“The Stay Order is clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. All substantive proceedings in this court are halted. Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the stay almost immediately,” the motion reads.
“The court cannot allow the prosecutors to continue to operate lawlessly, in defiance of well-established protocol and this court’s authority.”
They also ask that prosecutors show why they shouldn’t be sanctioned.
The motion names Mr. Smith, Molly Gaston, and Thomas Windom—attorneys who filed briefs in the federal criminal case against President Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia during the stay.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had paused all proceedings and deadlines in the case on Dec. 13, 2023.
Shortly afterward, the special counsel’s office served thousands of pages of discovery, prompting the defense to file a notice of the court order violation.
That motion was filled with “partisan rhetoric,” the defense attorneys argue, including false claims of President Trump propagating “irrelevant disinformation.”
They claim the document “mirrors the Biden administration’s dishonest talking points” and pushes the false narrative that President Trump was responsible for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The partisan points “spread like wildfire” in the media, attorneys argued, citing headlines from several outlets that suggest President Trump would “sow disinformation” or spread “misinformation” during his trial.
They accused the prosecutors of weaponizing the stay and claimed that the Dec. 27, 2023, motion was filed against the court order “knowing that President Trump would not fully respond because the court relieved him of the burdens of litigation during the stay.”
The defense requested the court to demand that the prosecutors show why they shouldn’t be held in contempt, required to withdraw the discovery production, required to withdraw the motion, forbidden from further filings during the stay, and sanctioned in the amount of “President Trump’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in responding to the prosecutor’s improper productions and filings, including in litigating this motion.”
After Judge Chutkan rejected President Trump’s motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity, the defense appealed the motion to a higher court, resulting in a complete pause of proceedings in the district court.
Prosecutors had sought immediate review from the U.S. Supreme Court of President Trump’s defense.
Still, the high court declined to hear the case, allowing the appeal to move forward on an expedited timeline in the appeals court.
The opening brief was filed over the holidays, and the appeals court will hold a hearing on Jan. 9.
Even if the appeals court rules against President Trump’s motion to dismiss and sends the case back to the district court, President Trump has 45 days to seek a rehearing from the entire bench and 90 days to seek review from the Supreme Court on the appeals court ruling.
Branded an Improper Move
Prosecutors had originally argued that the defense could have deadlines paused but that the prosecution should “continue to shoulder its own burden” and meet the district court deadlines for pretrial motions.Defense attorneys called it an improper move to advance the case against President Trump in his absence.
Judge Chutkan had ruled against the prosecutors in halting all proceedings that would “impose burdens of litigation on defendant beyond what he already carries,” including additional discovery and briefings.
But the recent motions show that the prosecutors have continued to do just that, continuing litigation and serving discovery.
The defense asked to have prosecutors show why they shouldn’t have to cover the costs of this unanticipated litigation.
“Although President Trump has—consistent with his rights under the Stay Order—refused to accept or substantively respond to these violative documents, the only way to obtain compliance from recalcitrant prosecutors such as these is to force them to acknowledge their wrongdoing and affirmatively withdraw their offensive actions,” the motion reads.
“The court should require the prosecutors to ‘compensate [President Trump] for damages sustained as a result from noncompliance.’”
They argue that considering the harms that the special counsel has “imposed on the public” by violating the court order, the sanctions requested are “modest,” but a lesser amount wouldn’t “adequately deter the prosecutors’ misconduct.”
According to the motion, the special counsel office spent tens of millions of dollars on the case against President Trump already, including $9.2 million from Nov. 18, 2022, to March 31, 2023, according to disclosures.
“Although the prosecutors may scarcely feel the impact of paying President Trump’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses given the Biden administration’s blank check, at the very least it will signal that their continued violations will not come without cost,” the motion reads.
The Trump campaign stated after the filing that “no prosecutor is above the law.”
“Rather than respect the rule of law, Jack Smith unilaterally decided to disobey the Stay Order and continue with his harassing litigation, all done in order to keep parroting the pathetic Biden Campaign’s corrupt talking points in the name of election interference,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steve Cheung said.
As a result, President Trump is seeking to hold Mr. Smith in contempt of court, he said.
