Attorneys for Former President Trump Reject Gag Order, Claim He Must Be Able to Campaign for 2024 Nomination
Attorneys representing former president Donald Trump have criticized the request made by U.S. prosecutors for a narrow gag order that would prevent him from attacking participants in the criminal case charging him with conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The defense team argues that Trump should be free to campaign for the Republican nomination in 2024.
Trump’s response comes after the government’s request was made public on September 15, in which special counsel Jack Smith was called “a deranged person” by the former president. In a court filing in Washington, D.C., Trump’s attorneys took a more measured approach, stating that the court should reject the motion entirely.
The defense team emphasized the First Amendment issues at play and requested a hearing at the earliest opportunity. This marks the beginning of a recurring battle in Trump’s multiple state and federal criminal cases and highlights the challenges faced by prosecutors and judges in their attempts to prosecute a former American president and active candidate.
Prosecutors from Smith’s office asked U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to prevent Trump from spreading prejudicial pretrial publicity. They expressed concern that his continuous statements sow lies that incite violence and undermine democracy, suggesting he is doing so once again by targeting the judicial system.
Trump argues that he is a victim of political persecution and claims that his political speech and candidacy should be protected by the Constitution.
The prosecutors request three specific limitations on Trump’s actions: prohibiting him from attacking participants in the case, discussing potential witnesses’ testimony or credibility beyond what his defense presents in court, and surveying potential jurors without prior court approval to avoid bias.
Prosecutors argued that by publicly attacking individuals and institutions, Trump encourages threats and harassment against his targets. They cited the fear experienced by jurors serving in trials related to the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, claiming that Trump’s statements have fueled threats and intimidation.
The defense rejected claims of intimidation, stating that there is no substantial likelihood of material prejudice that would prevent a fair trial by an impartial jury. In response to the prosecutors’ request for restrictions, Trump’s attorneys asked for Judge Chutkan to recuse herself from the case, alleging bias based on her previous statements regarding the January 6 events.
This is the first time prosecutors have sought to restrict Trump’s public statements in his federal election obstruction case. While gag orders are not unusual in criminal cases, the decision to request this in Washington, D.C. suggests that prosecutors want to test the constitutional questions at stake.
Judges typically monitor the statements of criminal defendants to prevent witness intimidation or biasing potential jurors. However, treating Trump like any other defendant becomes complicated by his status as a political candidate and his powerful platform, making him a frontrunner for the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination.
Trump currently faces four pending criminal cases, including federal prosecutions in D.C. and Florida, a state court case in Georgia, and a case in New York related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The question of whether Trump should be held accountable through the ballot box or by a jury is not limited to his criminal cases. Courts are grappling with Trump’s attempts to shift the focus from his conduct to that of his legal and political adversaries.
Last week, a state judge in Denver issued a protective order limiting statements by Trump and other parties in a lawsuit seeking to block his presidential candidacy due to alleged ineligibility under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The judge prohibited actions that could be seen as threatening, intimidating, or attempting to coerce other parties or witnesses.
The case in Colorado centers around a provision in the 14th Amendment aimed at preventing traitorous former Confederates from regaining power. Similar lawsuits have been filed or are being explored in at least a dozen states, alleging that Trump’s involvement in the Capitol attack constitutes rebellion. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court may ultimately resolve this dispute.
The defense and prosecution will continue to argue their respective positions as the legal battles surrounding Trump’s criminal cases and candidacy for the 2024 election unfold.