A Friday evening court filing from Special Counsel Jack Smith makes clear that failed former president Donald Trump is facing serious legal consequences for recent comments he’s made, including a suggestion that former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Mark Milley, deserved the death penalty for disagreeing with the insecure manbaby ex-U.S. head of state.
According to ABC News, the filing was in response to a motion from Trump’s attorneys opposing a possible gag order that would be imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, and it referenced the death threat aimed at Milley as well as an apparent purchase of a gun by the disgraced former president during a campaign stop in South Carolina this week.
“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 office writes.
The filing specifically flags to DC district judge Tanya Chutkan in a footnote that earlier this week when Trump was visiting a firearms dealer in South Carolina — he was “caught potentially violating his conditions of release” by saying he was going to buy a Glock and posing with it.
Threats against Milley, a potential witness against Trump, could potentially have negative effects on jurors, too, Smith’s filing warns.
“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 filing says.
“Likewise, the defendant’s continuing public statements about witnesses are substantially likely to materially prejudice a fair trial.”
Trump and his attorneys have asserted that Smith is seeking to “silence” him in violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech. To that, Smith’s office countered, “All (a gag order) 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.”
Smith and his prosecutors also make it clear that Trump wants special treatment, which is unheard of for a criminal defendant charged with 91 separate felony counts.
“[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.
“But in this case, Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other.”
Judge Chutkan is expected to issue a ruling on the limited gag order as soon as next week.
