Trump asks court to hold Jack Smith in contempt for trying to keep trial on track

Attorneys for former President Donald Trump asked a federal judge to sanction special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday.

In a 15-page filing, the attorneys accused Smith and two other federal prosecutors of defying a court's order pausing Trump's federal election subversion trial.

The motion called for Smith, Molly Gaston, and Thomas Windom to be held in contempt because they continued to provide discovery while Trump appealed the case.

"The Stay Order is clear, straightforward, and unambiguous," the motion stated. "All substantive proceedings in this Court are halted. Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the Stay almost immediately."

The motion noted that one filing from Smith accused Trump of "'propagat[ing] irrelevant disinformation' both 'within the courtroom' and 'outside of it.'"

ALSO READ: Happy New Year 2040 from the land of morons

"In this manner, the prosecutors seek to weaponize the Stay to spread political propaganda, knowing that President Trump would not fully respond because the Court relieved him of the burdens of litigation during the Stay," Trump's motion said. "Worse, the prosecutors have announced their intention to continue this partisan-driven misconduct indefinitely, effectively converting this Court’s docket into an arm of the Biden Campaign."

The motion sought to force Smith to tell the court why his prosecutors should not be held in contempt. It also said Smith should withdraw all filings made while the trial was paused.

"The prosecutors have cast these hallowed mandates aside to score cheap political points against President Trump on behalf of the Biden Campaign," the motion concluded. "In so doing, the prosecutors have repeatedly and willfully disregarded the Court’s explicit instructions. Such malignant conduct undermines the integrity of this proceeding and warrants severe sanction."

In one recent filing, Smith explained his rationale for continuing to file documents and produce discovery.

"The Court has determined that the deadlines in the Pretrial Order are 'held in abeyance' while the defendant's appeal of the denial of certain of his motions to dismiss are pending," Smith noted. "Nonetheless, to provide the Court and defendant notice and to promote the prompt resumption of the pretrial schedule if and when the mandate returns, the Government will continue to meet its own deadlines as previously determined by the Court."