AP – Donald Trump’s legal team told a judge overseeing the election conspiracy case against him on Monday that prosecutors’ proposed protective order aimed at preventing the public disclosure of evidence is too broad and would restrict his First Amendment rights.
Lawyers for the early 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner said in court papers that the judge should impose a more limited order that would bar the public release only of materials deemed “sensitive” – such as grand jury documents – rather than all evidence handed over by the government in the case accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team quickly countered with their own filing accusing Trump of objecting to their proposal because he wants to be able to use the government’s evidence to “try the case in the media rather than in the courtroom”.
United States (US) District Judge Tanya Chutkan said later on Monday that she would hold a hearing on the dueling proposals, and that Trump would not have to attend.
Prosecutors asked on Friday for the protective order, which would impose rules on what Trump and his defence team can do with evidence shared by the government as they prepare for trial in the case unsealed last week.
Smith’s prosecution team has said a protective order – not unusual in criminal cases – is particularly important in Trump’s case because of his penchant for social media.
They have expressed concern that Trump could improperly share sensitive case information online that could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses.” In their filing on Friday, prosecutors included a screenshot of a post from Trump’s Truth Social platform that same day in which he wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”
Trump’s lawyers said citing that post to claim there’s a danger that Trump might publish secret grand jury information was “a provocative claim when searching for headlines, perhaps, but one that falters under minimal scrutiny”.
The former president’s legal team said his post was “generalised political speech” and had nothing to do with the case.
A Trump spokesperson said last week that the post was in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs”.
Trump’s lawyers, who have characterised the case as an attack on his right to free speech, told the judge that the need to protect sensitive information about the case “does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government”.
