Left: Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)/Right: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer)
The prosecutor overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case called him out for lying to his online audience that “the FBI was out to kill him and his family.”
Special counsel Jack Smith said in a motion seeking to modify Trump’s conditions of release to prohibit further statements that “pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to the law enforcement professionals involved in the case” and are not protected under the First Amendment.
“Trump knew that this was false, and he intended that his comments would inflame his listeners,” Smith said. “Indeed, that was the whole purpose. Comments like those create an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement professionals — men and women who dedicate themselves to enforcing the law and protecting the American public every day, and who are entitled to do their work without fear of violent retribution.”
The Mar-a-Lago prosecution is a pending criminal case, Smith said, and “like any other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump does not have an unlimited right” to engage in speech about the proceedings.
The prosecutor said Trump is welcome to continue criticizing the Biden Administration and the Department of Justice “to his heart’s content” because that is “simply not the Government’s concern” but when it comes to comments about the investigation and law enforcement on the case, Smith said his purpose is to protect their safety and guard the integrity of the proceeding.
“Consistent with that purpose, the limitation that the Government asks the Court to impose is exceedingly narrow, focused, and fully consistent with the First Amendment,” Smith wrote. “In resisting even that narrow limitation, Trump is left to argue that the First Amendment will be eroded unless he is permitted to lie about FBI agents intending to murder him and his family. The law requires no such thing. This is a pending criminal case, and “like any other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump does not have an unlimited right” to engage in speech that poses a risk to witnesses and threatens the integrity of the proceedings.”
Smith’s request takes on new urgency. He cited examples of cases in which Trump’s supporters followed through on threats, including an armed attack on an FBI office in the wake of Trump’s Truth Social statements regarding the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Last week, a Trump supporter called an FBI agent in the Hunter Biden case and claimed if Trump wins reelection, FBI agents will be thrown in jail and “if he does not win, the agents will be ‘hunt[ed] down’ and ‘slaughter[ed]’ in their own homes, after which ‘[w]e’re going to slaughter your whole f—— family.”
“No court would tolerate another defendant deliberately creating such immediate risks to the safety of law enforcement, and this Court should not wait for a tragic event before taking action in this case,” Smith wrote.
The news comes as Law&Crime reported Friday that the judge in the case refused to allow a coalition of Republican attorneys general to weigh in on special counsel Smith’s request for a gag order on Trump.
America First Legal Foundation (AFL), like the AGs that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected, advanced the argument that the special counsel’s attempt to modify Trump’s pretrial release conditions by imposing a gag order and “prior restraint” on speech during his reelection campaign “practically ignores” the First Amendment.
Law&Crime’s Matt Naham contributed to this report.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
