Federal judge had earlier rejected a request without prejudice for procedural reasons.
Prosecutors renewed their gag order request against former President Donald Trump in the classified documents case on May 31 after a federal judge earlier rejected a request without prejudice for procedural reasons.
“The Government moves to modify defendant Donald J. Trump’s conditions of release, to make clear that he may not make statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case,” the motion
reads.
Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office had last week
requested a gag order after President Trump highlighted the fact that the FBI was authorized to use deadly force during the raid on Mar-a-Lago, which is standard procedure.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had rejected the motion because prosecutors had not conferred with the defense properly, and the judge criticized the prosecutors for this lack of professionalism, warning that future instances of such conduct would warrant sanctions.
Government Argues Trump Endangering FBI
Prosecutors argue that a gag order is necessary because President Trump’s statements about the agents who raided his residence could expose the agents “to the risk of threats, violence, and harassment.”They argued that his comments about the raid “distort” the situation and have been “intentionally false and inflammatory.” Prosecutors argued the comments have gone so far as to create a “grossly misleading impression” about the intention of the FBI agents to the point of “suggesting that they were complicit in a plot to assassinate him.” The “assassination” comment was
attributed to Steve Bannon.
President Trump had written in a social media
post that the Biden administration gave authorization to use “lethal” force against him. That messaging was repeated with stronger language in an email
blast where he wrote “They were authorized to shoot me!”
The FBI had actually coordinated with Secret Service leadership to securely search the location and contacted President Trump’s attorney ahead of time. The Trump family was not on the premises during the search and no weapons were drawn during the raid. After the “deadly force” authorization made headlines last week, the FBI put out a
statement explaining they followed standard protocol.
President Trump’s comments continued after the FBI issued its statement, and prosecutors argued this was a willful mischaracterization.
The court, prosecutors argued, “should take steps immediately to halt this dangerous campaign to smear law enforcement.”
Prosecutors plan to call some of those FBI agents as witnesses at trial and argue that President Trump “irresponsibly put a target on the backs of the FBI agents involved in this case.” They used as an
example a 2022 planned attack on an FBI office in Ohio by a Trump supporter.
Good Faith Conferral
This time, prosecutors conferred with defense counsel, and the parties agreed to disagree, both concluding that “no further conferral was necessary.”
The defense submitted a brief statement opposing the motion, attached to the government’s motion.
“On the merits, President Trump’s position is that the requested modification is a blatant violation of the First Amendment rights of President Trump and the American people, which would in effect allow President Trump’s political opponent to regulate his campaign communications to voters across the country,” the defense stated.
Release Conditions
The requested gag order is structured differently from other gag orders that have been imposed on President Trump.Prosecutors are requesting that his release conditions be modified, meaning he would no longer be allowed to be out on bond before trial if he is found to have violated the order.
Prosecutors argued that it is not uncommon for criminal defendants to be barred from contacting witnesses, though judges in several Trump cases have acknowledged that social media has made it difficult to define “contact.”
President Trump has had gag orders imposed on him in three other cases, but prosecutors only referenced these orders in passing to support an argument that their request would not violate the First Amendment.
“Like any other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump does not have an unlimited right to speak,” prosecutors argued, referencing a federal appeals court panel that upheld a gag order in a separate case Mr. Smith is prosecuting.
