Jack Smith Demands Trump Gag Order Citing Attacks On Judge And Witnesses In Cases Against Him

Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a new motion to support a proposed gag order against former President Donald Trump, citing his infamous remarks about General Mark Milley and attacks on judges like Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan. The motion, which was filed two weeks ago, responds to opposition from Trump attorneys and cites recent events to underscore the urgency of the order. Smith argues that the government’s proposed order restricting the parties’ statements under Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) is necessary and appropriate to protect the due administration of justice in this case. The defendant’s opposition is based on several faulty premises, including the defendant needing not face even the most limited imposition, the legal standard for imposing reasonable restrictions on extrajudicial statements being higher than it actually is, the defendant’s statements not being intimidating or prejudicial, and the proposed order imposing sweeping restrictions that it plainly would not.

Among the events cited were the Milley remark, as well as attacks on the judge and other principles in the cases against Trump:

The defendant in a corruption case posted an article on Truth Social, claiming fairness and corruption in the court. He also attacked a witness, a former Vice President, for making false stories about him. In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, the defendant admitted to making false statements about the Georgia Secretary of State and the former Attorney General during a phone call. He also claimed that the retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had committed treason and suggested he should be executed. The defendant’s actions were part of a larger conspiracy against the government. The defendant’s actions were part of a wider campaign to undermine the government’s investigation into the corruption case. The defendant’s actions have raised questions about the integrity of the judiciary and the potential consequences of corruption.

“The defendant’s baseless attacks on the Court and two individual prosecutors not only could subject them to threats—it also could cause potential jurors to develop views about the propriety of the prosecution, an improper consideration for a juror prior to trial,” the filing says.

Smith added: The defendant’s public statements about witnesses are likely to prejudice a fair trial. The defendant argues that these witnesses are not intimidated by the defendant and do not shy away from public debate. They also suggest that government officials have asked for his attacks due to their involvement in politics. However, other witnesses may be affected by the defendant’s actions. The defendant should not be allowed to attack or bolster the credibility of any witness in a manner that could influence prospective jurors, regardless of whether certain witnesses are intimidated by the defendant’s extrajudicial statements.

Smith concluded by saying “Through both of its proposed orders, the Government seeks appropriate processes for protecting the jury pool in this case and the integrity of this proceeding. The Court should grant the Government’s motion and enter them.”

Leave a comment