Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice workplace in Washington. Federal prosecutors within the case charging Trump with scheming to overturn the 2020 election are in search of an order that will prohibit the previous president from “inflammatory” and “intimidating” feedback about witnesses, legal professionals and the choose.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

cover caption

toggle caption

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice workplace in Washington. Federal prosecutors within the case charging Trump with scheming to overturn the 2020 election are in search of an order that will prohibit the previous president from “inflammatory” and “intimidating” feedback about witnesses, legal professionals and the choose.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors within the case charging Donald Trump with scheming to overturn the 2020 presidential election are in search of an order that will prohibit the previous president from “inflammatory” and “intimidating” feedback about witnesses, legal professionals and the choose.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s workforce stated in a movement filed Friday that such a “narrow, well-defined” order was essential to protect the integrity of the case and to keep away from prejudicing potential jurors.

“Since the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, the defendant has repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses,” prosecutors wrote. “Through his statements, the defendant threatens to undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool.”

They stated Trump’s efforts to weaken religion within the courtroom system and the administration of justice mirror his assaults on the 2020 election, which he falsely claimed that he had received.

“The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case — to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses,” they wrote.

Among the statements cited by prosecutors of their movement is a a put up on his Truth Social platform days after the indictment by which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” He has additionally repeatedly alleged on social media that the case in opposition to him is “rigged” and that he can’t obtain a good trial. And he has attacked in private phrases the prosecutors bringing the case — calling Smith “deranged” and his workforce “thugs” — in addition to the choose presiding over the case, Tanya Chutkan.

A Trump spokesperson stated in a press release that prosecutors had been “corruptly and cynically continuing to attempt to deprive President Trump of his First Amendment rights.

“This is nothing greater than blatant election interference as a result of President Trump is by far the main candidate on this race. The American folks — the voters — see proper by means of this un-Constitutional charade and can ship President Trump again to the White House,” the spokesperson said.

The issue surfaced last week with the disclosure by the Justice Department that it sought to file a motion related to “day by day” public statements by Trump that it said it feared would taint the jury pool. Chutkan on Friday granted permission to prosecutors to file a redacted motion publicly, with names and identifying information of individuals who say they’ve been harassed as a result of Trump’s attacks blacked out.

Also Friday, Smith’s workforce pushed again in opposition to the Trump workforce request to have Chutkan recuse herself from the case. Defense legal professionals had cited prior feedback from Chutkan that they are saying forged doubt on her capability to be honest, however prosecutors responded that there was no legitimate foundation for her to step apart.