Special counsel raises more concerns over Trump’s attacks on witnesses

Particular Counsel Jack Smith’s workplace filed a reply Friday night to former President Trump’s opposition to the prosecution’s proposed gag order in Trump’s federal election interference case.

Smith’s workplace raises new considerations about Trump’s current public statements attacking prosecutors and different potential witnesses and in addition suggests he could have violated a regulation prohibiting individuals underneath felony indictment from buying firearms.

“Since [the] date [the government proposed the gag order], the defendant has continued to make statements that pose a considerable chance of fabric prejudice to this case and that fall throughout the narrowly tailor-made order proposed by the Authorities,” Smith’s workplace writes.

The submitting particularly flags to DC district choose Tanya Chutkan in a footnote that earlier this week when Trump was visiting a firearms vendor in South Carolina — he was “caught doubtlessly violating his situations of launch” by saying he was going to purchase a Glock and posing with it.

They are saying regardless of a press release from Trump’s spokesperson that later sought to make clear he didn’t really buy the firearm, Trump later re-posted a video from considered one of his followers with a caption stating he did purchase the gun.

“The defendant both bought a gun in violation of the regulation and his situations of launch, or seeks to learn from his supporters’ mistaken perception that he did so,” they write. “It might be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s situations of launch, for him to buy a gun whereas this felony indictment is pending.”

Smith’s workplace raised problem with a number of posts by Trump on his Reality Social platform attacking a Particular Counsel prosecutor and former VP Mike Pence, in addition to feedback he made in his interview on “Meet the Press.”

Smith’s workplace additionally factors to Trump’s publish attacking Mark Milley, saying Trump “falsely claimed [Milley]… had dedicated treason and urged that he needs to be executed.”

“The defendant’s baseless assaults on the Court docket and two particular person prosecutors not solely may topic them to threats—it additionally may trigger potential jurors to develop views concerning the propriety of the prosecution, an improper consideration for a juror previous to trial,” Smith’s submitting says.

“Likewise, the defendant’s persevering with public statements about witnesses are considerably more likely to materially prejudice a good trial.”

Smith’s workplace argued Trump’s attorneys of their opposition submitting, “makes gentle of a few of his earlier assaults on witnesses” and claims none had been really intimidated. “Even assuming that sure witnesses should not intimidated by the defendant’s statements, different witnesses see and could also be affected by what the defendant does to those that are known as to testify on this case,” Smith’s submitting says.

“And no matter whether or not sure witnesses are intimidated by the defendant’s extrajudicial statements, the defendant shouldn’t be permitted to assault or bolster the credibility of any witness in a way that would affect potential jurors.”

The submitting additionally seeks to dispute Trump’s declare they’re making an attempt to “unconstitutionally silence” him, saying their proposed slim gag order “would by no means hinder the defendant’s potential to marketing campaign and publicly keep his innocence.”

“All it might restrict is the defendant’s use of his candidacy as a canopy for making prejudicial public statements about this case—and there’s no reliable want for the defendant, in the midst of his marketing campaign, to assault recognized witnesses concerning the substance of their anticipated testimony or in any other case interact in materially prejudicial commentary in violation of the proposed order,” they argue.

In addition they accuse Trump of making an attempt to play clean-up after his Reality Social publish had said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

“[Trump’s] spokesperson’s after-the-fact rationalization is implausible on its face,” they write. “The reality is evident: the defendant was caught making a public risk after which had a spokesperson problem an excuse.”

“The defendant shouldn’t be permitted to acquire the advantages of his incendiary public statements after which keep away from accountability by having others – whose messages he is aware of will obtain markedly much less consideration than his personal—feign retraction,” Smith’s workplace states.

In searching for to select aside the arguments put ahead by Trump’s staff, they argue Trump’s submitting is “premised on inapplicable caselaw and false claims.”

“[Trump] calls for particular remedy, asserting that as a result of he’s a politician, he ought to have free rein to publicly intimidate witnesses and malign the Court docket, residents of this District, and prosecutors,” they are saying.

“However on this case, Donald J. Trump is a legal defendant like every other.”

Trump final month pleaded not responsible to fees of endeavor a “legal scheme” to overturn the outcomes of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “pretend electors,” utilizing the Justice Division to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” making an attempt to enlist the vp to “alter the election outcomes,” and selling false claims of a stolen election because the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and stay in energy.

On Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys mentioned they vehemently oppose Smith’s workplace’s request, calling it an affront to Trump’s First Modification rights and accusing Smith’s staff of getting political motivations as a result of Trump’s robust standing within the 2024 presidential race.

“Following these efforts to poison President Trump’s protection, the prosecution now asks the Court docket to take the extraordinary step of stripping President Trump of his First Modification freedoms throughout an important months of his marketing campaign towards President Biden,” the submitting mentioned. “The Court docket ought to reject this clear gamesmanship and deny the movement totally.”