Special Counsel Raises Concerns Over Trump’s Recent Statements and Possible Violation of Firearm Purchase Laws
Former President Trump’s recent public statements attacking prosecutors and potential witnesses in his federal election interference case have raised concerns from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office. In a filing on Friday, Smith’s office highlighted Trump’s statements, suggesting they could pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the case. Additionally, they raised concerns that Trump may have violated a law prohibiting individuals under felony indictment from purchasing firearms.
One example cited in the filing was Trump’s visit to a firearms dealer in South Carolina, where he was caught potentially violating his conditions of release by stating he was going to buy a Glock and posing with it. Although Trump’s spokesperson later clarified that he did not actually purchase the firearm, Trump reposted a video from one of his followers suggesting that he did buy the gun. Smith’s office pointed out that purchasing a gun while under felony indictment would be a separate federal crime and a violation of Trump’s conditions of release.
The filing also mentioned several posts on Trump’s Truth Social platform attacking a Special Counsel prosecutor, former Vice President Mike Pence, and Mark Milley. Trump’s attacks on the Court and individual prosecutors could subject them to threats and potentially influence jurors’ views on the propriety of the prosecution, according to Smith’s office. They argued that Trump’s continuing public statements about witnesses could also materially prejudice a fair trial.
Smith’s office responded to Trump’s opposition to the proposed gag order, disputing his claim that they are trying to unconstitutionally silence him. They emphasized that their proposed narrow gag order would not hinder Trump’s ability to campaign or maintain his innocence publicly. The purpose of the order would be to limit Trump’s use of his candidacy as a cover for making prejudicial public statements about the case.
Trump’s attorneys argued against the request for a gag order, asserting that it infringes on his First Amendment rights and suggesting political motivations from Smith’s office due to Trump’s standing in the 2024 presidential race. They called the motion a transparent gamesmanship and urged the court to deny it.
In the ongoing case, Trump pleaded not guilty to charges related to alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. The charges include undertaking a criminal scheme by enlisting so-called fake electors, conducting sham election crime investigations through the Justice Department, trying to enlist the vice president to alter the results, and promoting false claims of a stolen election during the January 6 riot.
As the legal proceedings continue, the concerns raised by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office regarding Trump’s statements and potential violation of firearm purchase laws add another layer of complexity to an already closely watched case. The court will now have to consider the arguments presented by both sides and make a decision regarding the proposed gag order and other related matters.
