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

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s administrative center filed a answer Friday night to former President Trump’s opposition to the prosecution’s proposed gag order in Trump’s federal election interference case.

Smith’s administrative center raises new concerns about Trump’s fresh public statements attacking prosecutors and different doable witnesses and likewise suggests he can have violated a regulation prohibiting folks beneath prison indictment from buying firearms.

“Since [the] date [the government proposed the gag order], the defendant has continued to make statements that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case and that fall within the narrowly tailored order proposed by the Government,” Smith’s administrative center writes.

The submitting in particular flags to DC district pass judgement on Tanya Chutkan in a footnote that previous this week when Trump used to be visiting a firearms broker in South Carolina — he used to be “caught potentially violating his conditions of release” by way of announcing he used to be going to shop for a Glock and posing with it.

They say in spite of a remark from Trump’s spokesperson that later sought to elucidate he didn’t in fact acquire the firearm, Trump later re-posted a video from one in every of his fans with a caption mentioning he did purchase the gun.

“The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so,” they write. “It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending.”

Smith’s administrative center raised factor with a number of posts by way of Trump on his Truth Social platform attacking a Special Counsel prosecutor and previous VP Mike Pence, in addition to feedback he made in his interview on “Meet the Press.”

Smith’s administrative center additionally issues to Trump’s post attacking Mark Milley, announcing Trump “falsely claimed [Milley]… had committed treason and suggested that he should be executed.”

“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,” Smith’s submitting says.

“Likewise, the defendant’s continuing public statements about witnesses are substantially likely to materially prejudice a fair trial.”

Smith’s administrative center argued Trump’s lawyers of their opposition submitting, “makes light of some of his previous attacks on witnesses” and claims none have been in fact intimidated. “Even assuming that certain witnesses are not intimidated by the defendant’s statements, other witnesses see and may be affected by what the defendant does to those who are called to testify in this case,” Smith’s submitting says.

“And regardless of whether certain witnesses are intimidated by the defendant’s extrajudicial statements, the defendant should not be permitted to attack or bolster the credibility of any witness in a manner that could influence prospective jurors.”

The submitting additionally seeks to dispute Trump’s declare they’re looking to “unconstitutionally silence” him, announcing their proposed slender gag order “would in no way hinder the defendant’s ability to campaign and publicly maintain his innocence.”

“All it would limit is the defendant’s use of his candidacy as a cover for making prejudicial public statements about this case—and there is no legitimate need for the defendant, in the course of his campaign, to attack known witnesses regarding the substance of their anticipated testimony or otherwise engage in materially prejudicial commentary in violation of the proposed order,” they argue.

They additionally accuse Trump of looking to play clean-up after his Truth Social post had said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

“[Trump’s] spokesperson’s after-the-fact explanation is implausible on its face,” they write. “The truth is clear: the defendant was caught making a public threat and then had a spokesperson issue an excuse.”

“The defendant should not be permitted to obtain the benefits of his incendiary public statements and then avoid accountability by having others – whose messages he knows will receive markedly less attention than his own—feign retraction,” Smith’s administrative center states.

In in search of to pick out aside the arguments put ahead by way of Trump’s workforce, they argue Trump’s submitting is “premised on inapplicable caselaw and false claims.”

“[Trump] demands special treatment, asserting that because he is a political candidate, he should have free rein to publicly intimidate witnesses and malign the Court, citizens of this District, and prosecutors,” they are saying.

“But in this case, Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other.”

Trump ultimate month pleaded no longer accountable to fees of endeavor a “criminal scheme” to overturn the result of the 2020 election by way of enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” the use of the Justice Department to behavior “sham election crime investigations,” looking to enlist the vp to “alter the election results,” and selling false claims of a stolen election because the Jan. 6 rebellion raged — all so to subvert democracy and stay in energy.

On Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers stated they vehemently oppose Smith’s administrative center’s request, calling it an affront to Trump’s First Amendment rights and accusing Smith’s workforce of getting political motivations because of Trump’s sturdy status within the 2024 presidential race.

“Following these efforts to poison President Trump’s defense, the prosecution now asks the Court to take the extraordinary step of stripping President Trump of his First Amendment freedoms during the most important months of his campaign against President Biden,” the submitting stated. “The Court should reject this transparent gamesmanship and deny the motion entirely.”