In a new filing to bolster his previous arguments for a limited gag order against Trump from threatening potential witnesses and parties in his J6 case, the Special Counsel’s office cited Trump’s Truth Social post where he insanely claimed that General Mark Milley was guilty of treason and should be executed.
September Attacks:
- On September 5, shortly before the Government filed its motion, the defendant posted an article on the social media platform Truth Social, on which the defendant has more than 6 million followers, making claims about the Court with the sarcastic caption, “Oh, I’m sure she will be very fair” and an article circulating a false accusation against a Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor with the caption, “Really corrupt!” 3
- On September 6, on Truth Social, the defendant issued two posts attacking the former Vice President, a witness identified in the indictment, in relation to this case, saying that he had seen the Vice President “make up stories about me, which are absolutely false,” and that the witness had gone to the “Dark Side”;4
- In an interview aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on September 17,5 the defendant answered questions for more than an hour, and said, among other things:
- That the Georgia Secretary of State, a witness identified in the indictment,recently said things that he had not, including that the defendant “didn’t do anything wrong” during a phone call constituting an overt act in the indictment;
- That another witness identified in the indictment, the former Attorney General, “didn’t do his job” during the charged conspiracy because he was afraid of being impeached;
- On September 22, on Truth Social, the defendant falsely claimed that the retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a witness cited in the indictment, had committed treason and suggested that he should be executed:6
- On September 23, on Truth Social, the defendant re-posted with the caption “What a mess!” the false claim that the Georgia Secretary of State “knew [of tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in Georgia in 2020] and covered it up”;7 and
- On September 26, on Truth Social, the defendant posted a link to an article singling out a specific prosecutor in the Special Counsel’s Office and claiming that the SCO is a “team of Lunatics that are working so hard on creating Election Interference . . . ”
The defendant’s baseless attacks on the Court and two individual prosecutors not only could subject them to threats—it also could cause potential jurors to develop views about the propriety of the prosecution, an improper consideration for a juror prior to trial.
Then there is Footnote 9:
The defendant recently was caught potentially violating his conditions of release, and tried to walk that back in similar fashion. In particular, on September 25, the defendant’s campaign spokesman posted a video of the defendant in the Palmetto State Armory, a Federal Firearms Licensee in Summerville, South Carolina. The video posted by the spokesman showed the defendant holding a Glock pistol with the defendant’s likeness etched into it. The defendant stated, “I’ve got to buy one,” and posed for pictures with the FFL owners. The defendant’s spokesman captioned the video Tweet with the representation that the defendant had purchased the pistol, exclaiming, “President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” The spokesman subsequently deleted the post and retracted his statement, saying that the defendant “did not purchase or take possession of the firearm” (a claim directly contradicted by the video showing the defendant possessing the pistol). See Fox News, Trump campaign walks back claim former president purchased Glock amid questions about legality (Sept. 25, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-walks-back-claim-former-president- purchased-glock-amid-questions-about-legality (accessed Sept. 26, 2023). Despite his spokesperson’s retraction, the Defendant then re-posted a video of the incident posted by one of his followers with the caption, “MY PRESIDENT Trump just bought a Golden Glock before his rally in South Carolina after being arrested 4 TIMES in a year.”
The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so. It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).
