the jack smith coup trial. jack

when is jack smith going to do something about it? it turns out, jack smith did something about it weeks ago, in making his filing, which was under seal. we are not sure exactly how long ago he did it. but it turns out they saw provocation enough weeks ago. >> exactly. so, listen, this is all about basic fairness. if any of us work used of a crime, the one thing we would care about in this country is our right to a fair trial. as indicated, there is no way in the world that donald trump is being asked to shut up about his innocence, that he is being precluded from putting out evidence, from showing up at his own trial, if he chooses to do so. all we have got here is the attempt to try and level the playing field. and that means, don't scare the witnesses, don't scare the parties. don't scare potential jurors. if you are going to do jury research, do it fairly. don't go out and spread lies. so, again, at the end of the day, once again, the idea is for mr. trump not to pervert an american institution, and something we care about, just l

jack smith foresaw that back in april, and the picture painted by jack smith in this filing that's beenealed today is that donald trump is like a mob boss, someone who is just bent on trying to prevent trials, trying to prevent testimony from coming out, the guy is a afraid of the truth coming out in court. >> so neal katyal, yesterday, just to pick up on your point about trump as a mob boss. pete strzok made the pretty haunting observation that the fbi now has to protect itself, certain agents working on the hunter biden investigation, for example, have to be protected by a special unit inside the fbi. and pete strzok made the point that even need to create and erect a special unit inside the fbi to protect the agents who were working on those cases. we're almost in post-mob parallels. i want to read from the indictment about the violence and the call and answer from trump to the insurrectionists. this is from jack smith's indictment of trump on the january 6th charges. at 2:24 p.m. after advisers had left the defendant alone in his dining room, quote, mike pence didn't have the courag

also in jack smith's filing today on page 7, and this is from the examples jack smith writes this. the defendant has posted repeated inflammatory attacks on the judicial system, the court, and the citizens of the district of columbia who comprise the jury pool in this case. quote, that the court is rigged against him, that the quote is fraud dressed up in washington, d.c. who is a radical obama hacked or is biased trump hating judge and that he can't get a fair trial from the residents of this filthy and crime ridden district that is over 95% anti-trump. and then the exhibits are just that, in trump's own words, quote, the obama appointed judge and free speech by me shared

>> the prosecutor, jack smith, is saying to the court, look.ngerous ways. prejudicing the jury, pool prejudicing witnesses, and alike. and so jack smith as file this piece of paper saying, hey, stop him from doing this. and it goes back to 1976 supreme court case called the nebraska press association versus stewart. and basically the, question is, is jack smith's limited request here limited enough to gag donald trump, and i suspect the answer is yes that he will prevail on this in some limited way. and that's because jack smith wrote a very narrow strained document, one that just said, look, if he's gonna be attacking witnesses or attacking court personnel, that goes too far. and i think the next step is for the judge hearing where donald trump sits in that courtroom looks at her in the eye and explains himself. and then, from there, some sort of tailored remedy, including possibly moving the trial date up. >> wow. so, i has until believe next friday, if i'm remembering correctly, to respond, or his team does. and what are the consequences? do

and all along, jack smith has been listening, clearly.pecial counsel is now seeking a gag order against trump, in his election interference case. so, if the judge issues that order, trump is going to have to resort to some of his other go-to strategies, like getting his cronies to do his dirty work for him, he has tried that in the past. house republicans did get a bit of a head start this week, by launching their baseless impeachment inquiry into president biden. and in an interview that just aired on meet the press, trump said he had nothing to do with it. >> did you talk to speaker mccarthy about this house impeachment? >> no, no i didn't talk to. >> did you tell him that he should open? it >> no, i don't think he would do that. i mean, he wouldn't do it, based on what we know. >> did you talk to your republican allies on capitol, and say you should support this? >> no, i don't have to talk. there are more productive than i am, they think it's terrible i. we'll say this, they think i was treated very unfairly. >> whatever trump says, w

so jack smith is following the money.es tell us smith's team of prosecutors has asked two recent witnesses about how money that was raised off baseless claims of voter fraud was spent to fund attempts to breach voting systems in several key states that joe biden won. so we know prosecutors have focussed their questions on the role specifically of former trump lawyer sidney powell, who entered the public consciousness with unsubstantiated claims, like this one. >> we have mathematical evidence in a number of states of massive quantities of trump votes being trashed, just simply put in the trash, like you would on your computer with any file. and biden votes being injected. >> poppy noted, unsubstantiate and outright lie. powell was indicted in the georgia election subversion case. cnn obtained invoices that show powell's nonprofit defending the republic hired forensic firms that accessed voting equipment in four swing states, georgia, pennsylvania, michigan and arizona. in georgia that access looked like this. the coffee c

