Jonathan Turley, a renowned legal authority and professor of constitutional law, exposes the latest effort by special counsel Jack Smith to curtail former President Donald Trump’s right to free expression.
Smith accuses Trump of handling secret information improperly and sparking a disturbance in the Capitol. He is now working to stop the criticism of the former president.
Smith requested a “narrowly tailored” gag order from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday in order to stop Trump from saying what Smith described as “disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses.”
Smith isn’t working alone, though, to keep Trump quiet. In his submission, he also added: “A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel to the defendant himself is particularly warranted.”
“Shortly after the indictment in this case was unsealed,” the filing said, “the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the jury.”
Professor Turley of the George Washington University Law School noted in a blog that appeared following Smith’s filing that the late President Ronald Regan’s “nine most terrifying words in the English language.” (“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”)
“After Friday night, we can add nine more: ‘a narrowly tailored order that imposes modest, permissible restrictions,’” he wrote.
“The Smith motion is anything but ‘narrowly tailored.’ Indeed, short of a mobile ‘Get Smart’ Cone of Silence, it is chilling to think of what Smith considered the broader option,” Turley continued, alluding to an espionage comedy from the 1960s starring Don Adams.
He continued:
Trump might “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” Smith’s 2020 federal election interference lawsuit, he warned District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C.
Smith attacks Trump for his remarks on the trial and compares them to the “disinformation” he disseminated following the 2020 election, a subject included in the indictment.
REVEALED: The 3 reasons you should NEVER use Vegetable Oils…
According to the petition, Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”
While the former president’s “inflammatory comments” regarding his cases have long drawn criticism from Turley, he continued by pointing out that the special counsel’s “solution” actually poses a serious threat to “core political speech” that is protected by the First Amendment and “in the middle of a presidential election.”
“Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration,” Turley wrote.
Although he doesn’t see the case in the same way, the legal professor stated he thinks that “Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.”
He said that Smith wants to outlaw comments “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.”
Gag orders are frequently utilized in high-profile federal cases, but they are neither “typical” or “usual” in the instances involving Trump.
“Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election,” Turley continued.
Trump’s lawsuit is being heard by U.S. District Judge Chutkan of the D.C. District, who previously stated, “I cannot and I will not factor into my decisions how it will factor into a political campaign,” as Turley pointed out.
“This motion, however, would impose substantial limits on a national political debate and begs the question of whether the court is failing to balance the rivaling constitutional interests in this unprecedented situation,” he said.
“It could not only test Chutkan’s position but prompt an early appeal,” he added, concluding: “There may be a judicial argument for gagging Trump, but it raises serious constitutional concerns. Is it really worth the cost?”
