Trump Goes After "Fraud Squad" Prosecutors

[admin]

TRUMP GOES AFTER "FRAUD SQUAD" PROSECUTORS

BREAKING: Federal Judge Delivers INSTANT SMACKDOWN to Trump
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Aug 5, 2023



Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on a fast-moving breaking story in which Trump threatened the prosecutors by social media posting; they responded with a motion for protective order; the federal judge ordered trump to respond by Monday; trump asked to have until Thursday; the DOJ called him out for wasting time; and the federal judge denied Trump’s request for more time, all in less than 24 hours. Who says Justice doesn’t move swiftly?



Transcript

This is Michael Popock, Legal AF.

Helen of Troy was famously called the face that launched a thousand ships. Donald Trump, with one social media post attacking Jack Smith and the prosecutors, and all prosecutors in the case, launched at least five different federal filings to federal court orders ultimately against him on the issue of whether a protective order should immediately be issued in the new case that Jack Smith has brought, the Jan 6 interference case before judge Tanya Chutkan. One social media post is all it took. Now look: we predicted on legal AF, and otherwise, that procedurally, the government would soon after the arraignment be asking for a protective order to be put in place, just as they did in the Mar-A-Lago case, so they could start dumping all of the data information, witness transcripts, and other evidence that they've accumulated on Donald Trump's defense side ASAP, because the government will never be accused of dragging their feet when it comes to providing documents, and information, of Donald Trump, and the other side. Because they want to get this case to trial as soon as possible, and the only way you can do that if you're the government is that you come to the court with completely clean hands on the 28th of August when the judge is going to hear argument about setting a trial in the new case, Judge Tanya Chutkan. The only way you can do that is to bring a dump truck, bring sheds of information and documents, and give them to the other side, so they can't argue that they haven't had at least the first opportunity to look at information in this four different criminal count indictment against Donald Trump. So the government's ready every time. Remember, when Jack Smith brings an indictment, that's because he's ready, right behind it, to back up the truck, and dump Donald Trump with everything that he needs in order to defend himself in the case. The government is ready. Donald Trump, after he's done with the arraignment, mumbling his his name, and he's not on drugs, and how old he is, he then went about attacking prosecutors in a social media post we're going to put right up here on the screen in which he said, "YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU." You know, mob talk, organized crime talk. That's why prosecutors are using the RICO statute against him, because he operates like a mob boss. And to anybody that suggests, like his spokesperson, that he wasn't attacking the prosecutor, he made it clear right after, that in the same social media posting chain, when he put, "THE FRAUD SQUAD" [video], and put Jack Smith and Tish James. and Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg, all listed there as some sort of hit squad, right, that people can attack and go after. So it's clear what his messaging was.

"WELCOME TO THE FRAUD SQUAD" VIDEO

And the government said, "You know, we're about to file our motion for protective order anyway, so why don't we put in there, as one of the grounds why the the judge should not hesitate to enter a protective order, meaning that Donald Trump cannot tell the public in social media posts by his spokespeople indirectly, or directly, any of the confidential and sensitive information that's contained in the discovery, the Brady material," right? -- the material the government has to constitutionally turn over to a defendant.

TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 2024

August 5, 2023

Statement from Trump Spokesperson

“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”

Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc.

None of that should be posted in public, criticized, critiqued, right? Because the government told Judge Chutkan that we're ready to give him witness testimony, witness transcripts, sealed search warrant material, other transcripts, other documents, that have personal identifying information, including about who potential witnesses are, co-conspirators, other unindicted people that they're still going after, and we don't want him commenting on that in the public. Enter the protective order. And they gave a proposed protective order.

Now they say, when they filed that motion, which followed just hours after the social media posting I showed you, they also told the court, "Enter it now. We tried to negotiate with the other side. We tried to meet and confer, but they gave us some ridiculous protective order proposal which doesn't do it, right? -- would not limit Donald Trump appropriately given the circumstances -- we gave them," the government said, "a model of a protective order that Judge Nichols, in the same court, just recently used," I presume, for Steve Bannon and his trial, and said, "let's use this one this one that a federal judge already approved. Let's use this one. We can live with this one. And rather than continue to go back and forth, given that the defense, Trump's lawyers, took the position that, "We cannot meaningfully comment in the date for the trial because we don't know the volume of the material." Then Jack Smith's team said, "Fine. Enter the protective order, reach a deal with us, don't foot-drag, and we'll give you all the information." When it became apparent that they were foot-dragging, the government filed the motion for protective order directly, right off that tweet, right off that social media posting, in which they were threatened. And in it they say, "Here's the grounds, your honor, because this defendant has a history on social media of making statements regarding judges, attorneys, and witnesses, right?, and we know he's going to do it again. You got to stop him in this motion for protective order."

