Donald Trump’s lawyers argued on Monday that the proposed prohibition on the former president discussing evidence and witnesses in his criminal case was overly restrictive and could unfairly impact his presidential campaign.
In a court filing, attorneys Susan Necheles, Joe Tacopina, and Todd Blanche criticized the Manhattan District Attorney’s proposed protective order as unprecedented and excessively broad. They emphasized that such an order would violate Trump’s First Amendment rights to freely discuss his character and qualifications for federal office, as well as the rights of the American people to hear his side of the story.
The filing was in response to the prosecutors’ motion to prevent Trump from publicly disclosing evidence that would be turned over to his defense team as the case proceeds to trial next year. Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw argued that safeguards were necessary, given the substantial risk that Trump would use them inappropriately. McCaw requested that the defense be limited to using discovery materials solely for trial purposes and that Trump view the evidence only in the presence of his lawyers.
McCaw pointed to Trump’s history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, which put these individuals and their families at considerable safety risk. She cited Trump’s criticisms of his former personal attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels, who are expected to be key witnesses in the case.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Cohen and Daniels have publicly criticized him and discussed the evidence for years without any restrictions. They contended that the proposed protective order unfairly limited the defense from discussing the evidence publicly while not placing similar restrictions on prosecutors or witnesses.
Trump has consistently claimed that his indictment is a politically motivated “witch hunt” orchestrated by a racist district attorney. His lawyers argued for a scaled-down version of the proposed protective order, suggesting it was unnecessary given the lack of evidence showing Trump’s misuse of discovery materials in the past.