Former President Donald Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, speaks at a South Dakota Republican Party rally in Rapid City, South Dakota, Sept. 8, 2023.
Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith on Friday asked a federal judge to bar former President Donald Trump from publicly discussing the testimony and credibility of potential witnesses, or the evidence, in his federal election interference trial in D.C.
The request got here in the shape of a motion that laid out most of the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner’s most aggressive social media posts in recent months. That included posts during which Trump took aim at likely witnesses, including former Vice President Mike Pence, in addition to the judge presiding over the case and the U.S. attorneys prosecuting him.
“The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets,” prosecutors wrote.
Since he was indicted, they wrote, Trump has “spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the residents of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses.”
These posts have already had real-world consequences, they added. Shortly after Trump was indicted, “a person was arrested because she called the Court’s chambers and made racist death threats to the Court that were tied to the Court’s role in presiding over” Trump’s case.
The one solution, the special counsel argued, was for U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue an order holding Trump to the identical standards to which his lawyers were being held.
Under these standards, Trump could be prohibited from making public statements about “‘the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses’ and the ‘merits of the case or the evidence within the case.'”
Smith argued that this may amount to a “narrow, well-defined restriction.” But when Trump’s past statements are any indication, such a ruling could effectively render a wide selection of statements Trump might make in the longer term concerning the case in violation of the order and will leave him exposed to additional charges.
By the identical token, abiding by such an order, if the judge were to issue it, could significantly alter what Trump says on his social media platform, Truth Social, and at campaign rallies, where he ceaselessly disparages Smith, Chutkan and certain witnesses.
Trump’s trial is scheduled to start March 4, 2024, in the future before the Super Tuesday primary contests, which could effectively hand him the Republican nomination, if current polling trends hold.
Trump’s presidential campaign was quick to reply to the motion, accusing prosecutors of “corruptly and cynically continuing to try and deprive President Trump of his First Amendment rights.”
“That is nothing greater than blatant election interference because President Trump is by far the leading candidate on this race,” campaign spokesman Steve Cheung said in an announcement.
Along with asking for the “narrow” gag order, prosecutors also asked the court to require that any polling of potential jurors be preapproved by the judge, with a purpose to prevent the defense from sending polls that will have the effect of pushing jurors in Trump’s favor, the identical way that pollsters can influence respondents by how they ask questions.
The four-count indictment Smith filed on Aug. 1 charged Trump, and only Trump, with conspiring to defraud the USA and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, in addition to actually obstructing an official proceeding. Finally, Trump was charged with violating a law that criminalizes conspiring to deprive others of constitutionally protected rights. By searching for to overturn his election loss in 2020 by changing vote totals, prosecutors argued, Trump deprived voters of the suitable to forged votes that were fairly counted.