what jack smith describes as a, quote, minuscule amount. but the really chilling part of these new revelations is just how determined jack smith was to keep the disgraced twice impeached four times indicted ex-president from learning about their efforts to obtain trump's twitter data because they believed, as we said earlier, it would, quote, precipitate violence if and when the ex-president tweeted about it. also from the filing, quote, these are not hypothetical considerations in this case. following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, the former president propagated false claims of fraud, pressured state and federal officials to violate their legal duties and retaliated against those who did not comply with his demands culminating in violence at the u.s. capital on january 6th. quote, more recently, the former president has taken several steps to undermine or otherwise influence the investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information, following the end of his presidency including publicizing the existence of

jack smith's request comes in a newly unsealed court filing.nn's jessica schneider has been going through it. she joins us now. what have you head? >> anderson, this is the special counsel's team laying out really a long list of reasons why they want the judge here to step in immediately and order donald trump to stop making these statements both online and anything he might say in person. the special counsel really argues could end up intimidating witnesses, as they put in this filing, court officials, and crucially here, the jury pool. they're laying it out in the filing this way. they're saying, the defendant's repeated inflammatory public statements regarding the district of columbia, the court, prosecutors, and potential witnesses, are likely to prejudice the jury pool, create fear among potential jurors, and result in threats and harassment to individuals he singles out. puly, those involved in the criminal justice process w read the defendant's disparaging messages from court personnel to jurors may reasonably fear they could be the next

but jack smith is supposed to be independent and he isn't.orders and alvin bragg and who knows, trying to bribe or extort as you say this defense, stanley woodward by the way is supposed to be a very good defense lawyer. >> yeah, and everything they're doing is trying to overwhelm president trump and the election president and election interference at its worst and using through litigation and often litigation is used to smear somebody and using it too much and it's impossible for president trump to actually run a campaign and they're going back 2.5 years on some of the claims and if these were so urgent and so important, why would they not prosecute president trump two and a half yearsing a and now you're saying everyone is pretty much beating joe biden in the polls. is >> another thing, larry, this energy thing is so big. when joe biden is cut off our ability and shutting down the drilling on federal lands and i'm clinging to my gas-powered car. gas powered motorcycle and gas-powered stove they're trying to take away from me in washington.

it's in fact an exact replica of what is in jack smith's proposal, jack smith gives many examples, this is an egregious form of one of the examples that jack smith gives. and the conditions of trump's release don't just specify intimidation of witnesses. it also says intimidations of officers of the court. who are officers of the court? jack smith. so he's directly confronting what the judge has imposed as a condition of release. i think it really does, in some sense, force her hand to a certain degree. i cannot imagine that his defense counsel thought this was a wise thing for him to do tonight. >> it is pretty stunning. chris, let me just wrap this up with judge chutkan in a public hearing. she said to trump's lawyers she wouldn't tolerate any remarks from the former president that would intimidate witnesses or prejudice potential jurors in. a sense, is this now sort of a fait accompli that you're going to get this gag order and possibly then even have to scale it up? >> yeah. so, erin, what i think is going to happen, at the very least, going to be no intimidation of witnesses. defin

jack smith, whom he has repeatedly called deranged.ak this all down for me, what prosecutors are basically arguing here is they could quote from public records. they could say he's innocent. but they're saying this is necessary. do you think they'll be successful here? >> i think so. i think judge chutkan is going to impose at least some limited order. she's concerned about former president trump and his rights. she doesn't want to be placed in a position where she's unduly restricting his ability to speak. there's a difference between candidate trump and defendant trump. and defendant trump, by virtue of being under indictment, his rights and first amendment rights are restricted. i think it's justified and suspect she's going to do that. he's been warned by multiple judges. he's under court control through all his various bail conditions. so, what he's not free to do is attack the prosecutor, attack the judge, try to undermine the jury pool. he can campaign but he can't undermine the prosecutors' ability to prosecute the case. >> and

