Donald Trump’s defense lawyers hurled accusations back and forth with prosecutors only days after his arraignment on federal charges of obstructing the 2020 election over delays and the protection of evidence — a sign both sides are digging in for a bitter courtroom fight.
Trump’s attorneys across his criminal prosecutions in New York, Florida, and Washington are adopting their client’s brawler style, in and out of court. In TV hits they’ve accused prosecutors of misconduct and echoed the former president’s claims of a political witch hunt. Their tone in court briefs is a bit more subdued, but still aggressive.
Prosecutors on Special Counsel John “Jack” Smith’s team haven’t been shy about throwing punches either.
The latest fracas is over what steps the federal judge in Washington presiding over the election interference case should take to ensure evidence isn’t shared with the public until the appropriate time. The judge set a deadline of 5 p.m. Monday for Trump’s input. It’s typically not a controversial phase in a criminal case, but became a source of tension less than a week after a grand jury indicted Trump on Aug. 1.
Read More: Trump Indicted on Federal Charges in 2020 Election Probe
Trump’s lawyers accused the government of rushing and failing to give them time to negotiate what language the judge should adopt. Prosecutors said Trump’s lawyers were seeking “unnecessary delay to normal order.”
“The Government stands ready to press send on a discovery production. The defendant is standing in the way,” prosecutors wrote in an Aug. 5 filing.
The dispute had started on Aug. 4, when prosecutors filed a notice with US District Judge Tanya Chutkan that they were prepared to “immediately” turn over a “substantial amount” of evidence — including “sensitive and confidential material” — to Trump once the judge signed off on what’s known as a protective order.
They argued that an order preventing the “improper dissemination” of evidence was important because of Trump’s history posting on social media about his legal entanglements and the “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others” involved.
As an example, they included a screenshot of a Trump post on his social media outlet Truth Social that day that read: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
Read More: Prosecutors Alert Judge to Trump’s ‘Coming After You!’ Post
“If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details — or, for example, grand jury transcripts — obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” prosecutors wrote.
The government laid out a timeline, saying they sent a proposal to Trump’s lawyers on Aug. 2. Trump’s lawyers responded two days later with alternative language that the government didn’t believe would protect “numerous categories of sensitive materials,” including grand jury information and sealed search warrants.
Later that day, the government said it sent Trump’s lawyers “compromise” language and alerted the defense team that they would submit it to the judge that evening.
On Aug. 5, Trump’s lawyers responded arguing the government “entertained no discussion” and “demanded an immediate, take-it-or-leave-it response.” They attached copies of email correspondence showing the government sent its pitch shortly after 6 p.m. local time.
They asked Chutkan to extend a Aug. 7 deadline for the defense to respond and suggest changes to the government’s proposed protective order until Aug. 10. They said they would use that time to engage in “good faith” negotiations.
“Friday evening ultimatums, given by the government before even calling defense counsel, are wholly unproductive and undermine the potential for party-driven resolutions,” Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche wrote.
In a footnote, they called it part of a “concerning pattern” that was “plainly improper” after a federal judge in Florida chastised Smith’s office for not giving Trump’s team enough time to meet on the protective order in a separate case there. Trump is charged in Florida with mishandling state secrets and obstruction.
Prosecutors hit back with the claim that Trump’s lawyers were proposing “unnecessary delay.” They wrote that the defense spent time drafting arguments for why they didn’t have time to review the government’s proposal “rather than spend time complying with the Court’s order.”
Chutkan ultimately declined to change the Aug. 7 deadline, but said the two sides could continue to confer after Trump filed his response. On Monday morning before his lawyers had filed anything, Trump offered a preview of the next round of the fight, posting on Truth Social that a protective order “would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH.”
