Jack Smith’s request for a gag order on Trump denied in classified documents lawsuit

Judge Aileen Cannon rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s request that former President Donald Trump be barred from speaking about the law enforcement agents who searched his Florida home for classified documents.

On Friday, Smith requested that Trump be barred from talking about the law enforcement agents who searched his home for their safety. Cannon said Smith’s request was “wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy” due to the timing of the request.

“Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow adequate follow-up discussions as necessary,” Cannon wrote in response to Smith’s motion.

“Because the filing of the Special Counsel’s motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice,” Cannon said.

Cannon’s ruling echoes a motion Trump’s legal team filed on Monday, requesting Smith be sanctioned for his Friday evening request. They said the motion was filed Friday at 5:30 p.m. ahead of the Memorial Day weekend holiday, to which Trump’s team responded within 10 minutes.

“We noted the suspicious timing of the communication,” the filing from Trump’s legal team said. Trump’s lawyers said they offered to meet with Smith’s team Monday evening, to which the special counsel called a conferral a “fruitless exercise.”

On Friday afternoon, Smith requested a gag order against Trump because of the claim Trump made last week regarding the FBI agents who searched his home in August 2022, stating they were “authorized to shoot me” and were “locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.”

During the search, the FBI followed a standard use-of-force policy that prohibits the use of deadly force except when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject being searched has an intent to harm the officer or another person.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Cannon laid the groundwork for future motions and said failure to comply may result in sanctions.

“Any future, non-emergency motion brought in this case — whether on the topic of release conditions or anything else — shall not be filed absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral,” Cannon said.