this is a concern to special counsel jack smith and his team.vealed that smith had asked for a very narrowly tarrant gag order. he said that because of the continued attacks that it really undermines the fairness of the case. in that same vein, which could potentially cause harm as he has retained influence over his followers. trump immediately has responded to this already itself ill prophesy of sorts, tweeting at smith about how problematic this gag order would be. it jeopardizes the first amendment concerns. what smith asked for is a very narrow well-defined restriction that would essentially prohibit, trump from making statements about identity, testimony, credibility of his witnesses and statements about witnesses, attorneys, court personnel and potential jurors that could be disparaging, inflammatory, intimidating. when emphasis on intimidating there. >> so, paul. with trump saying up my free speech, how likely is judge chutkan to approve this gag order. when you listen to jackie's description of, it is very specific. >> i think the judge

maya, i'm cure your thoughts as to how that works for jack smith. someone might say, wow, he knew that was coming or acted recklessly as kind of an opinion, but what would jack smith do with this? >> well, this just goes to underscore a point about trump's state of mind. if you're facing criminal charges and part of the allegation is, you did a crime, you know, by definition, different from a civil trial, you have to establish exactly what was going on. you can do it by inference. you don't have to be direct evidence. and of course in this case, the fact that he had the documents is already a legal problem for him. but on the obstruction, on the fact that he had the request for the documents back and then said, i don't have them. i don't know. but yet he's having this exchange with an attorney, really plotting out, well, what if i do this? what if i had them this way? what if i refuse to comply? it establishes a frame of mind that is extremely helpful to the prosecution and extremely harmful to trump. >> yeah. he was on the conservative hugh hewitt'

what can we not see and what do you make of jack smith's concerns?well, the concerns are real ones, and they are evidenced every day with additional posts on truth certainly and other social media outpits from the former president that raise concern for prosecutors and for judges. the trial judge here is, of course, bound by the first amendment as all governmental actors are but the first amendment isn't absolute and this is especially the case when it is intention with other rights and liberties that are contained within the bill of rights. trial judges here in particular have concerns about the obligation, constitutionally that they have to preserve a fair trial and to make sure that there's an impartial jury and because of this, we pretty routinely see orders from trial judges that are limiting speech that they think is designed to taint jury pools or to intimidate witnesses and those sorts of orders are not only not constitutionally prohibited but may be constitutionally mandated. there's one kind of order from judges that gives rise to pretty si

those are the words of the filing by jack smith's office. whether the judge uses some, all, or none of those words in any potential order is the big question. smith emphasized this is a narrow and well-defined request, but arguing it's necessary with donald trump as a defendant already creating substantial danger of materially prejudicing the case. this is the big question facing now this case and the judge. i want to get right to it with andrew weissman, a former mueller special counsel, former general counsel of the fbi, former federal prosecutor. andrew, i mentioned we have a lot coming up and you're going to be a part of some of that. this is now hanging over everything. people are wondering what does an order like this mean? what might the judge do? >> yeah, so we don't know yet how the judge is going to rule on it, but it is a very interesting filing. i think for many people, including myself, it is something that we've been wondering why it wasn't done earlier. there is a lot of precedent for this. so as you remember, early on in the n

we know trump has been targeting jack smith online. what's the point of filing this under seal if these are public extra judicial statements? and how do you read the sort of news of this? >> assuming the filing is about those extra judicial statements, there's something else in that motion nonpublic. and it could be someone's address. it could be personal details of someone who's been targeted if it is indeed about those statements. the process that's filing is the main filing is done under seal and the redacted version is made public. we don't know if it's one line or most of the filing that is causing it to be filed under seal, so it's really hard to tell, and this is just one of those frustrating things about watching a criminal case -- >> and then following every procedural move. i would ask you if presumably this has to do with the statements trump is making publicly and the impact they're having on the case even at trial, and i wonder if we're fast approaching the threshold of which a judge is going to have to do something here.

