\n<\/p>\n
In a routine court filing<\/a> Friday night, prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith<\/strong>\u2019s office alerted U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutka<\/strong>, who was assigned to preside over Donald Trump<\/strong>\u2019s latest indictment in Washington, D.C., to a threatening social media post the former president had made just hours earlier. \u201cIF YOU GO AFTER ME, I\u2019M COMING AFTER YOU!\u201d Trump wrote<\/a> on Truth Social.<\/p>\n The filing asked Chutka to impose a protective order over discovery evidence in the case, which concerns Trump\u2019s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and disrupt the electoral count on January 6, 2021. Smith\u2019s office, which also charged<\/a> Trump in the classified documents case currently unfolding in Florida, indicted<\/a> Trump with four criminal charges on Tuesday. The former president, who is currently a frontrunner in the Republican presidential primary, pleaded<\/a> not guilty to all counts on Thursday.<\/p>\n The requested order would prevent Trump and his legal team from speaking publicly about sensitive information in the materials compiled by the special counsel\u2019s office. A protective order is different from a so-called \u201cgag order,\u201d which would prevent him from discussing the case publicly at all. Smith\u2019s office has not requested the latter, though D.C. federal court rules would allow Chutka to impose one.<\/p>\n In Friday\u2019s filing, prosecutors claimed to have \u201ca large amount of sensitive and confidential material\u201d that it was prepared to send to Trump\u2019s legal team. The material includes witness testimony, subpoena returns, and evidence obtained through search warrants.<\/p>\n Protective orders are fairly standard in criminal cases, but Smith\u2019s office wrote that one would be \u201cparticularly important\u201d in Trump\u2019s case, as he \u201chas previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.\u201d The request noted that Trump had already issued multiple social media posts that \u201ceither specifically or by implication\u201d referenced the D.C. indictment, including the Truth Social post from earlier Friday evening.<\/p>\n Earlier in the week, Trump wrote<\/a> on the social media site that \u201cDems don\u2019t want to run against me or they would not be doing this unprecedented weaponization of \u2018Justice.\u2019 BUT SOON, IN 2024, IT WILL BE OUR TURN. MAGA!\u201d Revenge and retribution have been favorite themes of Trump\u2019s campaign: At his first rally in March, the former president said<\/a>, \u201cI am your warrior, I am your justice\u2026I am your retribution.\u201d<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s office argued that if Trump \u201cwere to begin issuing public posts using details\u201d from discovery, it could exert \u201ca harmful chilling effect\u201d on witnesses as the case unfolds.<\/p>\n An unsigned statement<\/a> from a Trump spokesperson defended the Truth Social post as the definition of political speech,\u201d and claimed it \u201cwas in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth\u201d and not in response to the D.C. case.<\/p>\n While prosecutors are hoping to start the trial before the end of the calendar year, Trump\u2019s legal team has claimed<\/a> that the \u201cmassive amount of discovery and information\u201d in the case makes a speedy trial date impossible. Trump\u2019s legal team is also expected to file a motion to move the trial out of the nation\u2019s capital. Chutkan has said she will set a trial date on August 28.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n