The judge immediately, because like I said at the top, "you know the face that launched a thousand ships," the social media posting that launched a flurry of activity all within a 24 and 36 hour period.

So we've got the social media posting; several hours later the motion for protective order is filed, several hours later the judge, Judge Tanya Chutkan, enters her minute order, which we have up here, which gives Trump only until Monday at 5 PM -- so basically one business day -- to get together and either look at the red line, look at the proposed protective order, and give a proposed set of edits -- we call it "a red- line" back to the judge, right?, so they can be heard before the Judge makes the ultimate decision.

Now rather than do that, and spend the several hours that it would take to do it, the Trump side decided to spend several hours preparing a five-page opposition paper, asking the court for a motion for extension of time, not to have the issue heard on Monday, but give them until Thursday. As noted by the Department of Justice in a filing just hours after that, the time it took them to write the five pages is probably more time than it would have been just to do the work, just to comment on the protective order and run this thing to the ground and be done with it. But no. Because Donald Trump's lawyers wanted to, you know, poke a stick at the Department of Justice and say, "Oh, they're big and bad; they're not conferring with us; they're filing protective order motions without really having meaningful discussion with us; and they did that before your honor; and with judge Cannon" -- you know this whining, whining, whining, -- "and judge Cannon didn't like it" -- as if Judge Chutkan cares what Judge Cannon did in Florida, of all people, of all fellow colleague judges, and "Oh, they did it there; they did it here, judge; they went off and did a Friday filing, and you know, we don't like to work past five o'clock on Fridays, it's the summer, Your Honor," -- you know, whatever else they argued. And then the the Department of Justice isn't having it either. The Department of Justice said, "Oh yeah?" Two hours later they filed a paper -- we have a copy of it here -- and they filed the paper and said exactly what I just laid out, "Judge, we don't get it! They spent an entire afternoon writing a five-page motion for extension of time to push the thing ahead 72 hours, why didn't they just do the work as you ordered it to be done by five o'clock on Monday? And they also for good measure, Trump's lawyers say, "Why don't we -- you know, Monday's not good for us judge, how about Thursday? How's your Thursday look? And why don't we have a hearing? Let's have a hearing." Because delay, delay, delay, delay.

And as I predicted on Legal AF, our podcast also on the MeidasTouch Network, it's exactly what happened. The judge says, "I'm the one wearing the black robe. I'm the one in charge of my courtroom. My order says what my order says, which is Monday by five o'clock." And the only modification she made in denying -- finally, we just got the denial a minute later, right? -- denying the motion for extension of time by Donald Trump, she said, "You know what? Here's the order. Denied. You spend the time, you want to spend the time between now and Monday at five o'clock, or even after Monday at five o'clock consulting with the government, and making comments on the protective order, go ahead. You want to file something else on Monday, you can do that too. You have till Monday at five o'clock. And I'll decide then -- me, federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan, -- not you -- lawyers for Donald Trump. I'll decide whether I need a hearing or not. I don't see it at the moment, but let's see what happens after I see whatever it is you're going to file on Monday. The ball is now in your court."

I'm summarizing the order, but that's what happened.

All of what I just described, right?, from the social media posting, to the government's motion for protective order, to the Court's ruling on the motion for protective order setting the Monday deadline, to Trump's five-page opposition and motion for extension of time till Thursday, to the Federal government's response to that, and the Judge's order denying the motion for extension of time and sticking to her guns on Monday's deadline, all those six things happened in a 24-hour period. Who says justice doesn't move swiftly? Who says the wheels of justice turn slowly? Not in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom.

And as I said on Legal AF, the podcast that I co-anchor on the MeidasTouch Network, this was going to be a test for Tanya Chutkan, the Judge, about letting everybody know who's in charge. And letting us know that she's the anti-Aileen Cannon down in Florida -- that judge. She has a firm grasp on the tiller. She has a firm grasp, and control and command of her courtroom, her courtroom procedures, and what she wants. And she's not going to sit there idly by, to have a couple of lawyers for Donald Trump, being paid by the Save America Pac, tell her how to run her courtroom procedurally. She's going to make that ruling.

