justice system is rigged against the left.
Exactly what I thought. Left definitely want to Control the narrative.
They want a circus that they have COMPLETE control over. Like the J6 videos that were cherry picked to be shown to the public for the past 2 years
It was the Trump legal team that requested that no video be taken or cell phones be allowed in the courtroom
Right. Perhaps both sides want this and for different reasons. Trump's legal team's stated reason is so it doesn't turn into a "spectacle". IMO it also sets a precedent for holding arraignments and trials for high-ranking individuals in more private settings - kind of like the way military tribunals can occur.
The rabid left could not care less what Trump's legal team wants. They'll do whatever they feel is advantageous for themselves. Their implied/stated position is that they want to maintain "the integrity of the court's impartiality". (More virtue signaling to their sheeple base and narrative talking points for their soulless FNM minions since the vast majority of Americans knows these marxist turds have no integrity and no impartiality). Could they be realizing that this very stupid banana republic move of going after Trump wasn't well thought out after all?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lawyer-says-his-team-doesn-t-want-cameras-in-court/ar-AA19qqDD
I had hoped the tribunals would be televised. Transparency and all that. I just hope the left can't spin the narrative that Trump is railroading a bunch of democrats in secret trials to defeat his opponents, political witch hunt, blah blah.
You know that's exactly how they'll spin it. It actually doesn't matter just what the WHs do because the left lives in a little TDS fantasy world of their own.
The WHs are setting the precedent now for trials outside the "supervision" of the media circus by playing along with this sham illegal attack on POTUS. Whether or not the left wants to twist their wee minds into pretzels telling themselves that it's not okay to go after Barry, George and Billy, but was right and honorable and good for democracy et al ad nauseam to go after Trump, it won't matter. The protective little taboo the cabal had in place shielding their accomplished little apparatchik former presidents has been shattered.
Plus YouTube has shut down RSBN for 7 days on their platform. Good thing they have their own app and Rumble. YT says it's because they repeat disinfo about 2020 election. YT just noticing that now??? Uh-huh. It's scared. The cabal actually thinks they can control this monster they've awakened....
It’ll get out. They want the perk walk effect. I expect some officer or actor or whatever will try and get Trump in cuffs, even if it’s for 5 seconds, just to get that photo. Then, him sitting in a court room, gotta get that photo. Whatever it takes to make him look like a criminal. It’ll be Trump “arrested/defeated“ surrounded by his enemies. This is what they want. Hopefully they don’t get it.
Does it specifically say no audio?
Good question. I believe they're covered under the following -
"... electronic items like cellphones would not be permitted.
"The use of cellphones, laptops or any electronic devices will be strictly prohibited in the courtrooms. Any such devices will have to be turned off and secured outside of public view while in the courtrooms," ..."
-- as stated by Judge Merchan, according to the linked article. I didn't see anything specifically referencing audio recorders so can't be 100% sure, but the general tone of this ruling seems to prohibit recording of any kind during the proceedings.
If electronic devices are allowed in at all, bet your A someone will illegally record it
I'd guess MI-NSA is all over this, will have audio and video (that won't be shown to the public). As for others, probably yes also and if so will most likely will be "leaked" to FNM and carefully curated for the purpose of bolstering their narrative.
What audio recorders would be non-electronic?
I think the non-electronics ban would apply to audio recorders as well, even if they didn't specifically state them.
No non-electronic audio recorders that I can think of, but then I think you're missing the point that the issue is a distinction between types of recorders being visual/audio-visual or audio-only.
As I said, I believe that audio recorders are probably not permitted though I can't be 100% sure. The reason why I think anon u/Emyrylde 's question was a good one stems from a careful reading of the article and using discernment. While we can be reasonably sure that not everything the judge said was included in the article, it's likely that if he had addressed audio-only devices, they would/should have included that in the article. That being the case, the article, in addition to the headline pointing specifically to "live cameras", addresses recording in three separate instances, ALL of them SPECIFICALLY VISUAL. From the article...
.
(1) Specifies "photos or live video" only -- "... New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan said the court would allow a "limited number" of videographers, photographers and radio journalists to be present but denied the motion to allow photos or live video during the court session. ..."
(2) Specifies "camera" only -- "... In his ruling, Judge Merchan said he considered "all relevant factors" — which included whether the camera coverage would "interfere with the fair administration of justice… with law enforcement activity, the objections of the Defendant; and limitations related to the physical structure of the courtroom" — but ultimately denied the motion. ..."
(3) Specifies "cameras" only -- "... In the request, District Attorney Alvin Bragg, on behalf of the people of New York, argued the presence of cameras in the courtroom "raises a number of concerns." ..."
.
While "any electronic devices" would seem to be an umbrella under which an audio recorder would fit, the judges ruling was in response to a motion to allow visual recordings. Strictly speaking there's a possibility that, taken in context of that, audio-only recorders might be allowed. Might. But I doubt it. Hope that clarifies things.
None of these courts have any jurisdiction whatsoever over POTUS or anyone else, for that matter.
the last thing im going to look to for news is the television.
Then the MSM can spin it anyway they want.
Golly, what a surprise.
The writer of this scene knows just how to illustrate and highlight how the secrecy serves the guilty, and that's likely one of the points of it unfolding this way.