Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argued on Friday against reinstating a silencing order in his ongoing civil fraud case.
In a prior document, a New York court security official recommended that the previously suspended silencing order on Trump should be reactivated. This suggestion came after claims of “credible” threats to the safety of the trial’s presiding judge, Arthur Engoron of the state Supreme Court, and his chief law clerk, Allison Greenfield.
Trump’s legal team contends that any threats made by “unrelated individuals” are not pertinent to the silencing order.
In a communication to the clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Trump’s lawyers stated, “Up to this point, the prosecution has not presented any proof of supposed ‘threats’ or ‘harassment’ towards any prosecutor, court staff, or potential witness in this matter. This lack of substantial evidence does not meet the criteria needed to enforce a prior restraint.”
They added, “Furthermore, the referred to declaration, though not relevant, acknowledges that ‘Mr. Trump did not personally threaten Ms. Greenfield,’ and instead refers to the utterances of unidentified, separate third parties. This illustrates that the prosecution’s attempt is to create ‘a speech restriction based on how the audience reacts,’ which ‘amounts to nothing more than government antagonism and interference in another form.'”
An appellate judge in New York recently halted a silencing order that prohibited Trump from making public statements about court personnel in the civil fraud lawsuit. Judge Engoron had initially implemented this order last month and subsequently imposed a $15,000 fine on Trump for infringements, following a negative social media remark made by Trump about a court clerk.
Charles Hollon, part of New York’s Public Safety Department’s Judicial Threats Assessment Unit, provided information that Cecil W. VanDevender, assistant special counsel, shared with D.C. Circuit Clerk Mark Langer on Thursday.
Trump’s legal team labeled the charges and the silencing order as “interference in the election.”
Trump also faces the potential reactivation of a silencing order in his criminal case, which involves accusations of his attempts to alter the 2020 election outcomes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit heard arguments from both parties on Monday, but has yet to make a decision.
The verdict will define the limits of what Trump, who is both a criminal defendant and a prominent contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is permitted to express as the trial date approaches.
On Friday, Trump’s attorneys stated, “The special counsel has filed a provocative, unlawful charge; has issued deceptive and incorrect statements about President Trump; and has disclosed confidential details with the intent to damage President Trump.”
They argued, “Both the charge and the silencing order are unconstitutional efforts to mute President Trump; they unmistakably constitute interference in the election.”
