Prosecutors say silence is necessary to prevent Trump from inviting a “violent act” against law enforcement.

Prosecutors told the judge in Donald Trump’s federal classified documents case Monday that limited silence was necessary to prevent the former president from inviting a “violent act” against law enforcement officers. laws involved in the case.

While Deputy Special Counsel David Harbach attempted to demonstrate that Trump was aware of the “predictable response of some of his supporters” when he made false statements about the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 – including a campaign statement that President Joe Biden was locked down and loaded ready to take me out and put my family in danger” — Judge Aileen Cannon challenged the prosecutor to produce evidence and justify the constitutionality of the proposed silence order.

“The most important thing is that he speaks about an event that is at the heart of this case in completely misleading terms,” Harbach argued. “The government cannot conceive of any reason why Mr. Trump would say something so false…and inviting violent retaliation.”

“Where on the attachments do you see a call for violence?” Cannon responded after criticizing prosecutors for failing to produce enough evidence of a pattern of conduct drawn from Trump’s other criminal and civil cases.

Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 counts related to his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and had taken steps to thwart government efforts to recover the documents. . Trump has denied all accusations and denounced the investigation as a political witch hunt.

Cannon pressed the argument that changing Trump’s release conditions — rather than a standalone silence order as in the former president’s federal election interference case — would avoid First Amendment issues .

“Must release conditions always comply with the Constitution? asked Cannon. “The First Amendment is in the Constitution.”

Cannon also expressed skepticism about the impact of Trump’s statements on law enforcement officers, pointing out that any public records included redactions of law enforcement officers’ names and identifying information. laws. Harbach responded by claiming that some agents were previously doxxed and called Trump’s recent statements “beyond irresponsible.”

Harbach argued that there was “great danger between now and trial… that some sort of violent act will occur” because of Trump’s conduct, and said Cannon must impose restrictions on Trump’s speech to protect the integrity of the proceedings. When Cannon suggested waiting until the trial to impose restrictions on free speech, Harbach argued that immediate action was necessary.

“The die has already been cast … because of the defendant’s behavior,” Harbach said.

The first hour of the hearing became contentious at times, as Cannon pushed Harbach for evidence and details.

“I don’t like your tone,” Cannon told Harbach at one point. “I expect decorum in this courtroom at all times. »

“I didn’t mean to be unprofessional. I apologize for that,” Harbach said later.

Special prosecutor’s request for quiet order follows a month of escalating rhetoric from Trump over federal agents’ use-of-force policy during their August 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate searching for classified documents.

In a filing last month, Smith argued that Trump’s statements that law enforcement officers were “complicit in a plot to assassinate him” were intentionally false and misleading, and “put a target on the backs of FBI agents.”

Trump’s defense attorneys responded to the request by saying prosecutors failed to demonstrate that Trump’s statements resulted in material threats or harassment against law enforcement.

Echoing the former president’s defense of the limited silence order in his New York hush money criminal case, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the proposed silence order — which they characterize as ” shocking display of excess and contempt for the Constitution” — amounts to a political act. interference by limiting Trump’s statements ahead of this week’s presidential debate and July’s Republican National Convention.

“(T)he motion is a blatant attempt to impose totalitarian censorship of core political speech, under threat of incarceration, in a clear attempt to silence President Trump’s arguments to the American people about the scandalous nature of this investigation and prosecution,” defense attorneys said. said in a June filing.

The gag hearing, conducted by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, follows this morning’s continuation of Friday’s hearing in which defense attorneys are seeking to have the case dismissed relating to the documents on the grounds that Smith was illegally appointed special counsel.

“False and extremely dangerous”

Trump’s recent public statements related to the search at Mar-a-Lago, in which agents found more than 100 documents with classified markings, highlighted the use-of-force policy in place during the raid, which Trump repeatedly associated him with the “Biden Justice Department.” “.

Prosecutors say law enforcement enforced the Justice Department’s standard use-of-force policy, which authorizes the use of force “when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person doing the the object of such force presents imminent danger of death or serious injury. officer or another person.

In his documents, Smith also emphasized that the searches were timed during the off-season, when Trump and his family were not present at Mar-a-Lago, and were conducted in coordination with the Secret Service and Mar staff. -a-Lago. that Trump’s lawyer was informed before the search was carried out.

In a rare public rebuke, the FBI released a statement last month confirming that law enforcement used standard protocols related to the use of deadly force during the raid, adding that “no one ordered any measures other than “additional measures are taken and there have been no deviations from the rules.” standard in this area.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland also called accusations that the DOJ authorized Trump’s assassination “false and extremely dangerous” and added that the same policy was in place during the search of President Biden’s home during the investigation into its retention of classified documents.

Threats against law enforcement

Prosecutors stressed that the proposed silence order against Trump would be narrowly limited – only prohibiting Trump from speaking falsely about “FBI agents intending to assassinate him and his family” – in order to protect the safety of law enforcement officials.

To illustrate the threat against law enforcement officials, prosecutors claimed that Trump’s rhetoric encouraged a supporter to threaten an FBI agent associated with the Hunter Biden case, including threatening that his supporters would “come after you” and “would slaughter you” if Trump didn’t do it. win the 2024 elections.

Prosecutors also argued that a Trump supporter attacked an FBI field office in Cincinnati with an AR-15 and a nail gun in August 2022 after the Mar-a-Lago raid — an attack that prosecutors say prosecutors, had been partially fueled by Trump’s comments on social media. media after the raid.

Defense attorneys wrote that Trump engaged in his “constitutionally protected campaign speech” and that prosecutors failed to prove that Trump’s statements directly resulted in threats or harassment.

In addition to highlighting two instances of threats or violence, prosecutors have largely argued that Trump’s inflammatory language about the raid created a “combustible atmosphere” that poses an immediate risk to law enforcement.

“No court would tolerate another defendant deliberately creating such immediate risks to the safety of law enforcement, and this Court should not wait for a tragic event before acting in this case,” prosecutors said in a file last week.

Trump’s other orders of silence

Trump has generally been unsuccessful in challenging the hush orders imposed in his other criminal and civil cases, sometimes obtaining stays of the orders but failing to overturn them as unconstitutional.

New York’s highest court declined to take up Trump’s challenge to the gag order in Trump’s civil fraud case, which barred Trump from making comments about court personnel.

Last week, the same court refused to immediately consider Trump’s challenge to the hush money order in his New York hush money case — which bars Trump from making statements about jurors, witnesses and others people involved in the case – after determining that “no substantial substance is directly involved” in Trump’s challenge. Last month, a mid-level appeals court ruled that the silencing order “properly balanced the petitioner’s First Amendment rights against the court’s historic commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice.” .

Trump also unsuccessfully challenged the gag order in his federal election interference case, which barred making statements about prosecutors other than Smith, witnesses and courthouse staff.

“Given the record of this case, the court had a duty to act proactively to prevent the creation of a climate of fear or intimidation aimed at preventing trial participants and personnel from carrying out their duties at the within the trial process,” said a Court of Appeal panel. Judges in Washington, D.C., wrote in an order last year upholding the silence.