So I like it, because it draws that line in the sand early on about how she's going to run the rocket docket that is her courtroom. And I think that bodes terribly, terribly, for Donald Trump. Because when the next major event, after this protective order, gets issued -- and there will be a protective order issued, including with, I'm sure, edits and changes by the Federal Judge, which is going to effectively gag Donald Trump from commenting at all, and reviewing at all without having to be babysat by his lawyers, this discovery material produced by the government.

And it's going to be a lot. It's going to be a hundred terabytes of information, I'm sure. And they're going to go complaining about that, "Oh, we just got 100 terabytes of information, Judge. It's the equivalent of 16 tractor trailers. If you stacked it, you know, end to end, it would halfway reach to the moon!"

You can already anticipate the filing that's going to be made by John Lauro and Todd Blanche to say that they need 2-1/2 years before they can even try this case, while the judge nods her head patiently and says, "Yeah, we're not doing that. This case is going to trial under the Speedy Trial Act before the election. Because it's important to democracy that that happens."

Those are the future steps we're going to follow, only in one place: the MeidasTouch Network. Free subscribe to the YouTube channel. And then, if you want to follow, and kind of keep track of news and happenings at that intersection of law and politics, go to the new website they just launched, the Meidastouch.com website. Everything's there: news, articles, our podcasts, the hot takes, t-shirts -- you name it, we got it. It's all for free on the Meidas touch.com website. And if you like what I'm doing, go over to YouTube again, MeidasTouch, free subscribe, go over to playlists, find Michael Popok. You'll find all 300 plus of my hot takes, including this one, listed there. Wednesdays and Saturdays join us on the MeidasTouch Network for Legal AF. You like these kind of hot takes? You're going to love the podcast. Audio versions drop everywhere, and every place you get podcasts, from Spotify to Apple to Google, etc. And you can watch us live report on YouTube as well Legal AF. If you like what I'm doing, follow me on all things social media at MsPopok, including now on Threads. Until the next hot take, Michael Popock, Legal AF.

[admin]

ACCOUNTABILITY feels like PERSECUTION to those who have never been held accountable.
reddit.com

[admin]

Trump Pushes Total Lie About Georgia Prosecutor Sleeping With Gang Member: The former president baselessly accused Fani Willis, who is investigating his 2020 election meddling, of having an “affair” with a “gang member”
by Nikki McCann Ramirez
Rolling Stone
August 8, 2023


Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Windham High School in Windham, New Hampshire, on Aug. 8, 2023. JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

DURING A TUESDAY campaign event in New Hampshire, Donald Trump leveled a bizarre accusation against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, suggesting she had had an “affair” with a “gang member” she was prosecuting.

“They say there’s a young woman — a young racist in Atlanta — they say she was after a certain gang and she ended up having an affair with the head of the gang or a gang member. And this is a person who wants to indict me […] wants to indict me for a perfect phone call,” Trump told supporters.

Acyn
@Acyn
Trump attacks Fani Willis
1:33 PM Aug 8, 2023

In May 2022, Willis empaneled a grand jury to investigate Trump and his allies’ efforts to interfere with Georgia’s 2020 election outcome, including the former president’s so-called “perfect” call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, during which he pressured him to “find” the votes necessary for him to win the election.

Trump has repeatedly attempted to discredit prosecutors investigating him, and while it’s unclear what Trump was talking about when he accused Willis of having an affair with “gang member,”, recent social media posts indicate that he is wildly misrepresenting a case she handled in 2019.

In January, Rolling Stone spoke to rapper YSL Mondo, who co-founded the Young Stoner Life (YSL) music label with Young Thug. Willis represented Mondo during a 2019 aggravated assault case, and would later go on to prosecute YSL’s Young Thug and 13 other defendants in a RICO case alleging that the music group had affiliations with gang violence in the Atlanta area.

According to Mondo, Willis’ prosecution of Young Thug ran contrary to the impression he’d developed of the prosecutor when she represented him. “This is not her character, this is not who she is,” he told Rolling Stone. “I done had auntie-to-nephew, mother-to-son type of talks with her. I know this not her character. This is what made me start looking at [the YSL case] like I know it’s bigger than just her. It’s politics behind this shit. It’s other people that’s behind her pulling strings.”

Mondo did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment from Rolling Stone. Willis also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On Friday, Trump posted a video on Truth Social painting Willis as a member of a “fraud squad” of prosecutors unfairly targeting him under the command of President Joe Biden. The video featured the headline of Rolling Stone’s interview with Mondo, and claimed that Willis “got caught hiding a relationship with a gang member she was prosecuting.”

