Legal experts are weighing in on Trump attorney John Lauro’s response to a request for a protective order in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case prosecuting the ex-president for his alleged attempts to overturn the presidential election he lost in 2020.
Lauro’s 29-page response, filed five minutes before the 5:00 PM deadline, is being widely reviewed, analyzed, and even mocked by legal and political experts.
In the filing, Lauro falsely claims, “In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights.” The trial is not about First Amendment rights, it is about the actions by the ex-president to overturn the election.
Pointing to Lauro’s quote, The Messenger’s senior legal correspondent, Adam Klasfeld writes, “Trump’s attorney takes the same swing at the protective order in court as he did in his CNN interview.” Lauro appeared on five Sunday shows, and later complained in his filing about the short turnaround time he was given.
READ MORE: Look: Trump’s Signed Document Acknowledging He Cannot Retaliate Against or Intimidate Witnesses
“The law upon which this document filed by Trump’s lawyers depends are the commandments as handed down on Truth Social,” writes foreign policy, national security, and political affairs expert David Rothkopf. “It parrots Trump ideas–see below–that are irrelevant legally and often distortions or lies.”
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin offers several examples and an in-depth review.
“In opposing the Special Counsel’s proposed protective order tonight, Trump’s team accuses ‘the Biden Justice Department’ of ‘wait[ing] over two-and-a-half years to seek this indictment, during an election cycle in which President Trump is the leading candidate,'” Rubin writes.
She adds, “Trump’s lawyers insist (based on a post-hoc campaign statement) that his vague but threatening weekend Truth Social post was ‘generalized political speech, not directed to this case.'” Trump over the weekend and on Monday appeared to attack Special Counsel Jack Smith and his prosecutors, Judge Tanya Chutkan, former Vice President Mike Pence, and others.
Rubin also notes: “That any prosecutor could have issued the Special Counsel’s 45-page indictment right after 1/6 is ludicrous, especially given that Trump and his allies fought hard, including through protracted litigation, to prevent DOJ & then [later, Special Counsel Jack] Smith from obtaining proof.”
She says that “Trump’s lawyers insist (based on a post-hoc campaign statement) that his vague but threatening weekend Truth Social post was ‘generalized political speech, not directed to this case,'” which experts have already said they do not believe.
The Messenger’s Klasfeld also notes that Lauro reveals Trump’s legal team “wants to broaden the network of people allowed to view ‘Sensitive Materials’ to include unpaid volunteers.”
And Rubin reveals, “The most important thing to know about Trump’s opposition to the government’s proposed protective order is this: He wants the freedom to disclose witness interviews, recordings, etc. conducted outside the grand jury.”
“That would theoretically allow him to reveal the names and publish the statements of those who spoke to DOJ/the Special Counsel *outside the grand jury* and/or could be cooperating,” she explains. “A protective order that allows Trump to reveal the identity of witnesses and discuss the substance of their statements outside the grand jury could 1) prejudice potential jurors; and 2) intimidate, if not endanger, some of the most helpful witnesses.”