Jack Smith asks judge to block Trump from making ‘partisan political attacks’ during trial

Jack Smith, Special Counsel to the District Court, has filed a new motion that seeks to limit what Donald Trump’s lawyers can say in front of a federal jury at his trial scheduled for March.

The motion filed on Wednesday by the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia seeks to limit the statements Trump may make in the lead-up to his March 4 federal trial for alleged interference with the 2020 election.

This includes a request that prevents Trump from telling a jury he’s being prosecuted in coordination with Biden by the DOJ, as well Trump’s suggestions of undercover agents inciting violence during the Capitol Riots and “foreign influences” in the 2020 elections.

The defense, through public statements, filings and arguments in hearings before this Court, has tried to inject into the case partisan political issues and irrelevant and prejudicial matters that have no business in a jury-trial,” Smith’s legal team told U.S. district judge Tanya Chutkan.


“While the Court may be able to recognize and ignore these efforts, the jury – if they were exposed to them – might not. The Court must not allow the defendant to use the courtroom to spread irrelevant disinformation and reject his attempts to inject politics in this proceeding. The defendant’s improper testimony and argument should not be allowed to enter the courtroom. This will ensure that the jury is focused on the fact-finding process and follows the Court’s instructions.

The filing states that Trump, “through his baseless demand for evidence regarding ‘investigative misconduct’,” “has suggested he intends impeachment the integrity of the investigations by raising wholly untrue claims such as non-existent Government ‘coordination’ with the Biden administration’ and other empty accusations recycled from the selectively vindictive prosecution action that he was based on anonymous newspaper articles.

“While the defendant has the right to cross-examine Government law enforcement witnesses on matters that are within their scope of direct testimony, he may not raise completely irrelevant topics to confuse or distract the jury. This trial should not be about politics, no matter how much the defendant might wish it to be. It is all about the facts, the law and the law enforcement witnesses.

The motion seeks both to stop Trump from informing jurors of the possible punishments he may face if found guilty, and also to blame law enforcement agencies for the lack of preparation prior the the riot on Jan. 6, at the Capitol.

Smith’s team stated in a filing about the riot that “evidence of undercover actors has no probative value.” The “defendant appears to be ready to blame undercover agents or government informants (collectively referred as “undercover actors”) for the violence on the Capitol grounds on January 6.

Fox News Digital contacted the Trump campaign to get a comment, but didn’t receive one immediately.

Prosecutors use the motion to prevent Trump from introducing large categories of arguments to try and set parameters for what they think the jury should or shouldn’t hear at trial. The motion was filed because the case has been put on hold while the appeal is being heard regarding the ex-president’s claim that he will not be prosecuted for actions taken in the White House.

Prosecutors wrote: “A bank robber can’t defend himself by blaming a bank security guard who failed to stop him.” A fraud defendant cannot tell the jury that their victims should not have fallen for his scam. The defendant can’t claim that the law enforcement agency should have prevented him from causing violence and obstructing his plans.

The Supreme Court refused to take part in this dispute at the moment last week, but on January 9th a federal appellate panel will hear arguments. The trial in Washington, D.C. federal court is scheduled to begin on March 4, but could be delayed if the appeals regarding immunity are successful.

Chutkan issued a partial gag against Trump in October, preventing him from making any statements that would be aimed at Smith, his staff or court personnel.

Chutkan stated that the former president has the right and ability to criticize Justice Department in a general sense, as well as to express his opinion on the case brought against him. The judge, however, said that Trump could not post any attacks on prosecutors or court personnel.

In December, a federal appeals court affirmed key portions of the gag order.

After the ruling, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “An Appeals Court just upheld in large part the Gag Order in the ridiculous J6 Case where the Unselect Committee destroyed and deleted almost all Documents and Evidence. They said that I could be banned from speaking and, in essence, telling the truth.”

“In other words: people can attack me violently or viciously, but I cannot respond in kind. What has become of our First Amendment? What is the fate of our country? “We will appeal this ruling!”

Trump has pleaded not guilt in federal court on all four federal charges stemming Smith’s investigation of 2020 election interference and Capitol Riot, Jan. 6, 2021.

The judge who presided over the New York Trump Organization case also issued a partial gag to prevent any verbal attacks by all parties against court staff, after Trump had criticized a judge’s employee on social media.

The New York gag orders was temporarily suspended by an appeals court, but reinstated in November.

“Merry christmas to everyone, including Crooked Joe Biden’s ONLY hope, Deranged Jack Smith. The out of control Lunatic, who has just hired outside lawyers, fresh from SWAMP! Trump asked Truth Social to assist him in his WITCH HUNT, which he had poorly executed against “MAGA” and “TRUMP”, as well as the out of control lunatic Deranged Jack Smith.