While there’s no indication that Willis hid her representation of Mondo — or that their relationship was romantic in nature — far-right commentator and Trump ally Laura Loomer seized on the claim in the video to suggest that Willis had a sexual affair with her client.

“Atlanta DA, Fani Willis, who is targeting Donald Trump in Georgia is a straight up THOT,” Loomer wrote along with the video in a Twitter post last week. “Turns out she failed to disclose a previous relationship she had with a gang banger she was supposed to be prosecuting. Baby girl belongs in a Trap House. Not a court house.”

Laura Loomer
@Laura Loomer
Damn.
Atlanta DA, Fani Willis, who is targeting Donald Trump in Georgia is a straight up THOT.
Turns out she failed to disclose a previous relationship she had with a gang banger she was supposed to be prosecuting.
Baby girl belongs in a Trap House.
Not a court house.”

Laura Loomer @Laura Loomer
MUST WATCH:
President Trump's campaign just released a new campaign TV ad!
It's called "Fraud Squad".
#FraudSquad #DonaldTrumpDidNothingWrong #Trump2024
7:05 PM Aug 4, 2023

It appears to have been enough for Trump to go ahead and accuse Willis of sleeping with a gang member.

Willis herself is expected to bring an indictment related to her own investigation into Trump later this month, one that could possibly include RICO charges, so it’s not surprising that the former president is cranking his smear machine into overdrive.

[admin]

Federal Judge WARNS Trump Lawyers in Powerful Hearing
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Aug 11, 2023

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Friday’s hearing before Judge Tanya Chutkan in the case filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Donald Trump in Washington DC.



Transcript

I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidastouch Network, and this is a breaking news alert.

A hearing was held earlier in the day, in federal court in Washington DC, in connection with the new case filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Donald Trump, for criminal conduct relating to the 2020 election. This was the first hearing after the arraignment was held on August 3rd, and this was the first hearing before the Federal Judge who will be presiding over the case, Judge Tanya Chutkan. This hearing was about the dueling protective orders that were filed: 1) by the Department of Justice, and 2) an alternative protective order was filed by Donald Trump's lawyers. Ultimately, the government wanted to ensure that Donald Trump could not use the documents, and other evidence produced in discovery, to harass and intimidate witnesses, as Donald Trump has been doing. And Donald Trump's lawyers wanted to try to make accessible, and available, all of the documents and discovery, so Donald Trump could precisely do just that, and reveal the identities of witnesses, and of documents, that were obtained during the grand jury process, during the FBI witness interview process, and during other processes that led up to the ultimate indictment that was brought against Donald Trump. And Judge Chutkan had some very harsh words for Donald Trump, gave warnings to Donald Trump's lawyers. I'll get to that in just one moment.

But in terms of the protective order, Judge Chutkan adopted a bit of a compromise approach. The government wanted, essentially, all of the documents that they were going to be producing, and according to one of Jack Smith's lead lawyers who was at the hearing, Tom Wyndham, about 11.6 million pages of discovery and documents to be turned over -- so not an insignificant amount of documents -- but the government wanted all of those documents to be deemed sensitive information pursuant to a protective order, so that they could not be made public presumptively. Trump's lawyers objected to that on that one small narrow point. Judge Chutkan actually did side with Trump's lawyers, and said no, it needs to be a little bit more narrowly tailored than that, Government. Yes, witness interviews, grand jury material, other FBI investigation notes, addresses, and other personal identifying information, all of that can be basically deemed presumptively sensitive information, and confidential, pursuant to a protective order, and not made public, due to the threat of witness intimidation. But you gotta be a little more narrowly tailored than that. But I think that was the only time the Judge agreed with anything else that Donald Trump's lawyers were selling.

And specifically, Judge Chutkan admonished Donald Trump's lawyers for trying to run a political campaign in her courtroom, and made it very clear that the protective order that would be entered, soon after this hearing, had to be adhered to, and nothing in that gave Donald Trump a right to intimidate, harass, or threaten witnesses. And Judge Chutkan made it very clear that she would be running these proceedings as she would any criminal defendant. She said she doesn't care if there are political campaigns going on. That doesn't matter to her. She said that the Government brought their case when the Government's case was ready. Donald Trump is a criminal defendant, no different than any other criminal defendant that goes before her court, and he would be treated accordingly. Specifically Judge Chutkan admonished Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, who was there, saying that he was, quote "conflating what your client Donald Trump needs to do to defend himself, and what your client wants to do politically. Your client's defense is supposed to happen, Mr. Lauro, in this courtroom, and not on the Internet." Federal Judge Chutkan also stated, quote, "what the defendant Donald Trump is currently doing, the fact that he's running a political campaign, has to yield to the orderly administration of justice. If that means he can't say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that is how it has to be. Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute. Defendant's free speech is subject to the release conditions imposed at arraignment, and it must yield to the orderly administration of justice."

