Jack Smith has requested a new gag order, claiming that Trump may have violated the terms of his release in a viral Glock video.

Special⁢ Counsel Requests Gag Order on Trump, Citing Viral Glock Video

Special counsel⁢ Jack Smith is once‍ again seeking a gag order against former ⁢President Donald Trump. Smith argues that Trump’s recent remarks against retiring Army Gen. Mark Milley and the‍ judge overseeing his case, along⁤ with a viral video showing Trump expressing interest in purchasing a​ firearm, warrant the need⁣ for a gag order.

In ‍a recent motion filed in court, Smith requested ⁢a limited gag order on Trump and his⁤ legal team.​ A hearing on this request is scheduled for October ‍16th.

The motion references a video that⁢ captured Trump at a ⁣gun⁤ store, admiring a Glock with his likeness engraved on it. Trump⁢ can be heard saying,‍ “I want to ⁢buy ‌one.”​ Guns featuring Trump’s likeness have been popular sellers.

Initially, a spokesman for Trump’s campaign claimed that Trump ⁣had⁣ purchased the ‌gun, ⁤but later retracted the statement, clarifying​ that Trump had only expressed a desire to own one.

Smith⁤ argues⁢ that Trump’s actions may constitute a violation of his conditions of‍ release or ⁤an attempt⁣ to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he purchased the firearm.

Trump currently faces‍ 91 felony charges across four different criminal⁤ cases. Smith points out that it is against federal law⁢ for ⁢an individual⁤ under ‍felony indictment to buy a firearm.

In addition to the viral​ video, Smith⁢ cites Trump’s recent comments accusing Milley of treason and his criticism of the judge presiding over ​his case as reasons‌ for the gag order.

Smith⁣ asserts that no other ⁢criminal defendant would be allowed⁤ to publicly insinuate that a witness in their ‍case ⁢should be executed, and Trump should⁢ not be an exception.

Smith also highlights Trump’s social⁢ media comments about​ the judge and his office,​ arguing that the proposed‍ gag order would ⁤not⁢ unconstitutionally silence Trump but rather prevent further prejudicial statements.

The request ⁢for a gag order⁢ will be considered in the‍ upcoming hearing.

The post Jack Smith’s New Gag Order Request ⁢Cites‌ Trump ‘Potentially Violating Terms of Release’ in Viral Glock ⁤Video appeared first on⁢ The Western⁤ Journal.

How could Trump’s public statements potentially prejudice the jury pool⁢ and hinder a fair trial in his case?

Der to be imposed on Trump. ‌Smith stated that Trump’s ongoing public statements, particularly those made‌ against Gen. Milley and the judge, could potentially prejudice the jury pool ⁤and hinder a fair trial. Furthermore, Smith emphasized that the viral video of Trump expressing interest in acquiring a firearm added further justification for the need to restrict his ‌communication.

The special counsel’s motion referred to⁢ Trump’s controversial comments on Gen. Milley, who recently retired from his position as Chairman ⁤of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Trump⁢ criticized the general for his alleged involvement in strategic decisions during⁣ Trump’s administration and accused him‍ of being ineffective in ⁣handling foreign affairs. These public statements, according to Smith, could influence public opinion⁣ and subsequently poison ⁢the potential jury pool.

Additionally, Smith highlighted Trump’s remarks regarding the judge overseeing his case. Trump questioned‍ the judge’s impartiality and fair judgement, suggesting potential bias. Smith argued that these comments‌ made in the public⁣ domain could taint ⁢the court proceedings ‍and undermine the judicial process.

Furthermore, the special counsel ‌pointed to a viral⁤ video circulating on social media that showed Trump expressing ‍interest in purchasing a Glock firearm. Smith argued that the ‍visual​ evidence of Trump’s intent to acquire a weapon could raise concerns about his potential for incitement or intimidation.

By requesting a limited gag order, Smith aims ‍to‍ restrict Trump’s ability to publicly discuss the ongoing legal proceedings⁢ against him. The potential order would not completely silence Trump but would instead ‌limit​ his ability to make statements ⁣that could prejudice the case or pose a threat to public safety.

It is important to note ‍that issuing a⁢ gag order on a public​ figure, particularly a former president, is a sensitive matter that must be carefully deliberated. The court must balance the defendant’s right to ‍free speech against the​ potential harm‌ caused⁣ by the dissemination of biased ‍or inflammatory statements.

In response to Smith’s motion, Trump’s‌ legal team argued against the imposition of a ⁣gag order, asserting that it would infringe upon their client’s First Amendment rights. They maintained that Trump’s public‍ comments were his legitimate exercise of free speech and that he should not ​be penalized for⁣ expressing his opinions.

This ⁣latest development in the legal battle between the special counsel ‌and⁢ Donald Trump underscores the intense scrutiny surrounding the former president’s actions and statements. ⁤The decision on whether to grant a gag order will involve a thorough examination of⁤ the potential impact on the‍ judicial process and the balance between protecting a fair trial and upholding free speech rights.

As the case unfolds, ​it remains to be seen how the court will respond to the special counsel’s request for a gag order. In a time of heightened tension and divided political ​discourse, this legal battle raises important questions about the role of free speech in the context of ‌high-profile ⁤criminal investigations and trials.