Since the proceedings began, special counsel Jack Smith and his team, who are attempting to accuse former President Trump of attempting to steal the 2020 election, have been attempting to silence the 45th President.

Trump has maintained a constant presence on social media, where he has asserted his innocence in the face of numerous assaults. Trump’s proclamations that he is absolved of the accusations are a problem for Smith, as Smith states the statements could affect the potential jurors’ mindset regarding the case.

Smith refers to Trump’s statements regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election as “disinformation” as he has previously. Apparently, according to Smith, the liberal media can assert whatever they want, but others are not permitted to express facts on social media that contradict the liberal media’s narrative.

Even though a federal magistrate upheld Trump’s right to free speech, Smith is once again attempting to stifle the former president.

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a motion with a federal magistrate on Friday to have a prohibition order issued against leading Republican presidential candidate and 45th President Donald Trump in his investigation into the conduct of the former president following the 2020 election.

“The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order,” the filing says, per Politico.

ABC News reported that Smith’s legal team has asked a federal magistrate in Washington, D.C. to issue a “narrowly tailored” order prohibiting former president Trump from making public statements that could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” the court’s decision.

ABC acknowledged that the motion is “extraordinary” and it certainly is, given that Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan has already ruled that Trump’s free expression rights cannot be violated in this case, barring extraordinary circumstances.

The Guardian then reported that in August, Judge Chutkan ruled in favor of Trump’s First Amendment rights but warned him that “inflammatory remarks” from the former president would force her to schedule the trial sooner.

The Guardian continued:

“Broadly speaking, Churkan ruled that Trump was free to share “non-sensitive materials” as designated by the prosecutors, but narrowed the scope so closely that it sould ultimately amount to only a pyrrhic victory. Chutkan also ended up rejecting the majority of Trump’s other requests.

“The judge repeatedly emphasized that she would not take into account Trump’s presidential campaign, telling Trump lead lawyer john Lauro that the former president;s free speech rights were not absolute and tha they came second to the fact that he is not a criminal defendant.”

Consequently, an opposing candidate can be suppressed during a campaign by merely filing charges against him.

Chutkan went on,”What the effects of my order are on a political campaign are not goign to influence my decision. This is a crimnal trial. The defendant’s desire to conduct a campaign, to respond to political opponents has to yield.”

The fact that Chutkan, a Jamaican-born attorney, was appointed by Obama contributed to the ex-president’s belief that he would not receive a fair trial in Washington, D.C.

Smith appears to be attempting to limit the scope of his gag order by designating Trump’s statements as “inflammatory” and “threatening” while he himself continues to refer to Trump’s actions as “conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” the accusation that Smith is attempting to level against Trump.

Trump, for his part, has been posting the same stance that he always has and plainly calling out all who he sees as part of the cover-up in the 2020 elections. Stating that the FBI and DOJ have been “weaponized” and that President Biden is “crooked,” Trump has said, “They Leak, Lie, and Sue, & they won’t allow me to SPEAK.”

Given Smith’s actions, it is challenging to disagree.

Smith and other liberal legislators have disregarded the evidence that voting was tampered with in a number of states, instead accusing Trump of influencing the vote through his remarks.

Reports of voter fraud in Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada indicate a large number of Biden ballots appearing around 3 a.m. on election night 2020.

According to FDL Reporter, 27 potential cases of voter fraud were reported in Wisconsin in 2021, but only one individual, Edward Malnar, has been charged thus far.

For those who have lived through numerous presidential campaigns, it is not unusual for candidates to criticize each other’s political and personal actions, and in the past, “mud-slinging” has been a common aspect of U.S. elections.

It is unprecedented for a political candidate to be silenced during a campaign, and presidential candidates have always been able to communicate freely about any issue they deem relevant to the office and position they pursue. Specifically by opposing party members.