ours after Donald Trump's legal team sought to loosen a proposed protective order, Special Counsel Jack Smith told a federal judge that the former president wants to litigate his election-interference case in the media rather than the courtroom.
"The defendant's proposed order would lead to the public dissemination of discovery material," Smith's assistant Thomas Windom wrote in an eight-page legal brief. "Indeed, that is the defendant's stated goal; the defendant seeks to use the discovery material to litigate this case in the media."
Fully written and entered into the court's record some two and a half hours after Trump's defense filing, the prosecution prepared its rejoinder in breakneck speed. The special counsel's swift and decisive response emphasizes that they want to remove any perceived stumbling block in the way of a speedy trial. It also shows how closely prosecutors have been monitoring the public statements of Trump and his lawyers.
[...]
A little more than an hour after the special counsel's filing, Chutkan ordered defense counsel and prosecutors to agree on a date for a hearing on the matter before the end of the week. The judge waived the requirement for Trump to appear at the hearing, where the government and defense team carved out opposing positions over the protective order.
[...]
The special counsel's legal brief extensively recounts the media tour of Trump's attorney John Lauro, who did the rounds over the weekend on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.
Prosecutors extensively quote his remarks for roughly a page and a half.
In a footnote, the special counsel noted that Trump's been talkative too, on his website Truth Social.
[...]
The government argued that their protective order would allow Trump to receive evidence immediately, while protecting their witnesses. Prosecutors argue that Trump's reply fundamentally misconstrues the purpose of the discovery process.
[...]
["T]here is no right to publicly release discovery material, because the discovery process is designed to ensure a fair process before the Court, not to provide the defendant an opportunity to improperly press his case in the court of public opinion."
[...]
"To safeguard witness privacy and the integrity of these proceedings, the Court should enter the Government’s proposed protective order," they wrote.
That Judge Chutkan acted quickly should be no surprise. She previously rejected Trump's request for a three-day extension of his deadline to oppose the protective order.
Messenger
UPDATE 08/08/2023:
No comments:
Post a Comment