These Are Not The Droids You Are Looking For 👀

This feels like a threat against prosecutors, witnesses, and potential jurors — which is a direct violation of the conditions of his release. pic.twitter.com/PWD1jUz9Q4

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) August 4, 2023

But this is not what you think it is.

Velshi: The special counsel is asking for a protective order because a few hours ago, Donald Trump… pic.twitter.com/a5GTVm2U0Z

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 5, 2023

UPDATE: Special Counsel Jack Smith just filed a motion for a protective order based on Donald Trump’s threatening social media posts.

Read the filing here: https://t.co/ARyYKBlOkd

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) August 5, 2023

There it is.

Special Counsel has just alerted the DC federal judge about Trump's social media post today

====> pic.twitter.com/jRazFamTZb

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 5, 2023

Because the protective order sought is not to protect people from Trump and his followers. It’s to protect evidence in the case, and using it to intimidate witnesses:

👀 Prosecutors just proposed a protective order referencing Trump’s Truth Social post from earlier tonight, saying it clearly references other parties/participants in the case pic.twitter.com/COz6jB2P06

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 5, 2023

"Intimidate” does not mean bring their cousins from Italy to Congressional hearings. It can mean using evidence as leverage, not just physical threats.

A protective order to protect the case, IOW; not to protect people. That would be a motion to revoke bond. 

Yes, it’s using his post as a basis to justify the order. But it’s not the response legal Xitter was looking for. 👀  Besides, it’s only the first act. This is laying the gun on the table:

This is warning number 1. https://t.co/LWDSPHN1xs

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) August 5, 2023