. >>> and late today, special counsel jack smith asked a judge for a narrow gag order against trump in the election interference case. claiming that trump's inflammatory remarks have led to threats against witnesses and could prejudice the jury pool. >>> and we begin with that breaking news involving the d.c. criminal case against donald trump. in a brand-new court filing, special counsel jack smith is asking judge tanya chutkan to issue a narrow gag order against trump, specifically regarding what he can publicly say about potential witnesses. arguing that his statements could present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing his election interference case. the government writes that trump, quote, made clear his intent to issue public attacks related to this case when the day after his arraignment he posted a threatening message on truth social, which stated, if you go after me, i'm coming after you. trump, they write, has made good on his threat, since the indictment in this case, the defendant has spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on truth social on a near daily

the jack smith coup trial. jack smith in that case has a new filing, asking the judge for a narrow order on what donald trump as the defendant is allowed to say. it is quite interesting because it cites the threats that he has already made, and things that he has that has been interpreted as threats as witnesses, other individuals involved, and even lot enforcement. the repeated inflammatory claimants, he writes, are in the jury. paul curry eight fear among jurors, and resolving threats of harassment. the order would simply seek the judge barring trump from public statements about potential witnesses identity, testimony, and credibility. and bar them from making disparaging or intimidating statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors. those are the words of the filing by jack smith's office. whether the judge uses some, all, or none of those words in any potential order is the big question. smith emphasizes that this is a narrow and well-defined requires but arguing that i

what do you think about what jack smith's team is saying?hat do you think and appropriate remedy would be from judge chutkan? >> when you look at the filing that was unsealed today, and you read it, then you compare it to the actions of the former president between election day 2020 and january 6th of 2021, you can't help but have dÉjÀ vu. and it's the exact threat that we were trying to work in january 6th report. look, the big lie was the former president saying he lost the election because of alleged fraud in states like georgia, nevada, and others. and he attacked the election via twitter or public statements or surrogates. and that was an attack on our institutional norm of fair elections. and now, you have the doj taking, well, i found it to be a pretty remarkable action saying that the former president is doing the same as the judicial system as we speak. he's attacking the court. he's attacking the prosecutors. he is attacking witnesses, attacking the jury pool, through his social media in the exact same way that he did leading up to

jack smith is saying trump is claiming there is no threat and that in fact, it's special counsel jackis, has attacked trump. this is what trump's filing says. prosecutor jack smith held a press conference -- falsely claiming he's fuels an unprecedented assault. here's what jack smith said. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6th, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. it's described in the indictment. it was fueled by lies. lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government. >> well, the words jack smith is saying are based on what a grand jury has found probably cause which means more likely than not the former president did exactly what jack smith just said. i think the challenge for judge chutkan is how is she going to balance donald trump's first amendment rights versus his position as a defendant in this case. i think he has a long history of saying inflammatory things. we saw it particularly after the election from everything from the debate stage saying to the proud boys stand back and stand by. he

i do think jack smith is understandably exploring this. i think it is yet additional evidence of motive and intent here, the willingness to consider crazy steps like this, all designed for the ultimate goal of disrupting the joint session and preventing the peaceful democratic transfer of power. >> this is a question that needles on me and maybe you have a theory, maybe you don't. do you think -- this is the one and only part of the coup giuliani ends up on the right side of, seizing voting machines and using the military to do so is too far for giuliani. do you think that's what he walked in and talked about and why don't we ever hear anything about mike flynn? >> a, your first question, yes, he talked to us about that. he and powell had a breach here. they had a conflict over this issue and perhaps other issues and they're no longer sort of working on the same team. they share the same goal, which is, again, preventing the election from being certified for president biden, but they don't share -- they're not aligned on every tactic. flyn

special counsel, jack smith now wants to muzzle donald trump in the middle of a presidential election. we will rip apart the shocking development in moments. first, there america? that's the focus of tonight's angle. whose america is this? the people in power who act like it's theirs to give away to the highest bidders? wall street, big tech, the big donors. they want a certain set of policies and they usually get their way. sucking up to china. >> i want to contain china. i want to make sure we have a relationship with china that is on the up and up and squared away.>> funneling tens of billions to ukraine. >> we are always preparing a new plug military package for ukraine. we do these presidential drawdown packages essentially every couple weeks. >> millions of illegal immigrants streaming across the border. >> we have responded with a model approach that has proven to work. >> we all know these policies are ravaging america. democrat policymakers, so far have been cared. it's there america to shape and to control and frankly to give away. it's not yours to defend and enjoy. things

