Left: Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File); Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool)
Attorneys representing Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case on Friday lambasted special counsel Jack Smith for seeking a gag order barring the former president from making public statements that may endanger law enforcement agents involved in the case, claiming it was unconstitutional and aimed at getting Joe Biden reelected.
“In Jack Smith’s most recent shocking display of overreach and disregard for the Constitution, the Special Counsel’s Office asks the Court to enter an unconstitutional gag order as one of the release conditions on the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election,” the opposition motion states. “[T]he motion is a naked effort to impose totalitarian censorship of core political speech, under threat of incarceration, in a clear attempt to silence President Donald Trump’s arguments to the American people about the outrageous nature of this investigation and prosecution.”
The special counsel’s request for a gag order was submitted last month in response to Trump falsely claiming on Truth Social that the FBI had authorized the use of “deadly (lethal) force” and was prepared to shoot him during the raid of his Palm Beach estate.
The language Trump misleadingly referred to came from a recently unsealed order authorizing the raid, which the FBI says is boilerplate policy designed to limit agents use of force. In fact, federal authorities subsequently confirmed that the same policy was in place during the bureau’s search of President Biden’s home in Delaware.
The special counsel’s office then asked U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon — a Trump appointee — to “make clear” that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee cannot make further statements “that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents” involved in the case.”
Trump’s attorneys criticized the requested gag order as “vague” and “tailor-made to broadly chill protected speech,” particularly with the Republican National Convention and first Presidential Debate looming in the coming weeks. They also compared the request with the gag order placed on Trump in a separate case in New York where he was found guilty of 34 felonies.
“Like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Smith seeks to restrict President Donald Trump’s campaign speech as the first presidential debate approaches at the end of this month,” the document states. “Smith’s motion goes one step further in his efforts to interfere in the 2024 presidential election and assist President Biden, by seeking improper restrictions on President Donald Trump’s core protected speech that would continue through the Republican National Convention in July, and thereafter, until this case is dismissed for one or more of the myriad reasons we have identified.”
Additionally, the opposition emphasized that the special counsel’s request for the gag order failed to identify any federal agent who had been threatened as a result of the Mar-a-Lago raid and Trump’s subsequent statements.
“Pursuant to the Court’s sealing orders, no FBI agent who participated in the raid has been publicly identified in a court filing or commentary by President Donald Trump,” his attorneys wrote. “That is almost certainly why, nearly three weeks after the most recent Truth Social post cited by the Office, they have not submitted to the Court any evidence of threats or harassment resulting from President Donald Trump’s protected speech. Not a single FBI agent who participated in the raid submitted an affidavit, or even an argument, claiming that President Donald Trump’s remarks put them at risk.”
Cannon disposed of the special counsel’s initial request for a gag order, stating that emails sent back and forth between Smith and Trump’s attorneys did not constitute “meaningful conferral.” She has scheduled a hearing on the gag order request for June 24.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
