WE HAVE BREAKING NEWS THAT CAME OUT JUST AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR AND IT IS THIS DOCUMENT IN WHICH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE HAS MADE A REQUEST TO THE JUDGE IN THE INDICTMENT OF DONALD TRUMP, IN THE CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE DOCUMENTS, THE DISCOVERY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED THAT THEY HAND OVER TO THE FENCE. HERE IS THE GIST OF THE ARGUMENT, IT IS SEVERAL PAGES LONG BUT THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT TO THE JUDGE, ON AUGUST 2ND, THE GOVERNMENT SPENT A PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER TO COUNCIL FOR THE DEFENDANT. DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBSTANTIVELY RESPONDED ON AUGUST 4TH, TODAY, WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT DID NOT, AND THE GOVERNMENTS AS TO MISSION, PROTECT NUMEROUS CATEGORIES OF SENSITIVE MATERIALS INCLUDING GRAND JURY MATERIALS AND SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVITS. IT CONTINUES LATER TO SAY, IN RECENT DAYS REGARDING THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANT HAS ISSUED MULTIPLE POSTS EITHER SPECIFICALLY OR BY IMPLICATION INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING, WHICH DEFENDANT POST JUST HOURS AGO. AND IT IS THIS TRUTH SOCIAL POST THAT DON TRUMP POSTED IN ALL CAPS, AND WHAT SHE SAYS, IF YOU GO AFTER ME I AM COMING AFTER YOU. THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES, IT'S A DEFENDANT WORD TO BEGAN ISSUING PUBLIC POSTS USING DETAILS OR, FOR EXAMPLE, GRADUALLY 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. I'M GOING TO PICK THAT UP IN A SECOND. BUT, IF YOU BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP, AMERICAS PROSECUTORS ARE DOING WHAT HE DOES, THINKING ALWAYS AND ONLY ABOUT HIM. >> PROSECUTOR ALVIN BRAGG OF NEW YORK, WHO CAMPAIGNED ON THE FACT THAT HE WOULD GET PRESIDENT TRUMP. DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN ATLANTA, WHO IS DOING EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO INDICT ME. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NAMED JACK SMITH. HE'S ONLY LOOKING AT TRUMP. >> OKAY, LET'S EVALUATE THAT FOR A SECOND. THE DAY DONALD TRUMP WAS INDICTED, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND WAS AT A COMMUNITY BLOCK PARTY IN PHILADELPHIA FOR THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AGAINST CRIME. YESTERDAY, THE TRADE DAY TRUMP WAS ARRAIGNED, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED SIX GUILTY PLEAS IN A HORRIFIC CASE OF OUR GREATEST PLEAS ABUSE IN MISSISSIPPI. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 115,000 EMPLOYEES, THREE OF THEM WERE REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. THE MEN HAD IT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALVIN BRAGG HAS BEEN BUSY WORKING ON MULTIPLE CASES, INCLUDING THE INDICTMENT OF A NEW YORK PETTYCASH DRIVER FOR A PETTY -- ROBBERY AND INDICTMENTS AND MURDER INVESTIGATIONS. THE TRUMP CASE IS JUST ONE OF MANY THOSE OFFICERS WORKING, ON AND IT'S ONE OF MANY SIMILAR CASES THAT HE IS PROSECUTING. IN GEORGIA, WHERE FANI WILLIS IS EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE CHARGING DECISIONS IN HER INVESTIGATION INTO EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION IN THAT STATE, SHE TOLD REPORTERS YESTERDAY AS SHE WAS AT AN EVENT AT AN ATLANTA TECHNICAL COLLEGE THAT HER OFFICE HAS 380 EMPLOYEES AND IS MANAGING MULTIPLE HIGH-PROFILE CASES AT THE SAME TIME. THESE PROSECUTORS ARE NOT POSTERS ON TWITTER, OR WHATEVER IT IS CALLED NOW. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN A MEDIA BATTLE WITH DONALD TRUMP. THE PROFESSIONALS WHO WANT TO WIN CASES IN COURT AND DO THAT THEY HAVE TO CONVINCE A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, JACK SMITH, AS BROADBAND ITEM IT AGAINST DONALD TRUMP FOR HIS ACTIONS LEADING UP TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY SIX, WHICH MEANS THAT JACK SMITH AND HIS TEAM BELIEVES THAT THEY CAN SUCCESSFULLY CONVINCE A JURY, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, OF THE FACTS AND THAT INDICTMENT. THIS IS TOO BIG AND RISKY CASE TO WING IT. FROM A PRACTITIONERS YOU HAVE MAKING A CHARGING DECISION, JOINING US NOW IS -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY NEW YORK, SHE PREVIOUSLY AS SERVED AS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND IS A FAMILIAR FACE TO ALL OF US. THAT MEANS, NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS, SAYING THIS REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ASKED FOR. THERE IS ALWAYS A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THINGS LIKE THIS, TO SAY THAT WHEN YOU GET TO DISCOVERY YOU DON'T GET TO GO AND POST IT AND TALK ABOUT IT AND DO THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT DOES THE CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS AND JOHN TRUMP POSTING, WHICH HE SAYS THAT IF YOU GO AFTER ME I'M COMING AFTER YOU? >> I, ALLEYWAY TO SEE YOU. CLEARLY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHARGED DEFENDANTS INTERFERENCE ATTEMPTS TO TAMPER WITH POTENTIAL WITNESSES. WE HEARD THE JUDGE EXPLICITLY WARNED MR. TRUMP ABOUT THIS IN A WAY THAT WAS