i think he's going to show up as a witness for jack smith in that case. obviously, some complications giving he's indicted in georgia. very interesting to see how that shakes out. >> hugo, your thoughts. >> i think we have seen in previous cases grand juries reconvene after an indictment has been handed down. we saw that with manafort, in the classified documents case, and in the classified documents case, we did get a superseding indictment. so it's very possible that there's a superseding indictment on its way in the federal january 6th case. i think renato hits a good point here, that we don't know what jack smith wants to do with the other coconspirators. but the fact that trump was charged alone suggests that was a move to get to trial quickly. in his case, but it obviously doesn't preclude the fact any of the coconspirators could also be charged. >> all right. sonya, renato, hugo, thank you all very much for coming to "the reidout" tonight. >>> up next, in an unprecedented move, 13 presidential libraries have come together to deliver a warning about

i know that's not exactly what jack smith wants. he wants to limit arguments against the witnesses' credibility. but i think that's just integral to the presumption of innocence, that you should be allowed to say things like, you know, those people are lying. >> that makes sense, of course. but then you think about a defamation case like the e. jean carroll lawsuit where he believes he was simply denying an allegation. and he's saying the person is a liar. and why is that something that i'm going to be held to account for? it's different in a criminal context, though, you're saying, in the sense of this is somebody who's presumed innocent, as you of course are in the civil world. but what are the guardrails? are there any rules that would apply for a defendant to say what they can and cannot say prior to trial? >> it's clear that you can't bribe witnesses, and it's clear you can't threaten witnesses. and you can't obstruct justice. that's one of the charges he's facing. so you can't do things that would try to interfere with an ongo

, jack smith's very real fears of violence.cess to trump's twitter account. "politico" is reporting that newly unsealed court filings shha

the timing for the jack smith case march 6 of 2024. if this case goes to georgia this fall, i mean you could have a lot of overlapping witness testimony. how would it even work? and by the way, if it's a real clown scene down in terms of the witnesses and the defendants and their lawyers in georgia, like what are the implications for a federal trial that covers much of the same ground? >> so, you have witnesses when they have federal exposure, they're going to be approaching that state trial with some trepidation, right? what witnesses do they put on the stand? do they present a defense? do they testify? anything they say on the stand, any witnesses they're putting forward could be used against them in a federal case. they have to be careful when there's this overlap in the conduct being looked at at the federal level and the state level. >> is this seen as a sneak preview for him, a useful exercise, or is this gumming up the works if you're jack smith? >> look, to be honest if i were a federal prosecutor in his shoes i'd probably not

power. >> members of special prosecutor jack smith's washington d. c.ry were seen at the federal courthouse in washington today for the first time in a month. here is what special prosecutor jack smith said the day that that grand jury indicted donald trump on four federal counts. >> since the attack on our capitol, the department of justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. this case has brought consisted with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues. >> and advisement and mary mccord are back with us. our investigation of other individuals continues. andrew, what could be happening with that washington d. c. grand jury? >> well it's mary there, so i tend to like predicting even though we have no idea. but i think, sort of, the safe bet is, you know, there are six unindicted coconspirators mentioned in the jacks mitt d. c. federal indictment. and so, you can imagine the grand jury is hearing additional evidence is to them. but my, maybe money is on

donald trump's criminal defense lawyers opposed jack smith's motion. jack smith's motion says that the trump lawyers were trying to, quote, current litigation in this case to a halt, which is particularly in feasible given the pressing matter is before the court, including the defendants daily extrajudicial statements that threaten to prejudice the jury pull in this case, as described in the government's motion. so we do know that the motion we have not been allowed to see does contain sensitive materials, and a description of, quote, the defendants daily extrajudicial statement that threaten to prejudice a jury pole in this case. judge tanya chutkan gave the defense lowers a tone of monday, september 11th, to file a secret motion in opposition and gave check smith a ton of september 13th to file his response, secretly to the defendants secret motion. tomorrow, we might learn a lot, publicly. a lot about how the georgia prosecution of donald trump and his 18 codefendants might eventually be organized. the georgia judge assigned to the case, scott mcafe

sign up for xfinity rewards now. >> special counsel jack smith found himself once again warning trumpd social media site. in a court filing tuesday, smith said trump's postings has the potential to take the jury pool in his election interference case. and -- judge tanya chutkan and openly mop the idea that she could be fair in his case. and in a later post, he attacks smith with -- insane aggression. smith is also making it clear that his election interference investigation is far from over. according to new reporting from cnn, he is zeroing in on how money raised based on false claims of voter fraud was used to fund a tends to tamper with voting equipment and states that joe biden had won. and david henderson and jonathan alter are back with me. let's talk about the latest concerns about the jury pool as a former prosecutor. to what extent do you share jack smith sphere, and if this keeps happening, at what point does judge chuck kid tried to do something about it, and what can she do? >> keep in mind, the tools that lawyers used don't always reflect what they're thinking when they u

