'There's No First Amendment Right to Threaten': DOJ Asks for Protection Order in Trump Election Case

The Department of Justice asked the Washington judge presiding over the latest criminal case against former President Donald Trump to issue a protective order for evidence Friday after Trump made an apparently threatening post on social media.

"If you go after me, I'm coming after you!" Trump posted in all capital letters on Truth Social Friday.

Trump's remarks came days after he was indicted for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, in the third criminal case brought against the former president this year, but also the one that experts say is the most serious.

The post also came a day after the current Republican frontrunner pleaded "not guilty" to the charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue an order that would restrict the information that Trump and his legal team could share with the public, the Associated Press explained. Orders of this nature are normal in criminal cases.

"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."

Special Council Jack Smith said in the filing that a protection order was "particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him," according to The Hill.

"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," Smith continued.

The filing cited Trump's threatening post from Friday in particular, which The New York Timesinterpreted as an attempt to remind the judge of Trump's history of lashing out at anyone related to a criminal case against him. For example, Trump took to Truth Social earlier this year to promise "death and destruction" if he were charged in Manhattan relating to the hush money he paid porn actress Stormy Daniels.

Friday's protection request came as prosecutors said they were about to turn over a "substantial" amount of evidence to Trump's legal team, "much of which includes sensitive and confidential information," AP reported.

In response, the Trump Republican primary campaign tweeted out a statement minutes after midnight on Saturday.

"The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth," a Trump spokesperson said in the statement.

However, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Noah Bookbinder disagreed.

"There's no First Amendment right to threaten, certainly not to threaten the prosecutors in your case," he tweeted. "Judges and prosecutors have given Donald Trump a long leash for conduct that would not be tolerated from others, but he may be nearing the end of it."

Judge Chutkan said Saturday that Trump's legal team would have until 5 pm Monday to respond to the prosecution's protection request, as AP reported.