QUITE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STANDARD WARNINGS ABOUT NOT COMMITTING CRIMES, IT IS A WARNING THAT I HAVE HEARD MOST OFTEN IN ORGANIZED CRIME CASES AND CASES WHERE THERE IS SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTS AT TAMPERING ALREADY. AND I THINK THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN PARTICULAR, IT IS THE TESTIMONY, THE RECORD OF WHAT WITNESSES WOULD BE TESTIFYING AT TRIAL AND THEY'RE CONCERNED CLEARLY AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO THAT THE DEFENDANT, MR. TRUMP, WILL USE THAT TESTIMONY TO GET PEOPLE, OR HIMSELF, TO GO AFTER THESE WITNESSES AND INTIMIDATE THEM SO THAT THEY DON'T TESTIFY AT TRIAL. THAT IS CLEARLY THE CONCERN AND IT IS, AGAIN, UNDERSTANDABLE. >> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF, HIS DEMEANOR IN COURT YESTERDAY WHERE HE SEEMED TO BE LISTENING TO THE JUDGE, CALLING HER YOUR HONOR, SHE ADMONISH HIM VERY SPECIFICALLY HE SHOULD MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO HIM SPECIFICALLY, BUT SHE SAID THAT YOU ARE NOT TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE. IT SEEMED LIKE SHE WENT ONE STEP FURTHER THAN WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY HAPPEN IN THIS CASE TO SORT OF SAY TO HIM, YOU ARE GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE IF YOU TRY THE STUFF. >> YEAH, LOOK, JUDGES DO THAT A LOT. THEY DON'T DO IT OFTEN IN WHITE COLLAR, FRAUD CASES LIKE WE ARE SEEING HERE BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND TO NOT KNOW THAT THIS PERSON, MR. TRUMP, USES HIS WIDESPREAD SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE TO CALL OUT PEOPLE AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT A JUDGE HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. WHILE THOSE MAY NOT BE CRIMES IN AND OF THEMSELVES, WHEN HE DOES THAT, AS HE HAS DONE IT MANY TIMES SINCE 2016, IT CAN BE A VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER. AND JUDGES TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY. THE MORE CLEARLY YOU WARN SOMEONE ABOUT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ON NOTICE, THAT IS THE FAIR THING TO DO, AND IT IS ALSO MORE LIKELY THAT THE JUDGE CAN FAIRLY IMPOSE SOME KIND OF PENALTY IF AND WHEN IT HAPPENS AGAIN. >> WHAT IS YOUR, THIS CONVERSATION THAT I WAS INITIALLY GOING TO HAVE WITH YOU ABOUT THE IDEA THAT DONALD TRUMP WOULD LIKE HIS SUPPORTERS TO BELIEVE THAT PROSECUTORS GET ELECTED AND THINK ABOUT DONALD TRUMP FROM MOURNING TONIGHT. YOU HAVE BEEN A PROSECUTOR IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PLACES, I KNOW YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF STUFF THAT YOU HAVE TO DO. YOUR ELECTORS, THE PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR, YOU ACTUALLY NEED YOU TO KEEP THEIR COMMUNITY SAFE. MAYBE SOME OF THEM ARE CONCERNED ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, MAYBE SOME OF THEM AREN'T. >> YEAH, LOOK, I CAN SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I PUBLICLY HAVE STATED THIS BEFORE, WE DID INVESTIGATE SOME CONDUCT CONNECTED TO MR. TRUMP AND THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY BECAUSE, WHETHER YOU ARE A LOCAL PROSECUTOR OR FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE JURISDICTION OVER WHICH YOU HAVE AUTHORITY AND SAYING IS THERE A HARM TO MY JURISDICTION, TO MY COMMUNITY? WHETHER IT IS PHYSICAL HARM, ECONOMIC HARM, OR DECEIT. YOU EXAMINE THOSE FACTS AND YOU DECIDE, DO THESE FACTS CONSTITUTE A CRIME, AND IS IT A CRIME OR THE OF CHARGING, AND CAN I PROVE THAT CRIME? AND ARE THERE OTHER BARRIERS LIKE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, IT'S ETRA. THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY OR CAN ACTUALLY CHARGE A CRIME I. DID NOT END UP CHARGING A CRIME AND I THINK THAT DOESN'T IMPORTANT POINT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN OUT SPOKEN PERSONAL CRITIC OF MR. TRUMP AS PRESIDENT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING TO GO CHARGING HIM WITH CRIMES THAT ARE NOT CHARGEABLE OR WORTHY OF CHARGING OR ABLE TO BE PROVEN IN COURT, AND I DEEPLY BELIEVE THAT THAT IS, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY PROSECUTOR, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK THAT ANYONE WHO LOOKS AT JACK SMITH, HE IS NOT A POLITICAL CREATURE. HE IS A PROSECUTOR THROUGH AND THROUGH. >> AGAIN, PROSECUTORS DON'T TYPICALLY BRING CASES FOR THEIR OWN SATISFACTION. THEY BRING CASES THAT, AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, NEED TO BE ONE AND IN WHICH A JURY CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN. THERE HAS TO BE A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR A PROSECUTOR TO WANT TO GO TO TRIAL. >> EXACTLY. IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO BRING A CHARGE JUST FOR SOME PERSONAL OR POLITICAL REASON BECAUSE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, FACTS AND EVIDENCE ARE WHAT YOU NEED IN COURT AND IF YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT YOU, AS A PROSECUTOR, NOT THAT WE NEVER LOSE CASES THAT ARE WORTH BRINGING, WE DO ABSOLUTELY, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOSING A TRIAL THAT WAS ADMIRABLY CHARGED AND BROUGHT AND JURIES DECIDE WHAT THEY DECIDE, VERSUS BRINGING