jack smith will say he does. maybe he gets a fine. maybe he does not get a fine.ed in this, right? no judge wants to send a share for martial to arrest donald trump because he betrayed this gag order, or whatever it is. so, the enforcement of this whole thing becomes a problem unto itself. >> that is exactly right. not only did it define what is meant by harassing and intimidating speech when he makes comments, then there is going to be whether or not there actually violated the order. then, the judge has to decide what to do about it. and, issue really going to find, him issue going to hold him in contempt, put him in custody, that is highly unlikely to happen. so not only in policing his speech, but deciding what to do about it will be a major issue. i anticipate that she will follow through on the warning of the trial of trump deftly indicated he does not want, rather delay this trial. so i think that will probably be the remedy she goes with, and the back and forth of whether or not that order is issued or violated. >> that is an interesting, point because she

i think that's what jack smith is getting. at you can't do things to intimidate the prosecutors and jurors or anyone else involved in the case. >> that's the main target. he also orders and motions asked for a pre-approval by the judge of any polling of the jury and focus groups that they have. jury selection has become more of a science. it's not uncommon to try to have focus groups not trials that would make sense. in this case, you might pollute the total jury pool if you do it in a way that starts putting out defenses that will never be allowed in court. she wants to make sure that there is a -- making sure that there is pre-approval of any questions that go out to a potential juror. >> tanya chutkan has asked to recuse herself in this case. she has asked for input from both sides on this one. they are using her own words by saying she is commented in the sentencing of january six who have complained that they did this at the behest of donald trump. donald trump is not in the room. he is not standing trial. tell me about t

his closest aides, his personal secretary in the white house has now talked to special counsel jack smith's team, reportedly telling investigators that the former president used some classified documents to write down notes and write to do lists. and what she claims trump told her about those boxes at mar-a-lago if anyone ever asked her. >>> tonight, the uaw threatening to expand its strike against the big three automakers already affecting those striking workers. thousands of other workers now laid off. now the effects on american customers looking to buy a car. terry moran in michigan. >>> here in new york city tonight, the day care horror. a child dying from exposure to fentanyl. several other children given narcan to revive them. >>> tonight, the former nfl player missing. his mother has been found dead. we'll have to latest. >>> the sudden shortage of clorox products and what's behind it tonight. >>> "america strong," the daughter and what she did when her mother needed it most. >> david: good evening, and it's great to start another week with all of you at home. several breaking headl

i know that is not exactly what jack smith wants. he wants to limit arguments against the witnesses' credibility but that is integral to the presumption of innocence that you should be allowed to say things like those people are lying. >> that makes sense of course but then you think about the defamation case like the e. jean carroll lawsuit where he believes he was simply denying an allegation and he is saying the person was a liar. why is that something that i am going to be held to account for? it is difficult in the criminal context in the sense that this is someone presumed innocent as you are in the civil world but what are the guard rails? are there any rules that apply to what a defendant can and cannot say prior to trial? >> it is clear you can't bribe witnesses or threaten witnesses and you can't obstruct justice. you can't do things that would try to interfere with an ongoing investigation. there are tons of things he is just not allowed to do and he can face criminal prosecution. one thing that is interesting here too is

trump, no surprise, wasted no time firing back at jack smith. in his latest criticism he's saying with this limited gag order jack smith is requesting that essentially, gene, he is trying to take away his first amendment rights. what do you say to that? >> i say it's bologna. in shepherd versus maxwell, on page one, that's the seminal case. when you have a trial, the outside influences and the influences inside of a courtroom, they can be controlled by the judge because what's paramount in a criminal trial is the integrity of the process, number one, and the unbiassed nature of the jury pool and the jury that's selected. so that's the purpose of this gag order. what bothers me about donald trump is he is going to violate the gag order if it is issued. there are clauses that they're asking for, the government, and he cannot possibly comply with them. he's not allowed to talk about the merit of the case. that's what their proposed order says. he's going to violate that in a new york minute. so i'm applauding the special counsel for seeking the gag