And that's a significant line there by Judge Chutkan, because one of Donald Trump's entire defenses to the case brought against him -- and this is why I said it was a frivolous defense -- was basically, he said he had a free speech right to engage in a conspiracy to try to overthrow the 2020 election -- whether it's through the fake elector scheme threats, and intimidation, the various conduct he engaged in in the various states with co-conspirators to try to change votes from Biden to Trump. There is not an absolute Free Speech right to engage in criminal conduct. When that speech becomes a criminal conspiracy, that is a crime. And that's actually what Donald Trump has been charged with here: the crime of conspiracy to overthrow our democracy, to overthrow a free and fair election.

The same concept applies to discovery in a criminal proceeding. There are protective orders. There are rules. You can't say that you have a free speech right as a criminal defendant to try to go against the orderly administration of justice, and to violate the conditions imposed on your release. And Judge Chutkan made that very clear.

Judge Chutkan also concluded the hearing by saying the following: quote, "I intend to ensure the orderly administration of justice in this case, as I would with any other case, even arguably ambiguous statements from parties, or their counsel, that can threaten the process. In addition, the more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which can taint the jury pool, the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly. I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings."

That's such an important line there from Judge Chutkan during the hearing, because Special Counsel Jack Smith has just filed a motion requesting a trial date be set on January 2nd, 2024. Donald Trump's lawyers are going to obviously object to that, and they're going to want a trial date sometime in 2025, or sometime after the 2024 election. Donald Trump has already made posts to that effect, and essentially, here what Judge Chutkan is telling all of the parties is that the more Donald Trump threatens people, the more he engages in witness intimidation, and that that could impact the jury pool, from the perspective of this court, that will be one of the factors of why this case should go to trial immediately, to try to protect against the bias that the criminal defendant, in this case Donald Trump, is trying to thrust on the voir dire process, on the jury pool.

And so I think Judge Chutkan realizes that Donald Trump's not going to be able to control himself at all, that he is continuing to threaten people. She is aware. She's been provided with the material by Special Counsel Jack Smith's team, by Tom Wyndham, and others, about Trump's threats of former Vice President Pence, Trump's threats about the prosecutor, the threats on the Judge, and Judge Chutkan saying, "Well, the more he does that, that's going to make me more inclined, make me more likely inclined, to set a trial date in early 2024, even if there is a large amount of discovery in this case.

So the next big hearing is set for August 28. That is a trial setting conference. There, she's expected to set the trial date. We'll see what Donald Trump files in his brief about the trial date. Again, we expect that to be requesting trial date after November 2024, sometime into 2025. And I do expect now Special Counsel Jack Smith's team, at that oral argument, to discuss all of the threats that Donald Trump has made. And I expect what they're going to do -- we'll see if I'm right-- they're going to make a grid, and they're going to make a graph, and they're going to show every single date, all of his threats. You're going to see three to five, sometimes ten threats a day, if you add the interviews and events that Trump speaks at. So they'll show three threats, five threats, ten threats. And they'll say, "Judge, since the August 11th hearing that you held, through August 28th, where you admonished Trump's lawyers, there have been 500 threats" -- I'm making that number up. "But there have been 500 threats that Donald Trump has made against the court, against prosecutors, against witnesses. And if you go back even further, it's a thousand," or whatever the number is going to be. "And Judge, that is why we also need to have the trial date, as you stated at the previous hearing, that's why we need this January 2nd, 2024 trial date.

I thought it was very smart that Judge Chutkan did that as well.

So we'll keep you up-to-date. A protective order is going to be entered. It's going to be somewhat of a compromise, more along the lines of what the Government wanted, but just slightly more restrictive on the sensitive material. Government will turn over 11.4, 11.5 million pages of documents to Trump's legal team. And the process will get rolling. I certainly expect there to be a lot of filings in this case, and we will keep you up-to-date.

Check out Meidastouch.com to get all the breaking news, information. It's the one stop shop for all things MeidasTouch: Meidas touch.com.

Thanks for watching, and make sure you subscribe to the Meidastouch podcast as well.

I'm Ben Meiselas. Have a great day.

