Prosecutors cite Trump’s ‘death’ comment about Milley in repeat request for gag order

The Department of Justice is redoubling its efforts to secure a gag order on former President Donald Trump, citing his comments about the death penalty and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. 

DOJ prosecutors made a request for a gag order earlier this month, claiming that the former president could affect the legal procedure with his aggressive public statements. 

This request has been amplified by prosecutors after Trump wrote a series of accusations on platform Truth Social, criticizing Milley’s reported phone call to Chinese counterparts following the Jan. 6, 2021 protests.

TRUMP DEMANDS COURT IGNORE DOJ REQUEST FOR GAG ORDER

Trump wrote that Milley “turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads-up on the thinking of the President of the United States.”

“This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!” the former president added.

Special counsel Jack Smith is pushing harder for the gag order following Trump’s comments about Milley.

TRUMP COMMENT ABOUT PUNISHING GEN. MILLEY WITH ‘DEATH’ CAUSES MAJOR OUTCRY FROM GOP RIVALS

“The defendant should not be permitted to continue to try this case in the court of public opinion rather than in the court of law, and thereby undermine the fairness and integrity of this proceeding,” prosecutors argued Friday.

The Trump team has vehemently fought requests for a gag order, claiming that it would be a violation of the former president’s civil rights.

The Trump legal team published a 25-page brief to condemn the DOJ’s request, citing freedom of speech and the necessity of transparency.

“The prosecution would silence President Trump, amid a political campaign where his right to criticize the government is at its zenith, all to avoid a public rebuke of this prosecution. However, ‘above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,’” the brief states.

[#item_full_content]