it's also a defense that jack smith anticipated. his indictment of donald trump on the election interference case says on the second page, "the defendant had a right, like every american, to speak publicly about the eleioand even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election, and that he had won." when it comes to this request, barring so called extrajudicial statements, jack smith makes it clear, he's not trying to muzzle trump as his attorneys claim, but instead he's seeking what prosecutors describe as, quote, a narrow, wellefed restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case." limiting the gag order to, ote, statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credily of prospective witnesses and statements about any party, witness, torney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, end quote. underscoring this is the fact that nearly anyone donald trump accuse lgs of st

we don't know about the filing by jack smith. but jack smith complaining about comments made by the former president that would prejudice a jury. he is a presidential candidate. there has to be kind of a wide latitude on this, doesn't there? >> there is certainly a lot he can talk about, but he doesn't have to talk about the facts of this particular case. and i think that's the concern. he's not just answering questions from reporters, which he could be allowed to do. he is engaging in this barrage of truth social videos that he is posting where he is going on and on and on, putting his side of the story out there. in one hand he is trying his case in the court of public opinion, but trying to seek delays because he doesn't seem to want to try the case in court in front of an actual jury. things that won't be admissible at trial are things that he is trying to get out there now to prejudice the jury pool in his favor. >> this is a dilemma for prosecutors. i'm trying to picture what i would do in their scenario. on the one hand, y

you know and i know that when trump calls jack smith deranged, so what? >> it's become the norm. >> it has. i worry, frankly, that we are a little bit too immune to. that there is a big wide jury pull out there in d.c., down in florida. the problem is people who aren't following carefully, but who may be called to jury service. what do they take away from these sorts of tweets and comments? the judges shown some sensitivity to prejudice over the jury pool overtime. >> that seems like a huge concern for everybody involved in this. philip, asking donald trump to not call, for example, jack smith deranged, it's like asking a very hungry toddler not to reach into the cookie jar, right? it seems impossible that this will -- it's clearly not the threat of it is not cowing him. it seems almost antithetical to his brand as a politician at this point. do you think -- i mean, what is your expectation in terms of how this affects his campaigning? >> i think that fundamentally, if it can be pressed upon him that this does him harm, he may scale it back. there are way

so, look, jack smith is looking into a new line of inquiry here. even though trump is already indicted, we are now seeing other individuals who were key players potentially getting looked at more closely. >> so a reminder here, right, we're seeing these people connected to sydney powell who have been charged in michigan and georgia so far. they're also connected to other efforts we have seen to breach voting efforts in other states. people forget about this part of the scheme. i wonder will jack smith and how far down is he going to go, do you think? >> it is interesting because until this point we haven't gotten an indication that authorities were aggressively investigating these voting system breaches. even now it looks like they are looking at the breaches of the context of the money behind them. who was funding them and who was paying for them. but at the state level, we have seen these same individuals pop up time and time again in arizona and michigan. so do a few others that have come up in georgia. so we're seeing the same names and we have

twitter gave at least 32 private messages from donald trump's private account to special counsel jack smith. what that tells us about where that investigation is heading. >>> unprecedented strike. for the first time ever, thousands of autoworkers walk off in a job stoppage that targeted all three of the big automakers. the ripple effects will be felt across the country, even if you're not in the market for a new car right now. >>> and utter devastation. at least 5,000 people killed by catastrophic floods in libya. rescuers are still desperately searching for 10,000 who remain missing. we're going to take you there. we're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "cnn news central." ♪ ♪ >>> special counsel jack smith has obtained some of donald trump's private twitter communications. twitter handed over more than 30 direct messages from the donald trump account from earlier this year, after receiving a highly sensitive search warrant from prosecutors. the warrant was part of the federal election probe of the former president. cnn's evan perez is with

he called jack smith deranged. just moments ago, accused the feds of trying to silence him during a campaign. >> did you see today that deranged jack smith? he's the prosecutor. he's a deranged person. he wants to take away my rights under the first amendment. he wants to take away my right of speaking freely and openly. >> keep in mind, trump has a long history of trying to intimidate his way out of legal trouble. there is a record of this after paul manafort and rick gates were indicted by robert mueller. he said trump's personal lawyer said he would take care of them. and rudy giuliani said he should sleep well because he had friends in high places. and trump called roger stone brave for refusing to flip, eventually pardoning him. a trump lawyer left a voicemail for michael flynn on the eve of his guilty plea suggesting flynn would stay in good graces if he stayed close. as president, trump ordered his white house counsel to publicly lie about efforts to fire mueller after trump fired fbi director james comey. h