Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for a protective order limiting President Trump’s ability to discuss the evidence at the core of the criminal case against him brings into focus a clash between the rights accorded a criminal defendant and the prerogatives of a candidate for America’s highest office.

The request for a protective order — a proposed draft of which was furnished to the court by Mr. Smith’s team  — comes on the heels of a Truth Social post, from Friday, written by Mr. Trump: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.” 

Now, a Saturday evening attack on Vice President Pence — a rival for the Republican presidential nomination as well as a grand jury witness in the January 6 case against Mr. Trump — could strengthen Mr. Smith’s courtroom hand.  

Mr. Trump has until 5 PM on Monday to respond to Mr. Smith’s filing, after the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan, turned aside a request from the former president to be granted a Tuesday deadline, a postponement she reckoned would be an “unnecessary delay.” Mr. Smith has promised a “speedy trial.” 

Mr. Smith notes that the government  “stands ready,” to “produce a substantial amount of discovery to the defendant,” but only if Judge Chutkan imposes a protective order limiting Mr. Trump’s ability to share what Mr. Smith labels “sensitive and confidential information.” The prosecutor explains that the measure is necessary to prevent the “improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public.” 

Mr. Smith argues that if Mr. Trump “were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury 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.” 

Mr. Smith’s filing repeatedly mentions the work gleaned from the  grand jury as the kinds of materials he worries about Mr. Trump sharing. Mr. Pence’s testimony was delivered after a challenge on the basis of the Constitution’s speech and debate clause was partially though not entirely successful. Mr. Smith’s indictment alleges that Mr. Trump told Mr. Pence that he was “too honest.”

In his latest fusillade, Mr. Trump claims that “’Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side.” The former president contradicts Mr. Pence’s assertion that he demanded to be put above the Constitution. Mr. Trump calls Mr. Pence “delusional.”  

The motion notes that Mr. Trump “has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.” Mr. Smith filed a similar request to this one with respect to his Mar-a-Lago prosecution of Mr. Trump. The presiding judge in that case, Aileen Cannon, has ordered the two sides to confer.

The broadside against Mr. Pence— both a rival of Mr. Trump and a witness against him — could convince Judge Chutkan that a protective order is required. In a statement, Mr. Trump’s campaign — not his legal team — responded that 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.”