Infamously, former President Donald Trump recently suggested on his alternative social media platform Truth Social the execution of retired General Mark Milley, who until recently served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That body is comprised of the highest-ranking uniformed personnel from across branches of the military, and Milley’s stint as its leader included a portion of Trump’s presidency.
Right-wing animosity towards Milley has been wide-ranging, including Trump’s outrage over Milley’s outreach to a Chinese military official in the closing period of Trump’s presidential term. Milley, who has said his communications were known and coordinated, sought at the time to reassure the Chinese leaders that the U.S. would not be attacking, and Milley has insisted he was acting in line with expectations of deference to the president rather than subverting the office. Well, Trump’s extreme outrage at Milley was cited by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team in a new filing arguing for limited restrictions on Trump’s public comments related to the federal criminal case brought by Smith over Trump’s attempts to keep power.
“The need for the proposed order is further evidenced by a review of the defendant’s prejudicial statements in the weeks since the Government initially filed its motion on September 5,” the government’s new filing says. “Since that date, the defendant has continued to make statements that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case and that fall within the narrowly tailored order proposed by the Government.” And the cited examples include Trump’s angry comments against Milley.
Federal prosecutors on Smith’s team elaborated in detail in that same filing on their arguments about the potential for prejudice, meaning something that sets back the orderly handling of the case. Rather than something more strict, Smith’s team insisted that stopping “material prejudice” was the relevant standard that should be applied around the potential implementation of formal restrictions on speech. If the judge agrees, the restrictions would technically apply to both sides in the case.
The statements that the government is hoping to get blocked include comments “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses, and statements that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.” (That’s per the same filing in federal court.) The government also took some time to rebut the argument from Trump’s corner that the restrictions, if imposed, would be much more sweeping. Trump himself has claimed as much on Truth Social as well, incorrectly characterizing what the government is pursuing as something that would essentially shut him up entirely.