[admin]

A MANDATE - MUST READ
Willis, Fani <[DELETE]@[DELETE]>
Wed 8/9/2023 7:56 AM
To: All District Attorney <[DELETE]@[DELETE]>

Good Morning FCDA Family:

It is my understanding that an ad was put in the Atlanta market to run between today 8/9 and 8/13 that will have derogatory and false information about me as the District Attorney of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit. Apparently a lot of money was spent to run this ad in the Atlanta market over the next 5 days. That means the ad will run quite frequently over the next 5 days. Each of you represents me. Especially, ADA’s who all took an oath under my name. We often remind you if you are an ADA you are my personal staff and represent me. Many of you are quite kind to me, very protective, and will become very defensive if someone attempts to attack me, the office or your colleagues. You may not comment in any way on the ad or any of the negativity that may be expressed against me, your colleagues, this office in coming days, weeks or months. We have no personal feelings against those we investigate or prosecute and we should not express any. This is business, it will never be personal.

We have a job to do. In this office, we prosecute based on the facts and the law. The law is non-partisan. You should feel no need to defend me. I shared with this office at last Friday’s meeting 1/1000th of the negative or derogatory comments I receive. I invited you into an hour of my typical day. I am not concerned with the calls, emails, or ads and you should not concern yourself with them. This is a reminder that it is against office policy to comment on these matters on social media or any public forum. No employee of this office may make any public comments related to the noise. Your instruction from me is to ignore all the noise and keep doing your job with excellence.

Please make it an absolutely phenomenal day and stay safe.

Yours in Service,

Fani T. Willis

Fani T. Willis
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Fulton County, Georgia

Please note: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately.

[admin]

DOJ boosts spending on security for Jack Smith: The Justice Department spent more than $4.4 million on protection for the special counsel’s team between April and September of 2023.
by Betsy Woodruff Swan
Politico
01/05/2024 04:44 PM EST

Security costs for special counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutor leading the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump, have risen dramatically in recent months, with nearly a third of the expenses on his investigations being security-related over the latest reporting period.

Between April and September of last year, the Justice Department spent more than $14.6 million on Smith’s work, according to a spending report released Friday. More than $4.4 million of that money covered the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for Smith and his team, a Justice Department spokesperson told POLITICO.

The new data represents a jump from Smith’s security costs in the first four-and-a-half months of his tenure. During that initial period — Nov. 18, 2022 through March 31, 2023 — nearly $2 million went to U.S. Marshals protection, according to a person familiar with the data.

The increase comes as the special counsel has alleged in court papers that Trump’s frequent rhetorical attacks have sparked threats to his team. Trump regularly calls Smith “deranged” and impugns the integrity of the prosecutors working for him.

Special counsels are required to regularly release data about their expenses. The reports include two categories of expenses: money that Smith’s office spent from its official budget and money that other Justice Department agencies spent to assist the special counsel’s office without getting reimbursed from the office.

Smith’s office spent more than $7 million out of its own budget during the most recent reporting period, according to Friday’s report. That brings the total reported amount that Smith’s office has spent out of its own budget to more than $12 million.

Smith is overseeing two cases against Trump: one in Washington charging him with seeking to undermine the 2020 election and one in Florida charging him with hoarding classified documents after his presidency.

The increase in security spending for Smith’s team comes as numerous law enforcement and judicial officials close to politically sensitive probes have described facing threats.

The U.S. attorney for Washington — who is overseeing prosecutions of Jan. 6 rioters — told lawmakers that his office has faced “pervasive” threats from around the country.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s D.C. prosecution, has received heightened protection.

And Lesley Wolf, a former prosecutor who worked on the investigation of Hunter Biden, told lawmakers last month that she worried about her family’s safety because of harassment and threats she faced.

“[A]t times it has made me feel and worry about the safety of my family,” she said, according to a transcript of her interview reviewed by POLITICO. “We’ve changed the way we do some things at home because of that.”

Smith has discussed the threats to his office in court. “[T]he Special Counsel has been subject to multiple threats, and the specific Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor that the defendant has targeted through recent, inflammatory public posts has been subject to intimidating communications,” reads a recent filing.

Trump has long used invective to target law enforcement officials investigating him. During special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, Trump retweeted a meme that showed Mueller and another top DOJ official behind bars. Since facing criminal charges as a private citizen, he has lobbed a fusillade of attacks on social media against prosecutors. He has, for instance, accused Smith without evidence of abusing illegal drugs.

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.